PDA

View Full Version : Reality, these days, has a liberal bias



David G
08-24-2016, 10:42 PM
Or... one professors answer to, 'why aren't there more Republican university faculty members?'



Citing that Democrats outnumber Republicans 12:1 in faculty positions at the University of North Carolina, Senate Majority leader Phil Berger suggests that Republican job candidates are discriminated against when they apply for university positions unless they “toe the line from the left.” However, it seems likely that there may be other, more objective explanations for the imbalance of party affiliation.

In 17 years of experience with hiring faculty at the School of Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill, I have never heard political affiliation mentioned in any job search. There is certainly no place for information about it on the application form. I have never heard any member of a search committee ask a candidate about political preference, and I have never heard of it coming up in any of the many interviews that job candidates go through. I have never heard party affiliation or political leaning raised in the final committee deliberations that determine which candidate is selected.

So if we are not actively searching for Democrats among job applicants, why is the ratio of party affiliation so lopsided?

One reason is the anti-science attitude adopted by many rank and file Republicans and supported by some Republican leaders. For example, a Pew Research Survey in 2013 found that only 43 percent of Republicans believe that humans have evolved over time. During the recent Republican primary season, only Jeb Bush could be found to have ever made a statement expressing belief in the theory of evolution. Several of the candidates were on record stating that they did not accept evolutionary theory...


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/article97532662.html#storylink=cpy

Waddie
08-25-2016, 06:13 AM
BS. I sat on many a college hiring committee and you certainly could get a line on an applicants politics just in casual conversation before, at, or even after the interview process, without ever actually directly asking the candidate about their politics. You can sometimes get an indication by what colleges they attended, the type of volunteer work they did, even their past job history.

There is also an anti-science bias within the liberal (Democratic) community. The opposition to vaccines, GMO's, and fracking are mostly liberal positions despite little if any evidence that they present a danger, and despite a solid majority of support from the scientific community.

People tend to hire other people just like themselves; liberals would tend to hire liberals. Conservative business people tend to hire other conservative business people.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/04/06/science-denial-is-not-just-conservative-or-liberal-its-bipartisan

"It is not hard to figure out the biases. People on the right tend to like private businesses, which they see as productive job creators. They mistrust government. It’s not surprising they will play down climate change when it seems to imply a package of policies that curb the actions of the former and give a bigger role to the latter.

On the left, by contrast, people tend to mistrust corporations — especially big ones — as corrupt and destructive. These are the institutions bringing us both nuclear power and genetically modified agriculture.
“When science is aligned with big corporations the left immediately, intuitively perceives the technology as not benefiting the greater good but only benefiting the corporation,” said Matthew Nisbet, an expert on the communication of science at Northeastern University."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/business/economy/liberal-biases-too-may-block-progress-on-climate-change.html



regards,
Waddie

Kevin T
08-25-2016, 06:59 AM
There's no evidence, or "little" evidence that there are issues with fracking? I think the people in NY and PA who can ignite their tap water might feel differently.

TomF
08-25-2016, 07:21 AM
Anti-vaccers are mostly a Liberal, not-science-educated phenom, and that is fairly unique in the range of preventable health issues. That said, we have more unvaccinated kids from dysfunctional and poverty affected families than from the anti-vac brigades, ymmv but probably doesn't.

The fracking issue depends, as our Chief Medical Officer of Health's report of a couple of years ago said, on the underlying geology and the treatment/handling of waste water. In some geological structures, ground water is apparently safe - in others, the tap water ends up including all manner of dissolved things. An issue is that the drilling companies, up here at least, are loath to actually divulge what additives they put into the water they pump down, so the risk being taken is often unknown.

GMO is variable; it depends on the type of modification. Some are roughly equivalent to hybridization, while others introduce genetic material which humans have never yet ingested, so the safety factors are unknown. Others affect the genetic diversity of existing agricultural strains, posing different risks. While some concerns are unfounded, others are very real and it has served neither side to express nuance. Not least because the more egregious matters for concerns are being introduced mostly by commercial firms looking for profit streams first and foremost.

And yeah, many Libs distrust large firms. Like tobacco or oil or pharmacy or ag or etc., which have carefully spun their communication programs to deny genuine risks, even known to them, in order to maximize profit. Short term thinking, offloading risk elsewhere.

Paul Pless
08-25-2016, 07:37 AM
waddie's done here. . .

whenever confronted with inconvenient facts (erm, reality) he abandons the conversation
look to his fraudulent accounting thread yesterday

Waddie
08-25-2016, 09:21 AM
waddie's done here. . .

whenever confronted with inconvenient facts (erm, reality) he abandons the conversation
look to his fraudulent accounting thread yesterday

I know it's tough to admit that liberals can be anti-science too but it's a documented fact. Stay in denial if you want; that would be the typical response when confronted by information you don't like.


regards,
Waddie

TomF
08-25-2016, 09:29 AM
I know it's tough to admit that liberals can be anti-science too but it's a documented fact. Stay in denial if you want; that would be the typical response when confronted by information you don't like.


regards,
Waddie
See #4.

Too Little Time
08-25-2016, 09:46 AM
Again, only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.
Why would that ever come up?

Dan McCosh
08-25-2016, 09:50 AM
How many people with government jobs identify as Democrats?

Jim Mahan
08-25-2016, 09:51 AM
The opposition to vaccines, GMO's, and fracking are mostly liberal positions despite little if any evidence that they present a danger, and despite a solid majority of support from the scientific community.

Stopping vested interests in raping the earth or fr!cking it up should be a conservative value. One of the main reasons for a liberal opposition in these issues is that a big part is that the monied and powerful, usually R businesses that have demonstrated the only thing they are interesed in, and are willing to spend money for legislation and election campaigns on, is only to make a profit, to keep it as big as possible, partly by not having to spend precious capital on government fees and penalties, even if some people have their lives destroyed, and so get good shareholder value, and a small supply of golden parachutes.

David G
08-25-2016, 10:43 AM
Thanks, Waddie, for confirming the premise.

Waddie
08-25-2016, 11:25 AM
The premise that liberals have their share of anti-science rednecks? No problemo. I've watched as you guys tried your best to minimize the issues on which liberals deny the scientific consensus. Nice try but no cigar. But it is fun to watch you twist and turn.

regards,
Waddie

David G
08-25-2016, 11:41 AM
The premise that liberals have their share of anti-science rednecks? No problemo. I've watched as you guys tried your best to minimize the issues on which liberals deny the scientific consensus. Nice try but no cigar. But it is fun to watch you twist and turn.

regards,
Waddie

No... the premise of the thread, as embodied in the title. Focus, man, focus. If you can.

Peerie Maa
08-25-2016, 11:45 AM
The fracking issue depends, as our Chief Medical Officer of Health's report of a couple of years ago said, on the underlying geology and the treatment/handling of waste water. In some geological structures, ground water is apparently safe - in others, the tap water ends up including all manner of dissolved things. An issue is that the drilling companies, up here at least, are loath to actually divulge what additives they put into the water they pump down, so the risk being taken is often unknown.


I recall a report that the fracking pollution is also down to the poor regulation of quality control, leading to faulty cementing of and leaking casings running through the shallower part of the wells.

oznabrag
08-25-2016, 12:05 PM
. . .here are also liberals who believe in Bigfoot, . . .

Wait . . . You're saying Bigfoot isn't real?

David G
08-25-2016, 12:25 PM
Wait . . . You're saying Bigfoot isn't real?

Danged heretics! They just haven't spent enough time in the Cascade Range.

Waddie
08-25-2016, 03:00 PM
You guys sound like the climate denialists. Even though there is overwhelming scientific support for vaccines, fracking and GMO's you act just like your conservative counterparts do on issues they oppose; point to questionable science and isolated instances to make sweeping generalities. The fact is the majority of scientists favor vaccines, and they support GMO foods. They even support nuclear power by a wide margin. The EPA only suggests water management when fracking in areas of low availability; they have pronounced fracking as generally safe, and do not oppose it's expansion. This is your own liberal scientific community speaking. Remember, only six percent of scientists identify as conservative. You can try to rationalize it away, but there's a lot of anti-science on the liberal side as well.

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
08-25-2016, 03:15 PM
^ I don't think that the science is complete on GM crops, and it is no longer in the hands of pure scientists, big money is involved. Think alien species, cane toads and rabbits in Oz, starlings in the US. Until we know that they are not, we should consider GM as alien species.

Waddie
08-25-2016, 03:16 PM
^ I don't think that the science is complete on GM crops, and it is no longer in the hands of pure scientists, big money is involved. Think alien species, cane toads and rabbits in Oz, starlings in the US. Until we know that they are not, we should consider GM as alien species.

I rest my case. Point made in spades...... :)

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
08-25-2016, 03:19 PM
I rest my case. Point made in spades...... :)

regards,
Waddie

Only in your silicon brain.;)

oznabrag
08-25-2016, 03:35 PM
. . . Remember, only six percent of scientists identify as conservative. . .

Uhhh . . . OK.

If you were trying to make a case for science as a conservative value, then I think you just messed up.

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2016, 03:50 PM
Again, only 6% of scientists identify as Republican. That means that vaccine research is shouldered almost entirely by liberals, and that conservatives benefit from an industry in which they contribute little. In other words, with respect to vaccines, conservatives are on welfare, beneficiaries of socialism.

I know that it is tough to admit...

Cotton Mather did great work researching vaccines here in the US...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Cotton_Mather.jpg/220px-Cotton_Mather.jpg

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2016, 03:56 PM
Or... one professors answer to, 'why aren't there more Republican university faculty members?'



Citing that Democrats outnumber Republicans 12:1 in faculty positions at the University of North Carolina, Senate Majority leader Phil Berger suggests that Republican job candidates are discriminated against when they apply for university positions unless they “toe the line from the left.” However, it seems likely that there may be other, more objective explanations for the imbalance of party affiliation.

In 17 years of experience with hiring faculty at the School of Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill, I have never heard political affiliation mentioned in any job search. There is certainly no place for information about it on the application form. I have never heard any member of a search committee ask a candidate about political preference, and I have never heard of it coming up in any of the many interviews that job candidates go through. I have never heard party affiliation or political leaning raised in the final committee deliberations that determine which candidate is selected.

So if we are not actively searching for Democrats among job applicants, why is the ratio of party affiliation so lopsided?

One reason is the anti-science attitude adopted by many rank and file Republicans and supported by some Republican leaders. For example, a Pew Research Survey in 2013 found that only 43 percent of Republicans believe that humans have evolved over time. During the recent Republican primary season, only Jeb Bush could be found to have ever made a statement expressing belief in the theory of evolution. Several of the candidates were on record stating that they did not accept evolutionary theory...


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/article97532662.html#storylink=cpy


why does it seem the most scientific/academic people often have the most tenuous connection to reality? in fact I think we might consider the inverse, there are so many democrats who are professors because Republicans tend to thrive in the real world where there is practical hard work to be done, but Democrats thrive in a theoretical world based on numbers and preconceptions that often have little application in "Reality"

Peerie Maa
08-25-2016, 04:16 PM
why does it seem the most scientific/academic people often have the most tenuous connection to reality? in fact I think we might consider the inverse, there are so many democrats who are professors because Republicans tend to thrive in the real world where there is practical hard work to be done, but Democrats thrive in a theoretical world based on numbers and preconceptions that often have little application in "Reality"

Classic pot and kettle.
Science and academia is about nothing but reality.
Tell us Daniel, do you drive a car, do you fly, do you ever take medication?
Yes?
You better hope that scientists deal with reality, or you are screwed.

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2016, 04:19 PM
Classic pot and kettle.
Science and academia is about nothing but reality.
Tell us Daniel, do you drive a car, do you fly, do you ever take medication?
Yes?
You better hope that scientists deal with reality, or you are screwed.

Engineers are responsible for cars and planes working properly... (No I don't take medication)... course you might know that if you were not a liberal...


I wonder what percentage of Engineers and Construction Workers are Liberals?

Peerie Maa
08-25-2016, 04:25 PM
Engineers are responsible for all the things you just mentioned working properly... course you might know that if you were not a liberal...

Errm, am British, so I do not ascribe to either of your parties. I am also an engineer, so I know that for engineers to have the data to apply during the design process scientists have to do the research that generate our input data.

Now stop digging and throw out your shovel do.

johnw
08-25-2016, 07:35 PM
Again, only 6% of scientists identify as Republican

I'm pretty sure this was not always the case. What has happened is that conservatives have increasingly identified with the Republican Party, and conservatives have lost faith in science.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservatives-lose-faith-in-science-over-last-40-years/
Conservatives' trust of science has gradually decreased over the past 40 years, beginning perhaps when empirical research was increasingly used to justify government regulations, according to a new academic analysis.


The study, appearing this week in the April edition of the journal American Sociological Review, identifies a 25 percent drop among conservatives who express trust in the scientific community since 1974. That decline is striking to researchers because conservatives were more trusting of science than other political groups when data were first collected nearly four decades ago.


Today, they are the most distrustful, while the attitudes of liberals and moderates have held steady. The conservatives' migration into negativity makes liberals the most trusting group now, by default.


"[T]his study shows that public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church," the study (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/03/28/document_cw_01.pdf) concludes.

Waddie
08-26-2016, 12:49 AM
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
08-26-2016, 09:23 AM
I put this up without comment because i wanted to see what the resident science experts here have to say on the subject. As the narrator says at the end; scientific research is the best method we have for discovering truth, but we should be aware that it is seriously flawed. I read all the comments under the video and then Googled flawed science and p-hacking (also know as data mining). I found that only about 10% of studies are even replicated. In psychology, when studies are replicated, about 50% fail to support the original papers conclusions.

Our capitalist approach to doing research (publish or perish) might be at the heart of the problem, which I consider, after looking into it, to be widespread. But some of the experts here in the bilge might feel otherwise. Let's see if they comment.

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
08-26-2016, 09:32 AM
In psychology, when studies are replicated, about 50% fail to support the original papers conclusions.

regards,
Waddie

That is hardly surprising. People are extremely complex variable subjects for study. Not like molecules or atomic particles whose properties are invariant.
That people are a hard nut to crack does not invalidate the scientific method, it just makes that field of study harder and slower.

Waddie
08-26-2016, 09:50 AM
That is hardly surprising. People are extremely complex variable subjects for study. Not like molecules or atomic particles whose properties are invariant.
That people are a hard nut to crack does not invalidate the scientific method, it just makes that field of study harder and slower.

I agree that it does not invalidate the scientific method per se; but it does incriminate the system of research we see prevalent today, with it's pressure to data mine and lack or replication. You would think scientific research would be the last place where unreliable reports would go unchallenged. In fact, it sets back reputable studies since the field of science in general is choked with poorly designed and implemented pseudo-research. How does one ascertain what is accurate and what is junk science if data mining is common and there are few replications to act as checks on the system?

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
08-26-2016, 10:36 AM
This is a political term, used to denigrate and demonize.

Bad science should be denigrated. What's the PC term for junk science?

regards,
Waddie

David G
08-26-2016, 10:40 AM
Bad science should be denigrated. What's the PC term for junk science?

regards,
Waddie

I think you still don't 'get' the scientific method. Science is the process of eliminating bad science. As new information arises, and as better ways of thinking about existing information occur to us... the less complete understanding is superceded. And the dead-wrong is (eventually, after inertia wears down and gored oxen have died off) discarded.

Peerie Maa
08-26-2016, 10:44 AM
I agree that it does not invalidate the scientific method per se; but it does incriminate the system of research we see prevalent today, with it's pressure to data mine and lack or replication. You would think scientific research would be the last place where unreliable reports would go unchallenged. In fact, it sets back reputable studies since the field of science in general is choked with poorly designed and implemented pseudo-research. How does one ascertain what is accurate and what is junk science if data mining is common and there are few replications to act as checks on the system?

regards,
Waddie

First off, I think that you are misapplying a term

Data mining is an interdisciplinary subfield of computer science. It is the computational process of discovering patterns in large data sets involving methods at the intersection of artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, and database systems.
Secondly the scientific method relies on the use of peer reviewed publication to winnow out the carp.

Waddie
08-26-2016, 01:01 PM
First off, I think that you are misapplying a term

Secondly the scientific method relies on the use of peer reviewed publication to winnow out the carp.

According to WIKI;

"Data dredging (also data fishing, data snooping, and p (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value)-hacking) is the use of data mining (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining) to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance), without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality."

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
08-26-2016, 01:06 PM
According to WIKI;

Data mining is an interdisciplinary subfield of computer science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#cite_note-acm-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#cite_note-brittanica-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#cite_note-elements-3) It is the computational process of discovering patterns in large data sets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_set) involving methods at the intersection of artificial intelligence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence), machine learning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning), statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), and database systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_system).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#cite_note-acm-1) The overall goal of the data mining process is to extract information from a data set and transform it into an understandable structure for further use.

regards,
Waddie

Yep, that is why I think that it is irrelevant to your argument.

Waddie
08-26-2016, 01:09 PM
I think you still don't 'get' the scientific method. Science is the process of eliminating bad science. As new information arises, and as better ways of thinking about existing information occur to us... the less complete understanding is superceded. And the dead-wrong is (eventually, after inertia wears down and gored oxen have died off) discarded.

If scientific research operated within a functioning system of checks and balances I would agree with you. I wish it were so. But the pressure to publish along with few if any replication studies leads to sloppy and even disreputable "research" being passed off as credible. Google the problem; lots of mainstream and respected institutions, journals and academics are very concerned over how research is being manipulated. This can foster and promulgate a distrust of science in general. Scientific research needs to be conducted with the right motivations, methodology and replications that support the original findings. Without these checks and balances the system becomes dysfunctional.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
08-26-2016, 01:34 PM
Yep, that is why I think that it is irrelevant to your argument.

The term has relevance beyond the computer field. Scientific researchers are very familiar with the term.

"Data dredging (also data fishing, data snooping, and p (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value)-hacking) is the use of data mining (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining) to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance), without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality."

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
08-26-2016, 01:36 PM
The term has relevance beyond the computer field. Scientific researchers are very familiar with the term.

"Data dredging (also data fishing, data snooping, and p (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value)-hacking) is the use of data mining (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining) to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance), without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality."

regards,
Waddie

Go back and check your post #36.