Tell me this isn't actually a thing. Please.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Left leaning anti-scientific beliefs
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
Tell me this isn't actually a thing. Please.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
While the large portion of alternative medicine is bullshit, if there was one valuable takeaway from my bullshit "Spiritual Dimensions of Healing" college class, it was that one really cannot overstate the placebo effect. That thing is stupid powerful. So if people want to believe in dumb stuff, if it actually makes them medically better due to placebo or otherwise, I don't think you can discount the positive value.
Vegan diets aren't necessarily bad for you.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Every anti-fluoridation person I've seen on my facebook is decidedly left-leaning. 9/11 Truthers I'll see both on the left, and on the crazy-libertarian side. And anti-GMO and anti-vaccine are consistently embarrassing to me.
I guess the big difference is that, while being anti-science in some fields is pretty much ubiquitous, at least on the left it's mostly a fringe that has these crazier beliefs.
I guess the big difference is that, while being anti-science in some fields is pretty much ubiquitous, at least on the left it's mostly a fringe that has these crazier beliefs.
Huh, that's true. Sort of the left equivalent of opposing abortion and also opposing sex ed.
These beliefs are just as harmful as their counterpart by the right, and some of them seem to be distressingly common.
On tumblr I've run into several young people who insist that herbal remedies should always be used instead of over-the-counter drugs, because "nature knows best". There was one post going around that said "Science has proved auras" without any source or explanation.
I'm not even going to get into all that anti-vacc bullshit.
Yeah. To pick on tumblr again, there was one post reblogged by about fifty thousand people that implied that nuclear power plants cause cancer and global warming, instead encouraging everyone to use hydroelectric power, which can be pretty damn harmful to riparian ecosystems.
On tumblr I've run into several young people who insist that herbal remedies should always be used instead of over-the-counter drugs, because "nature knows best". There was one post going around that said "Science has proved auras" without any source or explanation.
I'm not even going to get into all that anti-vacc bullshit.
Yeah. To pick on tumblr again, there was one post reblogged by about fifty thousand people that implied that nuclear power plants cause cancer and global warming, instead encouraging everyone to use hydroelectric power, which can be pretty damn harmful to riparian ecosystems.
Oh, it's completely real. I've encountered one such person and read about others.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Well the word used was street lamps, so I am thinking it would belong mostly in big cities along the sidewalks or medians.
Oh that "Wi-fi is killing out kids" is definitely a left-wing thing here in Canada. There was a huge controversy when schools in my cities were doing it, many parents kept their kids home in protest. The leader of the Green Party also fed these conspiracies by talking about "the effects of long term exposure to Wi-fi signals haven't been studied". Green Party, the self-proclaimed party of science.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I feel like there's pretty heavy overlap with libertarianism in a lot of these rather than extreme but traditional "leftism". Dietary stuff does seem to be the province of the left though.
John Kowalski
Banned
Hmm, can't argue with that.
Lone Wolf
Member
Most are, and a diet that includes meat is much better for you.
theepicoftyler
Member
I think the arguments against nuclear energy are a little more in an grey area of being able to point at specific real world examples (that are undisputed). I think you could argue that anti-nuclear people are more over-cautious than anti-science.
Unless I'm missing a common argument that is not "Look at Fukushima!"
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Well, I do know some people think they cause cancer even though research has shown no, and they are non ionizing.
I finally got around to watching last week's Real Time yesterday. When Maher was going off on his first guest about how the flu vaccine is bullshit I was close to just turning it off. He's pretty famously liberal, and I know he's got issues with vaccines but that was just frustrating to sit through.
Nonsense.
SteveWinwood
Member
I always figured the anti nuclear was more NIMBY but maybe it is more anti science, I've never really thought about it.
Yeah, I'm saying that leaves and pollen don't care that they start in the city.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Oh you don't even want to hear about the people who "get sick" from having wind-power turbines within 5 miles of them...
theepicoftyler
Member
It's entirely possible to eat healthy as a vegan. The fact that some vegans have a poor diet is as relevant as some meat eaters having a poor diet. I'm not sure that it fits.
Lone Wolf
Member
It is not my fault you hate science
gutter_trash
Banned
the Far-Right does not have the monopoly of batshit insanity.
The Far-Left that believes that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy are equally as bad shit insane and history has taught us that BOTH extremes have gotten violent and dangerous in multiple parts of the world.
I like being nuanced and try to understand history behind a country or region when there is a present conflict.
I hate getting into discussions with conspiracy theorists who actually believe that every terror plot is engineered by an Illuminati where there is no ground of having a rational discussion about geo-politics imposible
The Far-Left that believes that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy are equally as bad shit insane and history has taught us that BOTH extremes have gotten violent and dangerous in multiple parts of the world.
I like being nuanced and try to understand history behind a country or region when there is a present conflict.
I hate getting into discussions with conspiracy theorists who actually believe that every terror plot is engineered by an Illuminati where there is no ground of having a rational discussion about geo-politics imposible
Orbis Tabula
Member
I agree with that. There's definitely this point where "leftism" and libertarianism kind of loop back around a meet up, and this means both groups can often be found to support similar bad ideas in addition to the good ones.
Anti-nuclear stems from largely unproven environmental concerns. The fact of the matter is most every form of energy we utilize negatively effects the environment, and we have to choose what is the best option.
Unfortunately, those liberals tend to want a perfect energy solution, which has no negative ramifications to the environment, which is impossible. It's likely why solar is promoted so much by the same people: the negative environmental impact (if any) is largely unseen or not obvious. The problem with that, of course, is it's efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the solution. While nuclear is likely the best power source when considering all factors (environmental concerns, efficiency, cost-effectiveness), because it isn't the perfect energy solution and has some a few troubling environmental concerns (where does the waste go?, for example) it's completely derided by a large swath of environmental-minded liberals.
Unfortunately, those liberals tend to want a perfect energy solution, which has no negative ramifications to the environment, which is impossible. It's likely why solar is promoted so much by the same people: the negative environmental impact (if any) is largely unseen or not obvious. The problem with that, of course, is it's efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the solution. While nuclear is likely the best power source when considering all factors (environmental concerns, efficiency, cost-effectiveness), because it isn't the perfect energy solution and has some a few troubling environmental concerns (where does the waste go?, for example) it's completely derided by a large swath of environmental-minded liberals.
I don't remember you posting any science?
SteveWinwood
Member
The point is that more liberal types should in theory be more accepting of science.
But within populations there are outliers.
theepicoftyler
Member
I actually think that NIMBYism could make it on the list if it weren't for you reminding me of this one. Tons of conservative farmers where I live brought it some quack to testfy in a hearing around here on whether to let a wind farm go up in the county. Complete pseudoscience, but I feel like NIMBYism gets a little bit of everyone.
You're both right. Meat is currently economical and convenient and easy, excellent protein. However most of what it offers could eventually be gained from vegetarian sources and vat grown meat. I'd be happy with either of those eventual solutions as long as flavor, texture and nutrition weren't compromised.
I think 300 years from now it will be weird if we're still torturing and killing animals for food.
Beerman462
Member
Yes, it's real, as has already been linked to. The origin of these types is pretty clear: people feel achy, or get headaches pretty often, or simply feel tired, and want something to attribute these vague, non-specific symptoms to.
People who complain about "chemicals" always get a little side-eye from me. In a high school environmental science course, we were given some literature by a guy who insisted that unpasteurized local milk and pesticide-free local tomatoes are better than "artificial" milk and produce that use "chemicals" to keep them safe or fresh.
I think one characteristic that's much more common among left-leaning people with anti-science beliefs than their counterparts on the right is the massive blind spot that some have for their anti-science attitudes, and the resulting hypocrisy/sanctimony.
The Global Warming denier isn't usually citing scientific reasons why GMO paranoia is nonsense. They'll wonder what the fuss is about from pansy liberals and their silly diets.
Conversely, the anti-GMO person is much more likely to deride that GW denier for being an uneducated anti-intellectual anti-science backwater dolt, while being guilty of the same conduct in a different sphere. "But it's different" and you get some psuedoscience nonsense as evidence.
The Global Warming denier isn't usually citing scientific reasons why GMO paranoia is nonsense. They'll wonder what the fuss is about from pansy liberals and their silly diets.
Conversely, the anti-GMO person is much more likely to deride that GW denier for being an uneducated anti-intellectual anti-science backwater dolt, while being guilty of the same conduct in a different sphere. "But it's different" and you get some psuedoscience nonsense as evidence.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
I've always thought the political spectrum was more of a circle than a line. Eventually, the extremes of any ideology lead into the next one, until you completely round the circle. Like how many "communist" movements in the 20th century ultimately came to more strongly resemble something you would call authoritarianism or fascism. Pragmatism is best ism.
The IQ difference between white and black people. It doesn't fit peoples worldview so they reject it.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
teruterubozu
Member
Karma, dude.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
OH BOY
In fact, I look forward to the day when our great, great grandchildren look back on us with horror in the same way I do with my (presumably) flagrantly racist great, great grandparents.
I shall observe this eventuality from my pickled jar.
The Albatross
Member
This is going to be pretty unpopular, but assuming the post a few above mine will drown out my unpopular post.
The idea that human life does not begin at conception.
Let me state here that I support a woman's right to choose and I support expanding abortion rights and making it easier for patients to receive abortions, receive birth control, and everything else. However, it is patently ridiculous that people who are largely also on my side of the fence on this issue try to shift the "life debate" to some amorphous, arbitrary point in the development of a human. The only reliable, scientifically provable point in human development that a union of two cells becomes a human is the point of fertilization. It is also ridiculous when somebody tries to push it further back to an earlier time, "Why isn't a single sperm or a single egg a human then?" Because they're not. In the history of human kind, no human has ever developed out of a single unfertilized egg or a single sperm. Not once, ever. 0%. And yet the opposite is true: every human that has ever existed, 100% of them, formed out of the fertilization of an egg and a sperm. Throughout the years, abortion advocates seem to take two approaches: Deny the scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a human life or claim that the scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a human life does not matter in terms of whether abortion should be permitted. I fall in this latter camp, I think that we're being scientifically dishonest if we claim that human life begins at some other point other than fertilization, and the only way that we'll move forward in a constructive way is to just simply accept the uncomfortable truth that the act of abortion is a case where a civilized society permits the destruction of human life, ultimately, for the greater good. It's a painful thing to accept this, but it's dishonest to make any other excuses.
Just said that myself.
The idea that human life does not begin at conception.
Let me state here that I support a woman's right to choose and I support expanding abortion rights and making it easier for patients to receive abortions, receive birth control, and everything else. However, it is patently ridiculous that people who are largely also on my side of the fence on this issue try to shift the "life debate" to some amorphous, arbitrary point in the development of a human. The only reliable, scientifically provable point in human development that a union of two cells becomes a human is the point of fertilization. It is also ridiculous when somebody tries to push it further back to an earlier time, "Why isn't a single sperm or a single egg a human then?" Because they're not. In the history of human kind, no human has ever developed out of a single unfertilized egg or a single sperm. Not once, ever. 0%. And yet the opposite is true: every human that has ever existed, 100% of them, formed out of the fertilization of an egg and a sperm. Throughout the years, abortion advocates seem to take two approaches: Deny the scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a human life or claim that the scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a human life does not matter in terms of whether abortion should be permitted. I fall in this latter camp, I think that we're being scientifically dishonest if we claim that human life begins at some other point other than fertilization, and the only way that we'll move forward in a constructive way is to just simply accept the uncomfortable truth that the act of abortion is a case where a civilized society permits the destruction of human life, ultimately, for the greater good. It's a painful thing to accept this, but it's dishonest to make any other excuses.
Just said that myself.
SteveWinwood
Member
AND HERE WE GO
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Well deep in the urban core, there aren't many places the pollen can fly off to that aren't urban. I imagine any rogue trees would be cut off, imagine having those in front of your window.
entremet
Member
Took the words out of my mouth.
If you think that IQ is an objective measure of "genetic intelligence", you're just as foolish as people who think that vaccines cause autism.
Baloney.
I beg to differ. Pollen, leaves and other tree "spore" distributions can travel hundreds of miles easily.
Are there people that reject this? Serious question. I've not seen it. I've seen liberals accept this fact but believe that 1) IQ is not a perfect interpretation of intelligence, and 2) it can be explained by environmental / cultural influences. Those points aren't necessarily addressed by the (definitely real) IQ gap.
I generally agree, though, that liberal people are often very uncomfortable discussing even the possibility of differences between genders or races.
what is genetic intelligence? all I'm saying is that people reject this scientific fact with trying to relativize the actual test etc. when in reality even the APA acknowledges this difference. unfortunately it's fuel for racist scum and some policy makers but the fact remains... it's not pretty but it is what it is.
- Status