A common accusation lobbed about by liberals is that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is anti-science. It’s often heard in global warming discussions, and it often involves the conflation of disagreement with the alarmist side of the theory with belief in creationism and young-earth. The conflation is baseless, of course, but the accusation itself raises the specter of hypocrisy. Who insists that global warming is settled, indisputable fact when the models failed to predict the last 17 years? Who insists that the only solution for global warming is drastic cuts to carbon emissions, when those cuts won’t make a hill of beans difference in a world where developing nations won’t do the same? To deny that there are questions regarding the global warming theory is in and of itself anti-science.
Beyond global warming, ask who it is that insists that carbon-based fuels can be replaced by solar and wind power without massive damage to the economy? Who refuses to even contemplate nuclear power generation, despite the fact that it has proven to be (by far) the safest of all forms of power production? Who stands in opposition to such things as hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the Keystone pipeline, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Who opposes the production of genetically modified crops? Who tends to believe in a causative link between childhood vaccinations and autism? Who tells us that there’s no difference between boys and girls other than what has been inculcated into them by society? Who would regulate entire industries into extinction in order to impose tighter emissions restrictions that, scientifically speaking, would make no difference whatsoever? Who wants to continue funding Head Start despite the government’s own assessments that show it accomplishes nothing?
Certainly, denial of evolution and belief in a young Earth fly in the face of scientific knowledge and fact, yet it’s not just amongst conservatives that you find this belief. Creationist young-earth conservatives outnumber liberals, but Scientific American reports the percentages as 58% to 41%, a definite bias towards (against?) conservatives, but certainly not hard evidence of correlation or causation. Or, in other words, your political beliefs don’t land you on the “right” side of scientific debates. Another tidbit, this one from the Atlantic: twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe in astrology.
Many of the anti-science positions staked out by the left may be explained by a “herd” or groupthink mentality, where a position is established by some prominent person or organization, and everyone of a similar political mindset feels compelled to acknowledge, agree and support that position. Given the “we” greater than “me” tendency of statists, we shouldn’t be surprised when one of them parrots a position that has been vetted by one of their authoritative sources (usually the New York Times). So, when folks hear their friends bashing Monsanto for genetically engineering crops (really, it’s just a more refined approach to the hybridization and selective planting that humanity has engaged in for millennia), they tend to want to chime in. Especially, when the bogeyman is a “safe” one, like a big multinational company. We also obviously find the same sort of behavior among many on the right, especially the very religious when it comes to topics like evolution.
In no way do I excuse the anti-science folks on the right, simply because the guys on the left are guilty of what they accuse others. The beauty of scientific thought is that it is rooted in facts and logic, and in any debate where rationality is held in any degree of esteem, facts and logic win. It is unfortunate that ignorance, often stoked by fear, paranoia and tribalism, wins out as often as it does. And, it’s both destructive and dangerous. Every bit of junk science that draws resources (Solyndra, anyone?) necessarily denies the use of those resources elsewhere. Propagation of ideas like the vaccine-autism link (quite discredited and refuted. The original study was fabricated by someone who was selling something, and no subsequent study has ever linked the two) kills children and spreads diseases we’ve conquered. Continued embrace of non-scientific ideas degrades rational thought and discourse, and this partisan game of “the other team is the anti-science team” is both wrong and stands in the way of truth and progress.
Science transcends politics. The evidence is ample that it also transcends political leanings. Both parties are awash in ignorance and stupidity regarding science. There are certainly more in one party than in another when a particular issue is considered, and it seems that the odds are greater that a Republican is anti-science than a Democrat, but any declaration that one party is “anti-science” while the other one is “pro-science” is foolish or dishonest.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters