Maybe they were, but tens of millions of liberals are convinced that nuclear power plants contribute to global warming or some shit.
-
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
Maybe they were, but tens of millions of liberals are convinced that nuclear power plants contribute to global warming or some shit.
Orbis Tabula
Member
It's just a very...sensitive topic, I think. But that does make people reject the idea without consideration, which is dangerous. Because if there is a significant difference in the measure intelligence (whether or not IQ is a good measure is debated) then we should acknowledge that and work on correcting it, rather than pretending it doesn't exist. And I think there's some good evidence that any existing gap is far more likely due to environmental effects rather than genetic ones. But it's true that just bringing up the topic is very risky.
entremet
Member
I think the Flynn effect offers some insight as well.
Proponents of a blank-slate cognition model, usually connected to hardline all-nuture stance (as opposed to complex interplay of nurture and nature) on any and all gender differences, etc.
Lone Wolf
Member
Lots of scientific evidence that a diet based on low carbs and animal fat is better for you than High carb and vegan diets. This is not the place to really argue all of this, but this thread is about anti-scientific left leaning beliefs. I believe I have identified one.
The problem is that the majority of people misunderstand how intelligence and IQ work, and believe that the test is a completely objective measure of a person's "natural" intelligence, and that behavior or conditioning can't effect the score at all.
Very good example, and probably too abstract for some to really explore in depth.
Hi, I'm "left-leaning" and don't get a flu shot. However, I don't think that belief is anti-scientific. Here are my reasons for not getting the flu shot:
I can't tell you why the CDC recommends everyone get the flu shot, but I don't implicitly trust them either. Google CDC + Tuskegee if you want, or more recently their fuck-ups around ebola. The CDC will always recommend what is politically expedient for them, and what makes sense for the population overall. That may be in conflict with what you, as an individual, determine. Thanks but no thanks CDC.
- The flu vaccine's efficacy is never great (anywhere from 40-60% usually), but for whatever reason it's especially bad for the more virulent strains. This year it's only 23% effective overall, and in my age group only 12%!*
- Of course you can't actually get the flu from the flu vaccine, but many people report cold-like symptoms (sore throat, cough, lethargy, headache) so it's not like the vaccine is wholly risk free either. As far as I can tell more than 5% of those who get the flu shot report some kind of side effect.
- A lot of people talk about herd immunity: unfortunately enough people are never going to get the flu shot for this to be a realistic outcome.
- Plus in the U.S. at least it costs money and/or time to get a flu shot for most people, although this is changing.
- In fact: the U.S. and Canada are the only countries that recommend universal vaccination. The WHO and NHS both recommend the flu vaccine only for at-risk groups.
- Ultimately it's not unreasonable to weigh the evidence and decide getting a flu shot is a bad bet if you're a healthy person.
I can't tell you why the CDC recommends everyone get the flu shot, but I don't implicitly trust them either. Google CDC + Tuskegee if you want, or more recently their fuck-ups around ebola. The CDC will always recommend what is politically expedient for them, and what makes sense for the population overall. That may be in conflict with what you, as an individual, determine. Thanks but no thanks CDC.
There are, although most liberals accept the existence of a gap in cognitive scores if you show them the data from enough SAT/ACT/IQ/AFTQ tests.
It's obviously a very messy subject. The left is usually very reticent to engage at all with any discussions of gender/racial differences though.
The denial/downplay of biological influences on psychology (mostly gender related stuffs) is really frustrating, as a prospective neuroscientist. E.g, thinking that every occupation would be comprised 50% of men and 50% of women without sexism, thinking it's implausible that we naturally like the taste of sugar.
Pretty much this is what I meant.
Palette Swap
Member
The "large corporations" bit kind of makes sense when the poster child for GMOs, at least here, is Monsanto.
Living in Europe, I've had a few very heated debates about GMOs with friends who completely conflate the technological notion itself and its proponents.
The issue is that the research is all over the place, for me that is a red flag that "good" science might not be being applied here, people are very politically motivated with veganism and vegetarianism, mostly because they are politically motivated to follow such lifestyles (animal rights), not out of an actual concern for good health and good nutrition.
The JFK assassination. Although split amongst the two political sides, it is an antiscience conspiracy.
The only way JFK would have physically reacted the way he did was if he was shot from behind. He could not have been shot from the front or the right side.
Every major conspiracy theory says he was shot from the front or his right side and this is physically (as in the study of physics) impossible and would not explain the injuries both JFK and the governor sustained.
The only way JFK would have physically reacted the way he did was if he was shot from behind. He could not have been shot from the front or the right side.
Every major conspiracy theory says he was shot from the front or his right side and this is physically (as in the study of physics) impossible and would not explain the injuries both JFK and the governor sustained.
JumpJeff84
Member
Yeah where did this belief that something that's natural isn't harmful? Motherfucker molten lava is natural, but that shit'll still kill you. Poisonous mushrooms are natural, put them on your fuckin' pizza.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
so basically they are falling for a sticker on a fruit and thinking they are getting something more healthy than non organic? I always ignored it because it seemed to be a buzzword type deal.
Now, I get the premise of this thread, and things like the association between the left and homeopathic medicine/the anti-vaccination movement are pretty clear, but let's not pretend for a minute that this is something as strongly associated with the new left as global warming is with the new right. Anti-scientific notions are fundamental to buying in to the agenda of modern neoconservatism, whereas you don't have to believe that dandelions have healing powers to think that taxes need to go up. The family values feeding frenzy variety of conservatism that defines the Republicans and an increasingly large number of right-authoritarian parties worldwide has constructed an anti-scientific reality that is wholly fundamental to justifying its policies.
As for anti-nuclear having a left-wing association, I think this'd be pretty difficult to prove. I think that the anti-nuclear interest overlaps heavily with the anti-alternative fuel interest, which is almost exclusively the domain of the right. If you include Japan, it becomes difficult to make any correlation at all between anti-nuclear (energy) beliefs and political leanings.
The other issue that I believe is more contentious than it looks is the 9/11 truther thing. It represents the problem with a one-dimensional spectrum as the association between this and libertarians is abundantly clear but saying that there's an association between it and economic viewpoints is downright nonsensical. Truthfully, I think this issue is a non-starter anyway; (correctly) believing that the government is a miserable little pile of secrets is bound to have consequences, and this is still a whole lot better than the alternative of a population that is too accepting of what the government says.
As for anti-nuclear having a left-wing association, I think this'd be pretty difficult to prove. I think that the anti-nuclear interest overlaps heavily with the anti-alternative fuel interest, which is almost exclusively the domain of the right. If you include Japan, it becomes difficult to make any correlation at all between anti-nuclear (energy) beliefs and political leanings.
The other issue that I believe is more contentious than it looks is the 9/11 truther thing. It represents the problem with a one-dimensional spectrum as the association between this and libertarians is abundantly clear but saying that there's an association between it and economic viewpoints is downright nonsensical. Truthfully, I think this issue is a non-starter anyway; (correctly) believing that the government is a miserable little pile of secrets is bound to have consequences, and this is still a whole lot better than the alternative of a population that is too accepting of what the government says.
This is absolutely not true. For starters, here's a study that puts the sweet spot at vegetarianism or pescetarian diets. I implore you to do your own research if you still don't find this convincing.
entremet
Member
I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but wasn't there a book called The China Study, which proved that vegetarian diets have a correlation with longer and healthier spans?
Many of the supposed sins from Monsanto are either wholly made up or hugely distorted (e.g. the "suing farmers who had some seeds blow on their farm" story, or "terminator seeds" myth).
That isn't to say that Monsanto has never done anything wrong, but the left tends to demonize Monsanto in the same way that libertarians demonize the government.
squarerootofpie
Neo Member
My mum is one of those "anti wifi" people. Consistently gets upset over me sleeping with my phone in the room, or leaving my laptop/ TV on near me. It's so ridiculous, because you can;'t walk around all day with wifi everywhere and suddenly "get affected" when it suits you.
However, I wonder what you guys think about vaccines that seem kind of purposeless? I was told I HAD to take a flu jab and ended up having relatively adverse reactions to it later on in life, despite it being a minority of peopleaccording to my doctor, is still pretty messed up considering it's just the flu and there's not really much need for it? (Don't get me wrong though, vaccines that protect you against tetanus, chicken pox, polio and all that definitely need to be implemented, parents who do otherwise are just complete idiots).
I also wonder whether most people actually just hate the idea of a GMO or more so because the companies that own them/ disperse them etc. are awful?
EDIT: Ok kind of realise that people already mentioned the whole monsanto thing and people's perception of GMOs due to the company
However, I wonder what you guys think about vaccines that seem kind of purposeless? I was told I HAD to take a flu jab and ended up having relatively adverse reactions to it later on in life, despite it being a minority of peopleaccording to my doctor, is still pretty messed up considering it's just the flu and there's not really much need for it? (Don't get me wrong though, vaccines that protect you against tetanus, chicken pox, polio and all that definitely need to be implemented, parents who do otherwise are just complete idiots).
I also wonder whether most people actually just hate the idea of a GMO or more so because the companies that own them/ disperse them etc. are awful?
EDIT: Ok kind of realise that people already mentioned the whole monsanto thing and people's perception of GMOs due to the company
Yeah the anti-vaccine community seems to be much more left leaning, except of course the "pray the disease away" crowd. I've heard so many unsubstained claims that were not even close to being true or even proven such as the flu vaccine giving you Alzheimer's to Whopping Cough vaccine cauing SIDS. I'm not talking religious fundamentalists either. I'm talking leftists, mostly hippies.
Lone Wolf
Member
This link contains info about vegan diets, along with 2 links about the China study
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/undefined/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
speculawyer
Member
Sad to hear about that fluoridation issue in Portland. That is sad. I think that is mainly a right-wing meme but perhaps it has grow on the left.
Anti-vaccine is definitely on the left. In particular, Bill Maher is a complete idiot on this topic. But it is on the right too. Fortunately, I'm not aware of any people on the left who hold office that advocate an anti-vacc position.
9/11 truthers is tricky . . . this "more than half of liberals believe that Bush knew." can be quite misleading. Bush literally received a warning saying "Bin Laden determined to attack America", so he literally did know of their general intent to attack and that is what a lot of those people saying "Bush knew" may be referring to . . . accurately. But whether Bush know about the specific plans for the specific 9/11 attack . . . I think that is only a tiny percent of people on both the left and the right.
Other left anti-scientific beliefs:
-Believe in organic food being better (It is probably better for the farm workers who get exposed to less pesticides)
-Anti-GMO sentiment.
-A lot of the shit Oprah has spewed over the years
-A lot of newage superstitious nonsense (Astrology, palm-readings, believe to make it happen, etc.)
-A fair amount of alternative medicine quackery.
-Some anti-nuclear power sentiment (Although this is quite split lately . . . a lot of climate change people are quite pro-nuclear)
All that said . . . I think the right is FAR more anti-science. Evolution denial, confused views of the female reproductive system, climate change denial, explicitly forbidding the government to study gun deaths, etc.
That study was so flawed that it's so disappointing to see it come up so often.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
balladofwindfishes
Member
My mom is ultra liberal, but her beliefs on GMOs are surprising. I think she must have watched some crazy documentary or something that set her opinions.
I think you'd find that almost all of us responding to this thread self identify as liberals. I identify as such, at least. The goal is definitely not to create a "both sides are equally bad" false equivalence.
But I would say this: precisely because I am a liberal, I am often much more concerned with anti-scientific beliefs that propagate amongst liberal people than amongst conservative people. The liberals who hold these anti-scientific beliefs represent me, in a vague but real way.
Alex Jones is more specifically right wing I think, but there are plenty of left wing truthers too. If you check out Democratic underground they've got their own mostly quarantined group of truthers if you want an idea of the left wing version.
Lone Wolf
Member
I will have to read that study thoroughly, as it is not a friendly, quick read, but I have done my own research, and the evidence shows that humans are omnivores, and meat is essential for a complete diet. This is fact. Humans are omnivores, and benefit from a diet low in carbs and high in animal fat.
entremet
Member
Holy crap that's a long take down. I'll read it later with a more critical eye. She seems to have detailed notes and sources, which is a good sign.
I thought The China Study was one of the most detailed nutritional studies.
That we're all born equal or that some people can't be objectively better than others. I'm sure it was meant as just as a rights thing originally, where it' needs to be true....but otherwise, it's not.
I was born with Muscular Dystrophy. I am pretty damned sure most of you were born physically superior to me. I am physically defective.
I was born with Muscular Dystrophy. I am pretty damned sure most of you were born physically superior to me. I am physically defective.
squarerootofpie
Neo Member
Idk, I think the main issue lies within water tables and potentially damaging water supplies through repetitive (and over the top) usage? I lived in a little town whos main income was farming and they all used ridiculous amounts of pesticides over the years, so the town did a water survey that ended up showing a large amount of pesticides in the water.
People on the left, like libertarians, are often put in the position of being a counterweight due to being almost completely unrepresented in public political discourse.
I'm not convinced it's a great example. The body of work on nature versus nurture is too contentious for any claim staked to be particularly accurate or scientific. You'd therefore need to include literally anyone who uses the expression "it's human nature", as well as those who believe gay people can be fixed or whatever and any number of the beliefs that ultimately trace back to people taking an unscientific stand on a scientific debate.
The ubiquity of unscientific beliefs on the opinion of nature versus nurture is near-total and defines so many different issues.
Even in this discussion, I've had people say Monsanto is awful. I will ask why.
The responses are nearly always some version of the story that Monsanto sued a farmer because a few seeds blew in to his lawn, which is almost entirely a fabrication. I will tell them so. Some will also bring up terminator seeds, which Monsanto never seriously pursued and were never brought to market.
At that point, most will say, "I'm simply not comfortable with a huge company like that owning patents on things people eat."
Which is the sort of gut feeling that most of these anti-scientific beliefs boil down to. If you could pin down a specific anti-climate-change denier and show them all the facts, systematically shooting down all their false arguments, you'd find they eventually resort to "I guess I'm just not comfortable with the government intervening in private affairs on a scope of this magnitude."
Both that argument and the argument about patenting seeds are conversations we can have, but people take these gut feelings and build elaborate conspiracies on top of them.
entremet
Member
Portland dentists must be loving this.
The China Study is very heavily disputed. I'm no expert, but this series of posts is a widely-cited rebuke.
It isn't about teeth being "clean" as it is to have passive re-mineralization whenever you drink water to prevent damage from teeth when they aren't "clean".
I think it is also mistaken to think of cavities as an issue of teeth-cleanliness, when it is just as much an issue of PH levels of the mouth and saliva.
However, that is a tough call, because the effect seems to be very marginal, and works for reasons that aren't quite the same reasons people assumed at the time of first implementation.
SteveWinwood
Member
its a conspiracy from big dentistry
I've seen a lot of Libertarians with anti-fluoridation and 9/11 truther views. Not sure if they're more left than right, but I tend to consider them more right. A lot of the Libertarian positions are conspiracy leaning though.
I've witnessed the anti vaccine movement in the left. It's very disturbing.
There's also the GMO movement, which is largely not based on science.
I've witnessed the anti vaccine movement in the left. It's very disturbing.
There's also the GMO movement, which is largely not based on science.
Our water is stored in open air reservoirs and has animal shit and piss in it.
Sinfamy
Member
If they existed, couldn't you just buy Fluoride infused water bottles?
I just don't see why the water supply has to have extra attributes aside from hydration.
lol, the myth that truly won't die
The problems of renewable energies are ignored by many self-identified left-leaning people. I am not saying that renewable energy technologies are not the way to go, just that a lot of people don't (want to) understand the severity of some technological obstacles.
squarerootofpie
Neo Member
Yeah that's a really good point. I guess at the end of the day there's a large instinct to just go with what your gut tells you is right, without actually analysing the reasons something is upsetting you.
As you said, it's a lot less productive than actually speaking about the matters at hand, as it's frustratingly distracting from the real discussion that could be happening (whilst being productive too).
Fenderputty
Banned
My brother in law has been close to falling over the deep edge multiple times. Including anti-vaccination. Though they finally decided to give in there. He's definitely anti-GMO and anti Nuclear power. I have a hard time taking to him about stuff. Like he's a vegan because he hates the meat industry complex but doesn't support the development of artificial meat because of nature blah blah.
This is my brother in law.
This is my brother in law.
- Status