The Real War on Science

https://www.city-journal.org/html/re...nce-14782.html

But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists. Some referees saw a version of the paper showing that the student activists’ mental health was above normal; others saw different data, showing it to be below normal. Sure enough, the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.

The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth.

Groupthink has become so routine that many scientists aren’t even aware of it.


not only that it also affected politics.


In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care.


article also mentions climate change biases as well.


President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false.

Thanks , DF
An interesting read.

I have no doubt Mr. Tierney - author- is facing a firestorm of DPST retribution for violating the anti-blasphemy laws of the Progressive -Totalitarian religion.

Very good article df

Thanks , DF
An interesting read.

I have no doubt Mr. Tierney - author- is facing a firestorm of DPST retribution for violating the anti-blasphemy laws of the Progressive -Totalitarian religion. Originally Posted by oeb11

the best part in the article is that the confirmation bias was accepted and affirmed by the liberal scientists on research issues.

unfortunately, that doesn't apply to politics.

if the research contradicts their group think, they destroy, suppress and ignore data and some cases, make up data.

Yeah 1984 again,,, if the research contradicts their group think, they destroy, suppress and ignore data and some cases, make up data.
Just like the LSM,,,

Recent publication on the "climate change" hysterical idiots revealed data fabrication.

While I agree we should look at decreasing CO2 emissions, the hysterical idiots with no good science are pushing New Soylent Green Deal solutions to advance Progressive-Socialist-Totalitarianism in this country,

Recent publication on the "climate change" hysterical idiots revealed data fabrication.

While I agree we should look at decreasing CO2 emissions, the hysterical idiots with no good science are pushing New Soylent Green Deal solutions to advance Progressive-Socialist-Totalitarianism in this country, Originally Posted by oeb11

we're getting the Veggan green deal in about 10 years. lol!

is reading the article giving us confirmation bias?

is reading the article giving us confirmation bias? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

are we circle jerking ourselves? dunno. possibly

We don't suffer from confirmation bias do we?

I'm shocked!

We don't suffer from confirmation bias do we?

I'm shocked! Originally Posted by grean

if the data checks out and don't see anything wrong with it, we accept it, but the left disagrees.


so.. who's biased?

The real problem is that people don't look for the evidence, don't understand the evidence or dismiss the evidence.

The whole "peer review" claim is tainted. The UN IPCC studies that were supposedly "peer reviewed" were flawed. The main culprit was Ted Turner giving them $1 Billion to find "global warming."

Take the whole Collusion Delusion. Very little evidence was found, it wasn't found in a timely manner and it hasn't been publicized by the MSM. It's all click bait.

Science is not "settled"....anyone claiming science is completely, 100% settled in anything has pretty much given up on the scientific method. Would you call someone who has given up on the scientific method a scientist? Obama proved he wasn't a scientist, or had any clue of what the scientific method is when he proclaimed the science on climate change being "settled"

Science is not "settled"....anyone claiming science is completely, 100% settled in anything has pretty much given up on the scientific method. Would you call someone who has given up on the scientific method a scientist? Obama proved he wasn't a scientist, or had any clue of what the scientific method is when he proclaimed the science on climate change being "settled" Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

the dim approach has removed climate study out of science and into the political realm and they , like Obama did, use it for political posturing and for scaring kids

their political friends in the scientific world aren't above fudging records all in the interest of furthering the leftists political aims

most conservatives aren't science deniers, but science investigators, and the left's political opposers

COLLUSION DELUSION That right there is the problem,,,,,,,
they have concluded climate change is real