Anti-Science in the Left

Posted on June 11, 2009
Filed Under Politics, Science | 10 Comments

I’ve been a big critic of some of the ridiculous anti-science stuff that folks on the right have done. Especially some of the actions by the Bush administration (which sometimes have been egregiously politically opportunistic and other times outright anti-science). However now that Democrats are in power we’re getting that side’s anti-science. Something all the anti-Republican rhetoric of the last 8 years tended to miss.
Now not all of this has made it into the White House (thankfully). Many of us were worried about rumored appointments to Obama’s cabinet in the fall. Thankfully Obama didn’t appoint people like Kennedy.

That said we are seeing on many prominent more liberal sites lots of anti-science stuff like egregious anti-vaccination claims. Oprah Winfrey and The Hufftington Post of course promotes a lot of silly pseudo-scientific stuff and you can see stuff like this at the Daily Kos as well.

The big worry is to see what congress might be doing.

Related posts:

  1. The Democratic War on Science?
  2. Dawkins to Give Award to anti-Science Maher
  3. Dawkins vs. Harry Potter
  4. Believing in Anything
  5. Hypocrisy and Politics
  6. Are You a Man or Woman?

Comments

10 Responses to “Anti-Science in the Left”

Clark,

Can you elaborate on this a little? I feel like I don’t have a clear sense of how exactly the left is being anti-science. What you’ve said so far is kind of vague, I think.

I think I’m familiar with the anti-vaccination stuff you’re talking about, but is this really anti-science per se?

Yes, anti-vaccination (especially the claims about mercury) are extremely anti-science. Likewise there’s a lot of alternative medicine claims on the left that are pretty ridiculous. An other common vein of anti-science on the left are the anti-genetically modified plants crowd who often go way, way overboard.

Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty on the right who are anti-science. There are those attempting to stop the teaching of evolution. There are those who adopt silly arguments about global warming. (I’m not pointing to the more sophisticated crowd) There are those attacking research on sex education in order to achieve a desired end. And so forth.

I’m just saying there’s something on the left and that they are starting to get into places of influence. I still think the problem is far worse on the right.

3 Michael Dorfman on June 12th, 2009 2:22 am

I hadn’t realized that there was a liberal/conservative dimension to the anti-vaccination thing. Are there any liberal politicians taking up the cause?

4 John Mansfield on June 12th, 2009 6:25 am

At a crude level, the left supports pseudo-science that’s used to sue and control businesses, and the right supports pseudo-science that shields businesses. One side wants to believe that each industry is to blame for everything under the sun that ails us, and the other side wants to believe that there is no possible way that any industry could be responsible for any harm.

5 John Mansfield on June 12th, 2009 6:29 am

Clark, any thoughts on Sotomayor? A pro- or anti-science appointment?

No idea.

Most of the rhetoric seems heated and superficial. I do like that despite being part of the ivy league crowd she has a lot of criminal experience as both a judge and prosecutor. I think the court needs diversity but everyone merely focuses in on racial diversity ignoring judicial diversity. (I think, for instance, we need someone from outside the Harvard/Yale corridor)

One area of anti-science in the extreme left is the attacks on GM crops that have kept one of the most promising methods of feeding places like Africa off the table in Europe. Not that there are not legitimate scientific concerns (e.g., gene flow), but much of the rhetoric is just anti-science (Frankenfoods) and just not rationally based.

What John said. To some, both scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas are just part of the aresenal used to achieve their goals, without consideration of the actual merits of the ideas themselves.

Clark,

I suppose I need a better definition of what you mean when you say “anti-science.” In the context of anti-vaccination, for example, do you mean (a) ignoring scientific information, (b) using a rhetoric of objectivity to make claims based on cherry-picked evidence, (c) arguing that medical science is significantly flawed, ideological, conspiring, dehumanizing, etc., or (d) all of the above? Only (c) strikes me as anti-science and even then these arguments could be made in a pro-scientific way (to improve science). The first is simply being unscientific and the second is being pseudo-scientific.

I suppose another way one might be called anti-scientific in the political realm is if they are in favor of more modest scientific funding. Even here, though, this is not necessary an issue of being anti-science; sometimes scientists have a problem with entitlement and they think that any politician who doesn’t want to load them with barrels of unaccountable dollars to do whatever they want must be anti-scientific.

I guess I’m also wondering what exactly you’re referring to concerning anti-vaccination. Yes, many people make outlandish and unsupported claims about mercury (still not sure if this anti-scientific, and I wonder if you are referring to actual politicians/pundits or simply liberal people). But there ARE legitimate concerns about mercury as well as other vaccination issues which are largely ignored in the medical community (see Bob Sears’ blog: http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/). Is voicing these concerns anti-scientific? Moreover, I don’t see how a religious or ethical avoidance of immunization must be anti-scientific. Not that you’re saying this, but I just want to clarify that there is nothing inherently anti-scientific about anti-immunization. And, therefore, I also wonder whether the anti-immunization you are bemoaning is in fact anti-scientific.

The underlying keyword in all this is “politics”. The Republicans use science (or anti-science) when it’s beneficial, and so do the Democrats. Too bad it’s all for political gain. (but if theres one thing this election has taught us, it’s that maybe we don’t need science or anti-science causes such as “global warming”, “abortion”, “evolution”, or “creationism” as political tools…just vague verbs – which is no less annoying than ignorant anti-science assumptions)

Leave a Reply