“Some students objected” is an evolution/genetics professor’s non-quantified report about resistance to science on ideological grounds that she didn’t see previously.
Disturbing, yes. But going from that to say that “Science is under attack from the right AND left” suggests that both sides are equally bad, which in my view is incorrect.
Right-wingers are notably worse when it comes to challenging evolution and climate change, and while antivax ideology is fairly balanced between right and left rank-and-file types, it’s right-wing politicians who are leading resistance to vaccine mandates on the grounds of “choice” and punishing supposedly overbearing government. The Left is more strongly associated with anti-genetic engineering ideology (based heavily on a conspiratorial view of Monsanto and Evil Corporations), but even in that instance some of the strongest and most demented voices of anti-GMOery come from far right-wing loons (like Mike Adams of Natural News).
I will add that regarding the GMO issue, polls show that NIMBY is prevalent among both left and right wingers. In a previous discussion I even found that there was even an anti-gmo group that pointed in their site that they were proud of the many conservatives that told them that they supported their dumb position.
I have observed also that vaccines are frighteningly being put more and more into the right wing wedge weaponizer.
1st college students are just that- students, in the process of learning.
2nd, IQ tests are under attack from many sectors. They do have bias, and they more often measure the test taking ability than IQ. Doubt as to the veracity of IQ tests doesnt make you anti-science.
3rd, as pointed out, this is one opinion piece, not backed by any stats from one guy. You would think, that as a scientist, he’d have more…what’s that word…oh yeah- **science. ** He has exactly none.
Now it is true there is one sector what both far left and hard right are both ant-science, and that’s anti-vaccination. However, that’s because there are nutcases on both extremes.
It’s no surprise that for those who value the outcome of their ideology over anything else that they will engage in cherry picking from any source that supports their point of view and rejecting that which does not.
I think ignorance crosses political lines, and both sides have their share of it. It really depends on which ox is gored, to be honest, as to which side irritates you more or you think is having a greater impact. Also, I think that some of the loopier left wing anti-science stuff is also shared by right wingers for the most egregious stuff such as anti-vaxx, anti-GMO, anti-nuclear, etc. Left wing anti-science has, IMHO, had a great deal of impact in the past, and continues to do so in things like plans to mitigate climate change that focus mainly on wind and solar and handwave away issues. Right wingers, of course, have vast swaths that deny climate change outright. Which is more harmful, it’s hard to say, though I’d give it to right wingers by a nose. The other anti-science stuff mentioned are pretty balanced I think, i.e. both sides (and the middle seemingly) have large groups of ignorance wrt anti-vaxx, anti-GMO and anti-nuclear, though I tend to think of them more left wing than right (woo medicine and crystal horseshit). Right wingers are definitely the main group for anti-evolution and pro-religion as a science crapola, and THAT has been extremely harmful, holding us back on basic genetic stem cell research. This has been and continues to be a major issue. I don’t suppose their ridiculous anti-abortion stance is ‘anti-science’, per se, but I’m going to lump that in as well.
But, in the end, I think this spans our society. It’s hard to believe the anti-science stuff that seems to be cropping up, everything from flat earthers to all sorts of CTs about science seems to actually be gaining a grip on people, even as we have access to the most information in our history.
I think a simple measure is in which side the anti-science sentiments manifest themselves in legislators taking those positions.
You’ve got an increasing number of GOP legislators, mayors, governors, etc. being anti-vax, for instance, because freedumb. I haven’t heard of any Dem anti-vaxxers.
Again, I’m not seeing much of this at the legislative level. And you do have a great many Dem politicians who are quite serious about the issue, e.g. Gov. Inslee.
Between those that deny and ridicule its existence, and those who say it’s happening but not worth bothering with, you’ve pretty much covered the conservative waterfront. And it’s Republicans who are blocking climate change research, and even not allowing their state governments to mention it.
To pretend that the two sides are anywhere close to equally bad on this issue…dude, all I can say is, you’re better than this, or at least, you’ve generally been so.
And of course, the notion that some races are inherently inferior is a right-wing notion, one that has been making quite a comeback in the past few years.
Sure, there are dumb and ignorant shits on all points of the political spectrum, but it’s much more deeply institutionalized on the right.
Do you have a cite that proves there was something inaccurate in the way she characterized IQ? It sounds to me like you are using the same kind of motivated reasoning she referred to in the article.
And how can you say there was no science in the article? For example, what about the description of how both human boys and male non-human primates prefer wheeled toys, while their female counterparts prefer plush toys?
That’s certainly not what I meant to suggest. I somehow don’t think this would have fit, but what I meant was something like “We all know right wingers are notoriously anti-science, and that hasn’t changed. But this is becoming increasingly a problem on the left as well, and we need to stand up against this trend–particularly since it gets tied up in hot button race and gender issues that are in the forefront of today’s academia and thus have a much stronger chilling effect on what topics instructors feel comfortable broaching in a gen ed class than any objections right wing students might raise.”
Yeah. Disappointingly, this notion was even advanced on one of my favorite shows, “The Good Fight” (a spinoff of “The Good Wife”).
True, but here we have the left wing lobbying as well as tweaking the legislature against nuclear energy for decades, say, verse right wing legislature against…well, a broad based opposition to many science positions. Ok, I concede…it’s more than a nose that they win by, I grant you. I do think that the left also has an impact on legislature wrt things I would consider anti-science, but broadly, you are right…the right wing has had a much heavier impact, especially in the last decades, and, especially sort of cresting right now with a very broad based legislature oriented attack.
Oh, I agree if you are saying the Democrats seem to take climate change more seriously than Republicans do. That goes without saying, in fact, IMHO. But both have had a negative impact on solutions, IMHO, and this goes beyond just the left/right in the US. However, I do think that the right has had a far heavier impact. Just wanted to clarify that I think there are idiots on both sides, and both sides have had negative impacts, even negative legislature produced or put forth.
Yep, no disagreement here. The Republicans really need to start not only taking climate change seriously but stop actively blocking the stuff, and they SHOULD be producing alternative solutions if they don’t like the ones the Democrats are advocating (I don’t particularly like much of what I’m hearing from the Democrats, but they are at least trying, which is far more than getting in the way, let alone ignoring it).
Haven’t you heard? I’m a right winger. No, they probably aren’t equivalent, and that wasn’t what I was getting at, though my by a nose analogy probably did a lot to foster this impression. I get frustrated, and, frankly, on this board I AM considered a conservative and right winger, which means I generally am fighting or arguing with left wing or progressive types and more in agreement with liberals or centrists, who are fairly few and far between.
I agree, and it seems to me the right has doubled down on a lot of stuff. I think that there will be a huge backlash coming their way not seen since the country sort of recoiled from liberal/left wing trajectories after Regan. The Republicans and the right are trying to change things and block things that are basically standing against the tide of history, IMHO…abortion, race relations, immigration, sexuality and sexual identity, climate change, stem cell research…the list goes on and on. And I think the backlash is coming for them on all of this stuff. I really believe that we are poised for a major sea change. I thought this was going to happen when Obama was elected, that the momentum was there, but I think this is the last gasp, and that Trump is going to be the anchor and flashpoint that causes that change and shift in our political system…and I think it will have global repercussions, since I think that right wing populism is not confined to just the US, and this anti-science aspect is just one of the things I HOPE shifts as well. Of course, hopefully that means the left wing anti-science stuff will ALSO wane at the same time…
While the house was under Republican control when that was voted for, “It was approved by Congress on 21 December by 361 votes to 10, having been passed by the Senate the previous day.”
One party doesn’t believe in climate change or evolution, which are both scientific theories supported by a mountain of data. Therefore, one of the parties, as a whole and as part of their platform, does not believe in scientific facts. Comparing this to a handful of liberals in one college class is silly. When this becomes a part of the Democratic party writ large, there might be a comparison.
While a student might disagree with causes of the American Revolution they generally won’t outright deny that it occurred. A student might hate Algebra but he probably won’t deny the existence of zero as a concept. A student might dislike reading but odds are she won’t claim that Shakespeare never existed. Biology instructors aren’t just facing students who are disinterested or having difficulty understanding the course material they are facing students who outright deny the validity of of the underlying tenants of the course. This is a problem that isn’t faced in most other fields.
Actually…I hadn’t seen this. Perhaps I’ve been too pessimistic, though the proof will be in actually ratifying new designs and then actually building one…or a few dozen, if we are actually serious about this climate change stuff. We shall see how that goes.
Recent empirical evidence for the influence of examiner’s race on examinee’s performance on intelligence tests is reviewed. Studies are classified as either adequate or inadequate and as either complete or incomplete, based on design and sampling procedures. In addition, methodological flaws are noted (e.g., confounding race of examiner with order of examination) and outcomes are critically evaluated. In general, the current literature offers little support for the hypothesis that examiner’s race, per se, has a systematic effect on examinee’s performance on intelligence tests. Conceptual and methodological issues are discussed, and suggestions are made for future research.
IV. INTELLIGENCE TESTS
*A. Introduction: The Impossibility of Measuring Intelligence
A large proportion of the 10,000 pages of transcript in this case concerns the I.Q. tests themselves, how they operate, and what they can and cannot measure and predict. While many think of the I.Q. as an objective measure of innate, fixed intelligence, the testimony of the experts overwhelmingly demonstrated that this conception of I.Q. is erroneous. Defendants’ expert witnesses, even those closely affiliated with the companies that devise and distribute the standardized intelligence tests, agreed, with one exception, that we cannot truly define, much less measure, intelligence. We can measure certain skills but not native intelligence. Professor Robert Thorndike of Columbia, defendants’ first expert witness, confirmed that the modern consensus represents a change from that held in the early years of the testing movement: “Everybody would acknowledge we would have no conceivable way of directly measuring native ability.” Thorndike 4869. Dr. Leo Munday, Vice President and General Manager, Test Department, Houghton Mifflin Co., publishers of the Stanford-Binet, similarly concluded that, “It is safe to say that . . . no one in aptitude testing today believes that intelligence tests measure innate capacity.” Munday 5085.
I.Q. tests, like other ability tests, essentially measure achievement in the skills covered by the examinations.[53] As stated by Professor Leon Kamin, Professor of Psychology from Princeton University,
I.Q. tests measure the degree to which a particular individual who takes the test has experience with a particular piece of information, the particular bits of knowledge, the particular habit and approaches that are tested in these tests.*
…that we cannot truly define, much less measure, intelligence…
That case ruled that IQ tests were culturally and racially biased. Which, of course they are.
And like I said IQ test measure your ability to take iQ tests.
No, science would include stats, and double blind replicatable data and experiments. Those were just that one professors personal non-noted observations.
You may find this interesting.
It’s a 35 minute video, which is worth watching, along with many other videos on the channel, but the relevant part of the video is in the first 45 seconds.
For those who don’t want to click, those first 45 seconds are two of the more influential members in the nuclear revival effort discussing the positive changes they are seeing out of the DOE. The rest of the video goes on to do a bit of an overview of the current state of nuclear in the US, at least in relation to MSR designs.
You might be interested in where 2020 presidential candidates stand on vaccination - in particular ending “personal” and religious exemptions to mandatory vaccination.
Pete Buttigieg’s campaign initially said he was for keeping personal and religious exemptions in places where there wasn’t a significant threat of disease outbreaks (um Pete, you want to wait until shit hits the fan before acting?), then he walked back that position to supporting only medical exemptions. Of other candidates who were questioned, quite a few ducked responding (yo, Joe Biden). Several (including Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker) supported only medical exemptions. Trump of course has been notorious for dumb antivax positions, but recently supported measles vaccination in the face of outbreaks.
My feeling is that personal and religious exemptions should be ended, while leaving a fairly liberal standard for getting medical exemptions (while closely monitoring the docs who grant exemptions and sanctioning those who sell mass medical exemptions for highly dubious reasons).
'Scuse the long bathroom break, but just popping back in to say: what’s to address? You have shown zero evidence that any “woke progressive” student who tried to complain to their university administration about being taught elementary facts of evolutionary biology wouldn’t also get “a polite and noncommital brushoff”.
There’s nothing in the least “anti-science” about pointing out that this so-called “gender-equality paradox” about female representation in STEM fields in different countries is potentially explicable by various reasons that have nothing to do with innate biological differences between men and women.
Of course scientists (both biologists and social scientists) should study gender differences in various social phenomena and investigate various hypotheses about their possible causes. But any scientist who would try to use this sort of very limited data to make sweeping inferences like “Norway’s more gender-equal than Algeria but has a lower percentage of women in STEM fields so that proves that women are innately less inclined towards STEM fields than men are!” is spouting unscientific bullshit.
Students absolutely ought to be wary of such jumping to conclusions behind a veil of sciencey plausibility, and they are right to point out that people who engage in it are likely to be motivated more by sexist bias than by a spirit of sincere scientific inquiry.
(Mind you, I’m not saying that the author of your cited article was necessarily making any such unscientific sweeping inferences: merely that it is valid to point out that the extent to which this data really “challenges the idea that bias is the only cause of sex-ratio differences in the STEM fields” is actually pretty small.)
No, they probably aren’t equivalent, and that wasn’t what I was getting at, though my by a nose analogy probably did a lot to foster this impression. I get frustrated, and, frankly, on this board I AM considered a conservative and right winger, which means I generally am fighting or arguing with left wing or progressive types and more in agreement with liberals or centrists, who are fairly few and far between.