Liberalism Closer to Reality?

[Coherent]

Social Liberalism to be specific. I was talking with a conservative friend of mine and he was going on his usual rant about how the american school system has a liberal slant. I agree with this to an extent, but today I had a different idea. Have you ever considered that liberalism is more widely accepted by college proffesor and students because liberalism is simply more compatible with reality?

After all, liberals aren't the one claiming "God did it!" is the best and most useful scientific explanation for everything. Liberals aren't claiming extremely trivial benign things like homosexuality are "immoral" and "evil".

A recent poll by the pew research center found that 52% of all scientists identify themselves as "liberal" while only 9% identify themselves as "conservatives" (an even lesser 6% identified themselves as republicans) (Source: http://people-press.org/report/528/) So now it would seem that not only are those more exposed to higher education identifying themselves as liberals, but the majority of scientists are as well?

Of course, none of this objectively proves that liberalism is closer to reality, but it certainly worth considering and discussing. It certainly seems from my perspective that conservatives in this country have taken to arguing based on their own personal moralitys (or other biases), rather than arguing upon logic in reason.

Just my 2 cents

[Elfer]

"Scientists" is a pretty broad term. Depending on what it means, they could have a very strong financial interest in liberalism. Funding has to come from somewhere, and it sure don't come from the conservatives.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/29/10 08:49 AM, Elfer wrote: "Scientists" is a pretty broad term. Depending on what it means, they could have a very strong financial interest in liberalism. Funding has to come from somewhere, and it sure don't come from the conservatives.

In this case, scientists are members of the Scientific Group AAAS.

Also, I'm not surprised by this. Conservatism has its basis in not moving or changing anything. Most scientists want to learn about how the world works so they can change it. Additionally, a lot of science comes under fire from conservatives, so it just makes sense that scientists would drift in the other direction. The thing is, I'd never heard a political conversation in any of my science classes in college, but by the end of sophomore year most science majors expressed dominantly liberal views and negative views of conservatives. From my personal experience, I'm not surprised in the least.

[Memorize]

That's not what people mean by "liberal".

"Liberal slant" means things like hailing Lincoln as a great anti-slavery, civil war hero... despite the fact that he let slave states fight for the North, exempted northern slave states from the Emancipation Proclamation, sent a letter to New Jersey urging them to vote for a constitutional amendment to forever legalize slavery, turned a blind eye to his generals ordering troops to burn down civilian homes and rape women, having a slave owner as his main Northern General (Grant), and sent the military to a congressman's house for simple calling Lincoln a monster.

"Liberal Slant" meangs praising JFK despite 90% of things he did ending in failure and starting us the Vietnam war which killed 66k troops and many more civilians, all because he was assassinated.

Comending FDR during WWII even though the only reason why Japan attacked us was because he placed oil sanctions on Japan 6 months prior to Pearl Harbor which crippled their economy which Japan considered an act of War, while throwing even american citizens into concentration camps on the basis of their racial heritage calling it a matter of "national security".

Liberal Slant would be crediting the Soviets for ending the Cold War...

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 02:17 AM, Coherent wrote: So now it would seem that not only are those more exposed to higher education identifying themselves as liberals, but the majority of scientists are as well?

Correlation does not imply causation, if it did, one could simply counter the argument by pointing out that such individuals have probably never held an actual job or worked outside an academic environment... so what would they know about the real world and how it should function in terms of political scope?

At 1/29/10 09:09 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Conservatism has its basis in not moving or changing anything. Most scientists want to learn about how the world works so they can change it. Additionally, a lot of science comes under fire from conservatives, so it just makes sense that scientists would drift in the other direction.

Which brings us to the million dollar question...

Why are there conservative scientists at all if what you say is true? And what does your idea say about the 39% of scientists polled who have no political leanings at all?

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/29/10 01:22 PM, Memorize wrote: That's not what people mean by "liberal".

That's not what YOU mean by "liberal"

blargh blargh honk honk

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 01:32 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/29/10 02:17 AM, Coherent wrote: So now it would seem that not only are those more exposed to higher education identifying themselves as liberals, but the majority of scientists are as well?

Correlation does not imply causation, if it did,

No of course correlation does not definitely mean causation, but you would be a fool to think it did not suggest it. Which is the point of this thread. We must ask ourselves why have more highly educated individuals have turned to liberalism?

one could simply counter the argument by pointing out that such individuals have probably never held an actual job or worked outside an academic environment... so what would they know about the real world and how it should function in terms of political scope?

*citation needed

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/29/10 01:32 PM, Proteas wrote: Which brings us to the million dollar question...

Why are there conservative scientists at all if what you say is true? And what does your idea say about the 39% of scientists polled who have no political leanings at all?

No political leanings means they aren't conservatives, which I'm saying makes sense because a majority are going to choose not to be. And there are going to be some conservative scientists. People aren't immune to mistaken logical leaps or being wrong simply because they are scientists. I kid, I kid.

But no, there are some areas of science where conservatism isn't as radically opposed:
Space Exploration, Dinasour Bones, Carbon Dating, Physics or Chemistry.

But, when you get into medical science, especially of the research variety. Or if you get into biology which is almost completely rooted in the idea of evolution. Or if you're involved with climate research. Or if you're questioning your religion because a lot of scientific knowledge doesn't go hand in hand with the bible, you are more likely to be less conservative.

There are many scientific fields which do not get support from the Conservative agenda and which are labeled "evil." There are probably more sciences that can coexist, but don't mesh with the ideology. And then there are a very select few, none of which I can think of off my head, that would actually embrace conservatism.

Beyond that, you're going to have the scientists on both sides who go into it to try and prove what they already believe without taking account of evidence. That alone could explain why someone would claim to be a scientist and a conservative. There's probably no degree requirement for entering the society, though I haven't looked.

When you get down to it. The "Liberal" camp is more welcoming than the "Conservative" camp when it comes to science. Additionally, since scientists generally do go to college, many of them form bonds and relationships with each other. An attack on one can turn into an attack on all every now and again. Which ideology attacks science more often? Its hard to make any claim that it isn't conservatives.

I'm not claiming being a scientists means you'll be a liberal, I just understand why many scientists would shy away from conservatism, even if they don't identify as liberals.

[poxpower]

At 1/29/10 01:32 PM, Proteas wrote: so what would they know about the real world and how it should function in terms of political scope?

As opposed to republican leaders with millionaire politician daddies?

Plus I'm pretty sure that "gas station attendant" is not a position that grants deep knowledge of anything. I've worked with these people before, they're idiots. Most of them COULDN'T finish high school.

What the fuck do they know about anything? They spent their money on
cigarettes, booze and gambling while making 10 bucks an hour.

What does that even mean, the "real world"? Having no money? Having to wait on food lines? Having to do job interviews? Having to work for a boss?
What? Because most people in American politics have a pretty cushy upbringing.

And fuck it, all of this doesn't make them suddenly knowledgeable about, say, climate science. Complain however much you want about climate scientists living on grants and "never having a real job" ( whatever a "real" job is ) but they're still the experts and they still know better than some lawyer politician what to do about it.

[Stoicish]

I would agree with you that conservatism has this whole, "We need to go backwards to our old values" kind of idea, but I can't seem to attach myself to that.

I agree with you that there is more of a liberal slant in schools and college, but I don't agree that is right. I think professors need to be objective about how they engage students. There doesn't need to be a left vs. right kind of issue going on here.

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 01:44 PM, Coherent wrote: *citation needed

It's an opinion that can't be backed up by evidence, just the same as your idea that scientists are liberal simply because they're intelligent.

At 1/29/10 01:46 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'm not claiming being a scientists means you'll be a liberal, I just understand why many scientists would shy away from conservatism, even if they don't identify as liberals.

So... why not ask those scientists for their opinion on scientific matters? If they have no political opinion they'd be willing to voice, wouldn't that in turn mean they'd be unbiased politically in terms of their opinions?

Of course, I believe in the novel idea that scientists shouldn't have any kind of political leaning to begin with, because that's not what they went to college to study to begin with... (more on that in a second).

At 1/29/10 02:11 PM, poxpower wrote: And fuck it, all of this doesn't make them suddenly knowledgeable about, say, climate science. Complain however much you want about climate scientists living on grants and "never having a real job" ( whatever a "real" job is ) but they're still the experts and they still know better than some lawyer politician what to do about it.

But what part of their degree qualifies them as experts on political matters? ¿Comprehnde? I would no more ask a scientist their opinion of political matters than you would those highschool drop out stereotypes you presented, for the simple fact that neither of them are particularly qualified to voice their opinions in the matter.

This isn't the first time this topic has come up, and it's not going to be the last time either. There's always going to be some n00b coming up and using this as some kind of prime example of how liberalism is the more intelligent political ideology, and I'm going to put a stop to it this time by asking one simple question;

If you're going to take the political leanings of any college educated individual as a basis for justifying the "correct" political belief to have, why not poll political-science majors (read; people like JHMX and TheMason) instead of scientists?

[Saxturbation]

At 1/29/10 02:51 PM, Stoicish wrote: I would agree with you that conservatism has this whole, "We need to go backwards to our old values" kind of idea, but I can't seem to attach myself to that.

Well yeah Conservatism is more of a morally based belief. That's why it seems that most Conservatives and Republicans are older or highly religious because they have their morals strongly embedded.

I agree with you that there is more of a liberal slant in schools and college, but I don't agree that is right. I think professors need to be objective about how they engage students. There doesn't need to be a left vs. right kind of issue going on here.

I agree with this. Schools should never base themselves off of their political/religious/whatever beliefs. It should solely be on the education of the student.

[poxpower]

At 1/29/10 02:55 PM, Proteas wrote:

But what part of their degree qualifies them as experts on political matters?

Scientists don't agree with liberals, LIBERALS agree with scientists.
And as such, scientists support them.

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 02:55 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/29/10 01:44 PM, Coherent wrote: *citation needed

It's an opinion that can't be backed up by evidence, just the same as your idea that scientists are liberal simply because they're intelligent.

The citation is needed for your claim that scientists and professors "have probably never held an actual job or worked outside an academic environment"

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 03:06 PM, Coherent wrote: The citation is needed for your claim that scientists and professors "have probably never held an actual job or worked outside an academic environment"

You're own opening post points to this and even implies it, does it not? Scientists are smart liberals who've spent their lives studying away in academic settings while republicans are the average joes who actually work for a living.

Or was there some other hidden message in all this you were trying to be sly and clever about?

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 03:23 PM, Proteas wrote: who actually work for a living.

pardon me, "don't have a degree and don't work in the academic field."

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 03:23 PM, Proteas wrote: You're own opening post points to this and even implies it, does it not? Scientists are smart liberals who've spent their lives studying away in academic settings while republicans are the average joes who actually work for a living.

Oh, so you're saying that being a professor or a scientist doesn't constitute "actual work". No I certainly did not imply this in my opening post. This sounds more like a personal bias than measurable fact to me. Tell me, what exactly do you think the differences are between scientific work and "actual work"? Furthermore, what exactly is it about "actual work" that gives someone a greater understanding of events than someone working in a scientific or academic field?

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 03:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/29/10 03:23 PM, Proteas wrote: who actually work for a living.

pardon me, "don't have a degree and don't work in the academic field."

I do like this description better. My questions still stand

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/29/10 02:55 PM, Proteas wrote: But what part of their degree qualifies them as experts on political matters?

What part of their degree would preclude them from understanding politics and forming a rational opinion based on the evidence they have observed?

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 03:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/29/10 02:55 PM, Proteas wrote: But what part of their degree qualifies them as experts on political matters?

What part of their degree would preclude them from understanding politics and forming a rational opinion based on the evidence they have observed?

A valid question. In fact, I might add that "real life experience" may be a detriment in some cases as it may provide a bias that would obscure an otherwise clear cut issue. For example, a man gets mugged by a black man, as such he develops a bias against black people. If Proteas' argument is valid, this man should be more qualified to form a rational opinion on black people than someone who does not have this real world experience.

[fli]

This is just a loaded bullshit question...

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 03:39 PM, Coherent wrote: Oh, so you're saying that being a professor or a scientist doesn't constitute "actual work".

Theirs is an academic line of work that more relies on the intellect than it does actual physical labor or strength or dealing with the general public, of which the vast majority of this country really does do on a daily basis. That's not to say that they don't work hard at what they do, but it's not work in the traditional sense.

No I certainly did not imply this in my opening post. This sounds more like a personal bias than measurable fact to me.

Oh really? Then what was the point of posting this then if not to gloat about how many more liberals there are on college campuses than conservatives, thus implying that conservatives are somehow stupider by comparison?

Furthermore, what exactly is it about "actual work" that gives someone a greater understanding of events than someone working in a scientific or academic field?

Perhaps the fact that they are actually effected by the events of daily life, not closed off to the rest of the world from behind the gates of a college campus or research facility?

At 1/29/10 03:41 PM, Coherent wrote: My questions still stand

And my citation still stands until such a time as you clarify the reasoning for posting this topic. Go ahead, try and tell me you weren't gloating over this article or that you weren't trying to imply conservatives were somehow less intelligent by comparison. Tell me that little smiley face up at the top of this page doesn't actually mean anything.

At 1/29/10 03:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: What part of their degree would preclude them from understanding politics and forming a rational opinion based on the evidence they have observed?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but should you really give somebody credibility on a matter that they are not specialized in just because they have a degree?

I'll give you an example... in Seattle, there's a school for people who want to go and train to become expert Barista's, that is, someone who is a coffee expert. After you go through this school, you know the ins-and-outs of a coffee machine, everything there is to know about coffee beans themselves, how to make the perfect cup of coffee, and can even do those little goofy swirl designs with the cream. You'd even have a little plaque to hang on your wall. Would you take the political opinions of this individual seriously? Would you regard this person's political viewpoint with the same amount of respect that you give the group of scientists polled in the opening of this topic?

If you answer "no," then I ask you.... why not? This guy has about as much personal experience with the political arena as these scientists probably have, or any one of us for that matter, you shouldn't discount his opinion just because of what he does.

If you answer "yes," then this topic is over, because everyone would be equal in terms of their opinion and no one individual would have any more sway over the general public than the other.

At 1/29/10 04:16 PM, Coherent wrote: If Proteas' argument is valid, this man should be more qualified to form a rational opinion on black people than someone who does not have this real world experience.

If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/29/10 03:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but should you really give somebody credibility on a matter that they are not specialized in just because they have a degree?

False dichotomy ahead! Man overboard!

Would you take the political opinions of this individual seriously? Would you regard this person's political viewpoint with the same amount of respect that you give the group of scientists polled in the opening of this topic?

I wouldn't rule them out on the basis that they went to this particular school, especially if I had vitally important questions about the political ramifications of coffee.

The real issue here is whether or not drinking or making coffee is an important political matter. The answer is that it probably isn't, but that doesn't mean this guy knows nothing about politics. The degree doesn't help.

HOWEVER, a scientist is an EXPERT in some field as well. So the issue here is, whether scientific findings and fields are of political importance. They aren't always, but when it comes to medicine, disease prevention, natural disasters, weapon making, advancing technology they more than often are. So, when it comes down to it, I would rather have a scientist as a politician than a barrista because its simply more likely he'll have more information on an important topic when that information is needed.

But, you've raised a very very interesting point. If a degree does not qualify one to make political decisions outside of their field, why do we elect poli-sci majors & masters into government. They wouldn't be able to handle anything to do with economics, science, building, reading, writing, education, or really any of the actually "important" functions of society.

By your logic, a scientist is actually more often better qualified for the job. A political science major would be better suited to work as a diplomat where they could apply their knowledge of politics for the better aid of our country.

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 04:28 PM, Proteas wrote: Theirs is an academic line of work that more relies on the intellect than it does actual physical labor or strength or dealing with the general public, of which the vast majority of this country really does do on a daily basis. That's not to say that they don't work hard at what they do, but it's not work in the traditional sense.

I see, so should we also exclude anyone who works a white collar job? Since physical labor seems to be the determining factor here? And strength and dealing with the general public? What does that even mean?

Oh really? Then what was the point of posting this then if not to gloat about how many more liberals there are on college campuses than conservatives, thus implying that conservatives are somehow stupider by comparison?

Well that's exactly what I was suggesting, though I don't appreciate your hostile choice of words. But what you're suggesting is that I implied that because liberals tend to be more educated they're segregated from the general population and have no real life experience. This is simply not true, I never made or implied any such claim.

If you can't actually argue against what I'm presenting that you would resort to something this juvenile, then you don't have much going for you.

This sounds a lot like an ad hominem attack to me Proteas. How exactly is the argument I made juvenile? The fact that you don't specify along with your logical fallacy detracts from the credibility of your argument.

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 04:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So the issue here is, whether scientific findings and fields are of political importance.

I thought the issue this topic sought to discuss was the personal political opinions held by scientists, not the varied and weird shit you and coherent keep twisting my words around to say something I didn't actually say as a way to undermine my points.

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 04:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: HOWEVER, a scientist is an EXPERT in some field as well. So the issue here is, whether scientific findings and fields are of political importance.

Another thing to look at. All forms of science are based on a process known as the scientific method. Which states that one must come to the most logical conclusion based exclusively on facts and not personal biases. It's not much of a stretch to say most scientist extend this method beyond what is simply their line of work, which is why many Scientists tend to be Atheist. So since scientists tend to be liberal we have to ask does this suggest that liberalism is more in tune with the logic of the scientific method?

[Musician]

At 1/29/10 05:02 PM, Coherent wrote: Another thing to look at. All forms of science are based on a process known as the scientific method. Which states that one must come to the most logical conclusion based exclusively on facts and not personal biases. It's not much of a stretch to say most scientist extend this method beyond what is simply their line of work, which is why many Scientists tend to be Atheist. So since scientists tend to be liberal we have to ask does this suggest that liberalism is more in tune with the logic of the scientific method?

So it's not so much that scientists are liberal, it's that proponents of the impartial scientific method are liberal. It doesn't prove anything as correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is interesting. definitely interesting.

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 04:56 PM, Coherent wrote: Well that's exactly what I was suggesting

Then you have no right to ask me not to be hostile to the ideas you presented, because guess what? I'm a conservative, and you're topic was meant to troll people like me. And since you've admitted to the true motive behind posting this topic, I have no reason but to regard you as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill troll right now.

This sounds a lot like an ad hominem attack to me Proteas.

No, this is an ad hominem attack; you are a moron. An ad homenim attack is a baseless attack made on the person making an argument, not the argument itself. Saying that your method of debating me was juvenile was not an attack on you, just your debate style.

At 1/29/10 05:02 PM, Coherent wrote: So since scientists tend to be liberal we have to ask does this suggest that liberalism is more in tune with the logic of the scientific method?

Not really. Because as you noted, scientific method is based on fact not personal bias, of which you would have to have in order to pick a side on a political debate.

[Coherent]

At 1/29/10 05:22 PM, Proteas wrote: Then you have no right to ask me not to be hostile to the ideas you presented, because guess what? I'm a conservative, and you're topic was meant to troll people like me. And since you've admitted to the true motive behind posting this topic, I have no reason but to regard you as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill troll right now.

True motive? I was suggesting from the start that Liberalism might be an ideology more in tune with reality than conservatism. Are you honestly only realising this just now? Oh and in addition, this is also an ad-hominem attack.

Saying that your method of debating me was juvenile was not an attack on you, just your debate style.

Which in the context you used it, was an attack on me. Thus, ad hominem.

Not really. Because as you noted, scientific method is based on fact not personal bias, of which you would have to have in order to pick a side on a political debate.

I don't see why. Someone can come to a conclusion simply by examining the facts of the situation, which is coincidentally what the scientific method is all about. I'm sure scientists do have their own biases but I'd be willing to bet that as a whole, those who follow the scientific method have much less bias overall than those who don't.

[Proteas]

At 1/29/10 05:32 PM, Coherent wrote: True motive?

Yes, let me replay the previous conversation for you.

I said: "Oh really? Then what was the point of posting this then if not to gloat about how many more liberals there are on college campuses than conservatives, thus implying that conservatives are somehow stupider by comparison?"

You responded; "Well that's exactly what I was suggesting, though I don't appreciate your hostile choice of words."

You're true motive was to discuss how stupid conservatives were in comparison to liberal scientists, and you admitted it. Any questions? Any clarifications?

Which in the context you used it, was an attack on me. Thus, ad hominem.

I will explain the difference again;

You're a fucking moron = an attack on you personally, ergo, argumentum ad homein (itself defined as an attack on the person making the argument, not the argument iself).
You're argument is fucking stupid = an attack on your argument, not you, which =/= Argument Ad Hominem.

Someone can come to a conclusion simply by examining the facts of the situation, which is coincidentally what the scientific method is all about.

If that was truly the case, why aren't ALL scientists liberals, instead of being divided up into three groups (liberals with 52%, independents/undecided with 39%, and conservatives with 9%)? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if they used the scientific method to come to their conclusions about their political beliefs, they would all come to the same political conclusion?