If you listen to liberal activists or even most of the mainstream media these days, conservatives are dangerously “anti-science.” They cling to religion and ideology that traps them in a warped reality, denying the Smart People Consensus about climate change, evolution, and Keynesian economics. They don’t even understand how women’s bodies work! Any evidence that contradicts their already-established beliefs is immediately dismissed as the propaganda of a left-wing conspiracy. Meanwhile, enlightened progressives are able to eagerly accept whatever science reveals to be Ultimate Truth.
It’s a tidy little narrative, and many conservatives only seem to encourage it. (The latest controversy is over “polling denial,” which New York Magazine says is similar to all the other “fields of conservative reality denial.”) Unfortunately, this narrative isn’t true: liberals are guilty of hating science, too.
In a scathing Slate post titled “GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left,” Keith Kloor documents the liberal hyping of a terrible study that said genetically modified food caused tumors in lab rats. It was conducted by a guy with a biased history of distorted attacks on GM food who just happens to have a book and documentary coming out the same week as the study. The study, meanwhile, was “riddled with errors” and quickly condemned by “scores of scientists,” but that didn’t stop Mother Jones from saying the study “shine[s] a harsh light” or Grist from saying it’s “worth paying attention to.” Kloor points out many of the other ways the “anti-GM bias also reveals a glaring intellectual inconsistency of the eco-concerned media.”
But of course genetically modified food isn’t the only thing that liberals insist on fearing even though all the scientists seem to think it’s safe. Kloor gives a passing mention to the anti-vaccine movement, which is becoming so prevalent in California that it’s messing with herd immunity.
And let’s not forget about the lefty paranoia of hydraulic fracking. I’m not sure if there’s a “scientific consensus” about fracking or not, but the most seemingly objective things I’ve read say there are some concerns about water usage and potential chemical leakage but for the most part the techniques have been used for decades with almost no problems. But that hasn’t stopped environmental groups from pressuring New York’s governor to keep the relatively clean energy source (and the jobs it would create) away from their state, and it hasn’t stopped Hollywood’s Matt Damon from hyping some new distorted anti-fracking documentary, which in a surprise twist has some funding links to Oil, that favorite liberal villain.
So, no, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism. Liberal ideology can disagree with scientists just as easily. Some might respond that there are problems with the scientific consensus on some of these issues, due to poorly designed studies or ignored factors or biased researchers or whatever else. That may be true, but that’s exactly what conservatives say about the issues on their side. Others may say that, yeah, there are some fringe elements of the progressive umbrella that ignore the scientific safety of vaccines, but not all liberals are actually like that. That may be true, too, but all conservatives aren’t homophobes, either.
I actually find these progressive movements somewhat encouraging, and not because it exposes a mirrored hypocrisy. I hope some of these liberals will realize that the elites of the “reality-based community” don’t really have it all figured out, and that sometimes they might still be wrong. I hope they might even be willing to consider that there might be some interesting grains of truth in those conservative objections to the Smart People Consensus. After all, isn’t good science always supposed to be a little skeptical?
Good post, good topic. As far as I can tell, it is an innate human trait to tend to deny or distort truth/science when it points to a reality that undermines the believer’s political and/or religious ideology or the person’s personal interests. Liberals do it. Conservatives do it. Libertarians, Greens, socialists, Nazis, religious zealots and perverts do it. Its just human biology – nothing remarkable about it. Some people resist the innate tug toward the irrational better than others, but it seems to always be there, conscious or not. Some people don’t even try to reconcile differences between facts and beliefs – they just go with what feels good and blow off facts that contradict (inconvenient truths).
When it comes to politics, what can be done to improve things? Maybe consciously renouncing liberal, conservative and other ideology and looking at unspun facts and unbiased analysis to try to perceive best options. Of course that’s asking a lot. With no ideological anchor, best options could very well be liberal, conservative, compromise or none of those. Very few people have the courage to face that messy world. People who firmly believe in their political (and religious) ideology all believe they do see reality without distortion and they accuse their opposition of not being realistic. That’s routine as well.
To take a concrete example, what is the unspun empirical data and unbiased analysis that says it is “reasonable” to advocate for a small government in a complex, modern world? To an ideology skeptic like myself, that assertion/belief looks a whole lot like faith based on ideology and not an unbiased conclusion based on unspun data. Or, am I mistaken? Is there a universally-accepted authority that accepts the small government is best argument? Who is that authority – Ayn Rand?
Thank you for your thoughts. When I say I am a “reasonable advocate” for small government, I mean that I do not hold that view as a strict ideology. As you say it is hard to interpret the world without an “ideological anchor,” and I generally tend to interpret events and form opinions through the bias of small government based on things I have already observed and interpreted – I see evidence of the positive effects of market incentives and I see evidence of inefficient and corrupt overbearing governments. I also have moral principles about freedoms and the use of force.
However, I try to recognize and adjust for this bias rather than assume it correctly interprets things. I accept the existence of public goods and negative externalities that may justify government programs and regulations. I have also learned that many news reports that sound too good/outrageous to be true are often more nuanced and complex upon further investigation.
I don’t know if that answers your question or not, but I hope that explains how I believe I can reasonably hold a view based on a foundation while admitting that it has its limitations and trying not to hold to it ideologically by accepting evidence that it does not explain everything.
Part of the issue I think is that there are no “universally-accepted authorities.” Today’s “experts” can still be tainted by bias, and many of the accepted experts of previous eras were later found to have been very wrong. Of course this makes it conveniently easy to dismiss experts who disagree with you, but I think it should also make one skeptical of the experts one is inclined to agree with. All anyone can do is observe the world without bias as best as you can and put trust in experts to the degree you think they are unbiased and trustworthy.
Yup, that answers it. It is rare, but so good, to hear someone acknowledge the limitations/negative effects of ideology on politics. IMHO, its a real scourge and a major impediment to progress.
“So, no, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism.”
The word you’re looking for is “denialism”.
Skepticism is healthy, and essential to scientific inquiry.
I find it funny that if someone is a Liberal and does something bad getting caught by the law it is just an *exception* to the majority but if it’s a Conservative that does something bad they will be smeared to death by the media and their careers ruined!
Whenever a Liberal goes to jail the media turns the other way *unless they are black*
What? Stop watching Fox News. That kinda rhetoric should no longer be tolerated by anyone with half a brain.
“So, no, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism.”
The word you’re looking for is “denialism”.
Skepticism is healthy, and essential to scientific inquiry.
Good post, good topic. As far as I can tell, it is an innate human trait to tend to deny or distort truth/science when it points to a reality that undermines the believer’s political and/or religious ideology or the person’s personal interests. Liberals do it. Conservatives do it. Libertarians, Greens, socialists, Nazis, religious zealots and perverts do it. Its just human biology – nothing remarkable about it. Some people resist the innate tug toward the irrational better than others, but it seems to always be there, conscious or not. Some people don’t even try to reconcile differences between facts and beliefs – they just go with what feels good and blow off facts that contradict (inconvenient truths).
When it comes to politics, what can be done to improve things? Maybe consciously renouncing liberal, conservative and other ideology and looking at unspun facts and unbiased analysis to try to perceive best options. Of course that’s asking a lot. With no ideological anchor, best options could very well be liberal, conservative, compromise or none of those. Very few people have the courage to face that messy world. People who firmly believe in their political (and religious) ideology all believe they do see reality without distortion and they accuse their opposition of not being realistic. That’s routine as well.
To take a concrete example, what is the unspun empirical data and unbiased analysis that says it is “reasonable” to advocate for a small government in a complex, modern world? To an ideology skeptic like myself, that assertion/belief looks a whole lot like faith based on ideology and not an unbiased conclusion based on unspun data. Or, am I mistaken? Is there a universally-accepted authority that accepts the small government is best argument? Who is that authority – Ayn Rand?
Thank you for your thoughts. When I say I am a “reasonable advocate” for small government, I mean that I do not hold that view as a strict ideology. As you say it is hard to interpret the world without an “ideological anchor,” and I generally tend to interpret events and form opinions through the bias of small government based on things I have already observed and interpreted – I see evidence of the positive effects of market incentives and I see evidence of inefficient and corrupt overbearing governments. I also have moral principles about freedoms and the use of force.
However, I try to recognize and adjust for this bias rather than assume it correctly interprets things. I accept the existence of public goods and negative externalities that may justify government programs and regulations. I have also learned that many news reports that sound too good/outrageous to be true are often more nuanced and complex upon further investigation.
I don’t know if that answers your question or not, but I hope that explains how I believe I can reasonably hold a view based on a foundation while admitting that it has its limitations and trying not to hold to it ideologically by accepting evidence that it does not explain everything.
Part of the issue I think is that there are no “universally-accepted authorities.” Today’s “experts” can still be tainted by bias, and many of the accepted experts of previous eras were later found to have been very wrong. Of course this makes it conveniently easy to dismiss experts who disagree with you, but I think it should also make one skeptical of the experts one is inclined to agree with. All anyone can do is observe the world without bias as best as you can and put trust in experts to the degree you think they are unbiased and trustworthy.
Yup, that answers it. It is rare, but so good, to hear someone acknowledge the limitations/negative effects of ideology on politics. IMHO, its a real scourge and a major impediment to progress.
I find it funny that if someone is a Liberal and does something bad getting caught by the law it is just an *exception* to the majority but if it’s a Conservative that does something bad they will be smeared to death by the media and their careers ruined!
Whenever a Liberal goes to jail the media turns the other way *unless they are black*
What? Stop watching Fox News. That kinda rhetoric should no longer be tolerated by anyone with half a brain.