Lefties and Righties don't trust actual science

The magazine is called "The Scientific American"

>psychology
>not a science
all the music, gaming, and film industry would like a word with you, do you really think people would spend all the money they spend on artists, microtransactions and retarded films without psychologists working behind the doors?
just because most of their research is a trade secret and isn't published on elsevier that doesn't mean anything

Im a far leftist. I accept the utility and safety of GMOs (although I dislike how companies can make local monopolies by forcing cultives into specific complements/pesticides that they themselves sell only), nuclear power is so far one of our best bets, genetic engineering sounds like a great solution to many horrifying conditions, and my only objection to evolutionary psychology is to the strawman that many politically motivated idiots build out if it, a la "women shouldnt vote cause Breaks-Bones is better hunter for tribe"
I love this idea that only self-described "centrists" are able to think rationally. Pure ideology.

>Im a far leftist
I didn't know we had comedians on Veeky Forums

skeptical of these very controversial fields
>GMOs, nuclear power, genetic engineering and evolutionary psychology
vs. skeptical of everything that doesn't fit with making more and more money

>The magazine is called "Oxymoron"

>implying thats wrong

Get out you science cultist

>In other words, valuing science for pure pleasure is more of a bulwark against the politicization of science than facts alone.
anti-popsci faggots BTFO by a scientific study. delicious

Considering denial of global warming is essentially part of the Republican policy platform, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

they're only controversial in a political setting, which is exactly what the article pointed out.

>liberals just as guilty
>muh both sides false equivalency

Conservatives deny scientific thought and the entirety of critical thinking. They are averse to thinking because they need daddy jesus to tell them what to do and explain the world in baby level oversimplicity

Liberals deny specific areas of science but generally still accept scientific thought.

Science denial is a cornerstone of conservative philosophy. The majority of them deny science. Liberal science deniers are a fringe group.

Also, nuclear power has very real unsolved issues, evolutionary psychology is flawed.

There is the nuclear waste storage issue. We are still decades away from reliable nuclear fusion. There is the issue of location so that weather doesnt fuck it up.

Evolutionary psychology isnt the entire picture despite the arrogance of dawkins and his ilk. Human beings have minds that allow us to operate on a level beyond ape-tier instinctism. Evolutionary psychology is good but it ignores the psychology of the mind.

>right doesn't believe in evolution cause its a lie against god
>left doesn't believe in evolution cause "niggers are people too"
Guess that settles it. Evolution is bullshit.

>People don't like it when they're proven wrong.
Who'd a fucking thought?

>thread starts out accurate and well informed
>after a 20 or 30 posts is flooded with "muh centerist meme" retards pushing ideology
no matter what board youre on, this is how it boils down.

As long as a field of inquiry subscribes to the praxis of Methodological naturalism in relation to the scientific method it is by definition a science. I one hundred percent agree that some of psychology and social """science""" do not adhere to these praxis and hence are not science (postmodern therapeutic techniques and ethnographic shit for example).
The example pointed to here though is evolutionary psychology which is actually one of the best in psychology for evidential standards and does follow the praxis of methodological Naturalism and hence is a science.

here's a thought, how about not posting political shit on this board? there's one for that kind of crap already

Evangelicals are more likely to be conservatives and also are more likely to perceive evolution as being false

>Why can't we just treat issues of policy how they should be- as case by case issues that depend on a myriad of factors, not the least of which being data dependent research into perceived problems?
This so much. Statistical generalizations were a mistake.

Evolution is consistent with a theistic model

probably because it's impossible for everyone with a life to spend the appropriate amount of time researching a position before coming to a conclusion on it. thus, they rely on perspective lenses that allow them to make conclusions based on less evidence.
the same kind of judgement calls are made everywhere in life, be it the kind of food they eat, the kind of people they associate with, how they do their job etc.
that being said, even if someone does the "appropriate" amount of research, they could have been fed misleading information by their peers or search methods, or the information on the topic could be poorly understood/outdated/ or otherwise incorrect.
in addition, there are other less obvious factors to consider when asking whether or not a policy should be implemented, such as "how effective is this government agency at enforcing/implementing this policy; how much will the taxation to support this policy cost us in opportunities in the future; what are my temperamental biases, and how does that effect my value judgements of thinks like security vs liberty?

>both sides are the same
>liberals skeptical of GMOs and genetic engineering

With regards to GMOs, both sides have the same level of support. A majority(65%) of liberals support nuclear energy, but conservatives support it 10% more. However with regards to evolution and climate change, there is a 30% and 50% difference with liberals supporting it more. So both sides are definitely not the same

blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/do-liberals-oppose-genetically-modified-organisms-more-than-conservatives/
blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/how-opposed-to-nuclear-energy-are-liberals/
pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/25/most-democrats-dont-know-it-takes-a-year-for-the-earth-to-go-around-the-sun/

This.

Why do centrists/moderates keep going on with their "both sides are equally bad" bullshit?

> this is bait

/thread

Conservatives love to deflect from their climate denial by means of these whataboutisms, but it just isn't comparable.

...

*hides thread*

...

what a surprise, the people who seek power would prefer that the general populace is too poorly educated to effectively fight back. But I thought for sure that my preferred future dictator was different!

SciAm was bought years ago by an extreme left German media company. It is neither scientific nor American.

>GMOs, nuclear power, genetic engineering
Those don't work as well as the liberals and right wing imagine. Nukular power is heavily subsidized and does not produce very much net energy. GMOs don't work because genes barely do anything. Genetic engineering too.

>GMOs don't work because genes barely do anything. Genetic engineering too.

does everyone on this science board just openly and boldly opine on disciplines that they know nothing about?

>Liberals deny specific areas of science but generally still accept scientific thought.
Only a bigot would assume that a googleplex could suffice in quantifying the sheer number of genders in the spectrum, for that quantity is limitless and therefore beyond human comprehension.

Where is it that tries to get bio textbooks censored in schools? It's not California, now is it.

My good man

If Republicans deny science, it's bad. If Democrats deny science, it's bad. Why aren't we all supporting the Scientism party again?

This entire goddamn argument is just a confusion of semantics. Sex != gender. Sex is the chromosomes you're born with (which can even then, in rare cases, be other than XX or XY) while gender is the social expectations that come with having those chromosomes.

The only criteria for 'being male' is having XY chromosomes, but the social criteria for 'being a man' has varied widely across cultures throughout the ages. Even very simplistic assumptions like 'men wear trousers' and the resulting social uproar over men or boys wearing skirts - in ancient Rome, trousers were the attire of northern barbarians and no true man of Rome would be seen dead in them, preferring what would look to modern eyes like a weird dress.

Furthermore, what does it cost you? The odds are firmly against you ever having to interact with someone of a non-binary gender in your life. It doesn't negatively affect you in any way, but being able to call themselves by the name they want clearly goes some way to relive them of some mental distress - or even physical distress, because transgender people in particular show all kinds of observable biological symptoms of really 'being in the wrong body', from differing thickness of a particular part of the brain (having a thickness characteristic of the opposite sex) to suffering no phantom sensations when the incorrect sexual organs are amputated.

Ultimately I have only one question for people that object to these theories of gender: if you had a magic wand that could turn someone's body from one biological sex to the other, would you choose not to use it on someone if they asked? Really begged for it? Or would you, knowing that you could instantly solve their problem and turn them completely into the other sex, choose not to do so because 'it'd be wrong, they have to stay the way they were born'?

>americans

the problem is in trying to frame gender as if its purely a social construct. gender is a phsycological thing thr moment to try and make it out to be a social construct or looses all meaning. "non-binary" genders dont exist.

And so the Libertarians have to patiently wait for even the scientific literate to finally one day awake.
In the meantime they browse the Marketplace of ideas in solemn patience.

>>That liberals are just as guilty of antiscience bias comports more with... endorsement of a blank-slate model of the mind in which natural selection operated on humans only from the neck down.
What's the point here? Lefties should be "racial realists"? Everything up to this line made sense.

>the "bill nye used to be a 2genders guy until libs paid him off" meme
Go get evidence for that, footage, not a screencap with text pasted on it. I'm not a nye fan but if you're going to claim to be more a scientist than he is you should at least learn to quote and cite people properly.

snopes.com/bill-nye-gender-chromosomes/

This. The left/right split on issues is so arbitrary.
I don't understand how we ended up where we are.
You'd probably be accurate in saying that if you think abortion is wrong, you probably want more border control, but how did we get here? The two ideas are """"conservative"""" ones, but why is it that way and not the other? Why isn't there more variance in politician's political beliefs within their parties? I don't get it.

...

>snopes
might as well go with onion.

lol hes not a scientist...

the /pol/tards will call you a fence sitter coward with no convictions.

Without trying to enter the heady (see: head-up-assy) world of political theory, political dichotomies are hard to avoid. Germany's current predicament is a good example- in any parliamentary system where democracy and majority is valued, you'll get alliances on issues that often times end up causing the parties to form such strong alliances they're almost as if they're the same party.

In America it has become this disheartening "red vs blue" that dominates the discourse far more than any actual concern of the philosophical or pragmatic underpinnings of any particular issue. The overall cultural landscape is hard to take in, comparative to the optimism of the "what could be" that is too easy to get sucked into when introduced to the fantastical world of science, and the mindset of discovery and progress.

>The denial of evolution and of global warming and the pushback against stem cell research
only a thing in america. an irrelevant fragmented country on the brink of collapse

If you land anywhere far from the center on a political map you are probably stupid, just my opinion.

>Liberals deny specific areas of science but generally still accept scientific thought.
Not in anyone's experience but you can keep your belief if it makes you feel better about yourself

>far leftist
>thinks "far" left/right can be rational
>either doesn't know how political labels work in the US, or unironically believes communism/nazism are rational

This

It was on his show, but he didn't say it personally.

I agree there are flaws in nuclear power, but you can’t cry aposaclypsee about global warming and not accept some of those risks.

This.
We need to find a movement based on science, informed by objective facts.
A Third Way, if you will.

I think the first order on the aganda should be the genocide of the subhumans, since the negative selective pressure for g is overwhelming and need to be corrected for, assuming there is a consensus about the axiom "intelligence is a valuable for most civilisation-positive metrics" being a valuable basis for policies.

No one really has trouble with the ways people publicly portray themselves (as long as no one else gets hurt or their rights infringed upon). But the entire gender debate boils down to people trying to tell me how I must act to accommodate people who have faulty if not outright twisted world views just so their feelings aren't hurt.

Well, I won't call a dog cat, because it is a dog and not a cat. And feelings are going to get hurt, because life is full of suffering and getting your feelings hurt is something that everyone absolutely needs to get used to. And being called out for having stupid beliefs should not be called mean but educational.

Nice quads, but we already had one. It lasted one day and it was terrible.

Anyone who identifies with either end of the major American political dichotomy is cancer, end of story.

>accessing this URL leads to an HTTP 301 error (dead end)
>rest of the site is fine
lol
I guess they pissed off the wrong people. Can't have science not being used to further some spook agenda after all.

cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=science-denial-vs-science-pleasure&d=6585500709059&w=v1ZgcPxXk93qtjz_BC-m960qp_Sz4eVm

>this
literally this

so much this that it hurts

>implying facts win politics
>implying calling the other side insults doesnt win votes

>dead page
i'm curious about the notion that liberals are "cognitive creationists"

what does it say?

>tfw to intelligent to have opinions

>I love this idea that only self-described "centrists" are able to think rationally. Pure ideology.

Except people were compaining that they are labelled centrist () for disagreeing with political narrative, not self-identifying as centrist.

The left has always been closely intertwined with science, which isn't true for the right who seem to prefer religion instead.

It's highly inappropriate and wrong to pretend they are equal.

Confirmation bias will haunt humanity into our last days.

Centrist cuck.

>Why can't we just treat issues of policy how they should be- as case by case issues that depend on a myriad of factors, not the least of which being data dependent research into perceived problems?
Because this is the real world, no politician cares about what is right or wrong.They care about how it furthers their political goals.
Maybe if we all wouldn't live in systems where absolute idiots get to elect the most retarded idiot they can find, we maybe could have a chance.

Why is it so hard for brainlets to accept the truth?

People love to strawman their opposition.
And "all conservatives deny evolution" is one of the more effective ones which for some reason has stuck.

It is especially hilarious once American generalize "conservatism" not only to the Republican party, but the entire ideology of "conservatism".

>Why is it so hard for brainlets to accept the truth?
The truth doesn't matter if your next election result depends on the truth being wrong.

>2018
>purposely identifying with an ideology

There's also the issue that everyone is taught not to find stuff out on their own, but memorise a pre-assembled set of data and information, and are judged by society by how well they have memorised that set of data.
The problem with democracy is actually a problem with education.

You have to go back
This board is not the place for a thread so clearly devoted to political discussion.

>There's also the issue that everyone is taught not to find stuff out on their own
But that is not an issue of education, that is a fundamental Problem of reality.
99.9% (and rising) of what you are doing depends on what other people already figured out before you.
Being able to absorb knowledge is a significantly more valuable skill then being able to figure out things on your own, at least of a majority of the population.

>The problem with democracy is actually a problem with education.
Not really, the problem is that people have no clue what they are voting on and educating them on it is quite literally impossible, since almost nobody cares.
I see no reason why anyone should ask me which economical school of thought is "right" and still I and many others worse educated still get a say on it.

>The denial of evolution and of global warming and the pushback against stem cell research are the most egregious examples in recent decades.
the stats of "99% consensus" on global warming is meaningless because the people pushing the stat don't say what the consensus is on. mean global temperature has increased in past x-hundred years? because of man? if it rises another 1 degree in the next hundred we're doomed? global warming doomsaying is a party politic line

>conservatives doubt scientific findings and theories

>pushback against stem cell research
This is not doubting a scientific finding or theory, this is a moral objection to abortion and traffic in aborted fetuses.

>denial of evolution
By no means is denial of evolution over time a mainstream conservative position. The main objection is not doubt of findings, but philosophical interpretation. Nihilistic atheists love to slip their ideology into discussion of evolution, arguing that evolution means life is a random accident, and that the development from microbe to man doesn't represent any kind of objective progress to anything better. Religious conservatives see life as the creation of a loving God and mankind as the focus of His efforts, regardless of what means He saw fit to use.

>global warming
Piss-weak whispered science hand in glove with shouts for sweeping policy change. Mostly leftist politics masquerading as science.

>liberals are just as guilty of antiscience bias comports more with accounts of humans chomping canines
Yet look how much easier it is to find examples. With no effort, he makes a longer list off the top of his head than he does for conservatives.

However...
>GMOs, nuclear power, genetic engineering
This is like the "pushback against stem cell research". It's not a doubt of scientific findings, it's an objection to policy with potentially catastrophic consequences.

What this is, is whining that we haven't fully accepted scientists as high priests, that society still tries to restrict them to a narrow role of finding technical truths, to punish them for manipulative lies or other attempts to abuse their positions for political power.

...and yes, while liberals are eager to deny plain truths about human nature and make absurd excuses for statistical realities, I should acknowledge as well that evolutionary psychologists are also far overstepping the proper bounds of their field and reaching for political power.

Soc cons? Yes. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians? No.

Because you are.