![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mijopo.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI had an interesting discussion on FB recently, where most of my interesting discussions occur these days in those frustratingly tiny dialogue boxes, about the vaccine-autism link. A person there claimed that "somehow, whether you believe vaccines cause autism positions you on the political right or left" and further that "it has to do with an alarming mindset that's developed among a LOT of people that the basic concepts of science -- i.e., truths are what are derived from unbiased experiments and evidence -- are in themselves a godless, communist approach that threatens faith, and is somehow conspiring against them."
But I thought about it and I noted that while I know a number of conservatives, conservatives who live up to a lot of conservative stereotypes, I've never heard any of them claim that vaccine causes autism. In fact, the only people I know who claim or who've claimed such things are better characterized as hippie-like lefties who aren't devout practitioners of religion at all. (As it happens, I know a few home schoolers who fit that description as well, defying the stereotype that home schoolers are all rigid fundamentalists who hate science.)
On the other hand, I know or have met a few climate change sceptics, and they're, to a person, conservative people. So, I think that this notion of conservatives hating mainstream science and liberals embracing it, is something of a misnomer. In fact, I think that we all are, not surprisingly, inclined to be sceptical of science when it requires us to change the way we view the world and embrace it when it confirms it. Left wingers are more likely to embrace ingesting organic substances, minimal intervention in the food chain, etc. and it's understandable why they'd be sympathetic to scepticism about vaccines as it involves utilizing a fairly highly processed substance and implementing it via a very unnatural intervention in development to prevent disease. Similarly, we can understand why conservatives who are business and free market proponents will be sceptical of science that implies the necessity of a radical change in our economic infrastructure that's unlikely to be accomplished via free market processes alone. So, I don't think that being a right winger or left winger makes us more or less inclined to embrace science. Instead, if you want to understand why or when people will be sceptical of science, just look at their web of beliefs. How easily can they accommodate the scientific claims under consideration into them? This is an old story and it has far less to do with one's political stance, there may be a secondary effect insofar as reality really does have a liberal bias, than it has to do with the way we function as knowers.
x-posted to my journal
But I thought about it and I noted that while I know a number of conservatives, conservatives who live up to a lot of conservative stereotypes, I've never heard any of them claim that vaccine causes autism. In fact, the only people I know who claim or who've claimed such things are better characterized as hippie-like lefties who aren't devout practitioners of religion at all. (As it happens, I know a few home schoolers who fit that description as well, defying the stereotype that home schoolers are all rigid fundamentalists who hate science.)
On the other hand, I know or have met a few climate change sceptics, and they're, to a person, conservative people. So, I think that this notion of conservatives hating mainstream science and liberals embracing it, is something of a misnomer. In fact, I think that we all are, not surprisingly, inclined to be sceptical of science when it requires us to change the way we view the world and embrace it when it confirms it. Left wingers are more likely to embrace ingesting organic substances, minimal intervention in the food chain, etc. and it's understandable why they'd be sympathetic to scepticism about vaccines as it involves utilizing a fairly highly processed substance and implementing it via a very unnatural intervention in development to prevent disease. Similarly, we can understand why conservatives who are business and free market proponents will be sceptical of science that implies the necessity of a radical change in our economic infrastructure that's unlikely to be accomplished via free market processes alone. So, I don't think that being a right winger or left winger makes us more or less inclined to embrace science. Instead, if you want to understand why or when people will be sceptical of science, just look at their web of beliefs. How easily can they accommodate the scientific claims under consideration into them? This is an old story and it has far less to do with one's political stance, there may be a secondary effect insofar as reality really does have a liberal bias, than it has to do with the way we function as knowers.
x-posted to my journal
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 14:06 (UTC)The autism stuff at this point has been fully discredited (to the point where the data itself is known to be fradulent) but people don't want to hear that. They want to hear "its an easy explanation for what's wrong with my kid!"
Exact same thing with the nonsense over wifi in school (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/18/wi-fi-schools.html). They've come up with a scary techno-boogeyman to explain something because its easier then looking for the real problem. (Though this one is extra ridiculous because the problem is easy: it's not hard to think of a reason why kids might feel lousy in school and miraculously heal as soon as the weekend arrives. They call it "school".)
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 15:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 15:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 14:34 (UTC)This is a mix of hyper-skepticism and ignorance that has become pathological. Add to this the blazingly fast dissemination of misinformation that validates their beliefs and you have plenty of fuel to keep it burning. Both ends of the political spectrum are guilty.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 15:37 (UTC)Yes, this is a good point. While one of the great advantages of the "information age" is that it allows us to quickly disseminate and easily access information. However, these features can be bugs when in fact those seeking to disseminate the information are far more highly motivated and they believe things that are false and dangerous but are also potentially very attractive to some subset of the population.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 17:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 14:51 (UTC)Vaccine-related pseudoscience is the bipartisan science-denial. OTOH, Lefties are just as prone to deny science when it suits them as Right-Wingers are.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 15:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 03:07 (UTC)Who do _you_ believe ?
Date: 7/1/11 14:59 (UTC)During the middle ages, many people blindly believed anything that their priest in purple robes would tell them.
Today, many non-religious people blindly believe anything that a "scientist" in a white lab coat tells them.
Certainly mankind needs to believe in something--but blind faith has _never_ been good--whether in religion or in science.
Both religion and science are ways of knowing things, and both have been manipulated by designing people to achieve their own twisted ends.
It is important to keep both eyes open and examine carefully the knowledge claims that demand your attention--and their limitations:
"trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments."
(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 23:14)
"Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow."
(Old Testament | Isaiah 50:11)
Re: Who do _you_ believe ?
Date: 7/1/11 15:06 (UTC)Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It, taught by Steven L. Goldman of Lehigh University.
http://russj.livejournal.com/58581.html
Re: Who do _you_ believe ?
Date: 7/1/11 15:33 (UTC)You insult the Medievals that way:
Date: 7/1/11 15:12 (UTC)Only in the post-Enlightenment world did clerics gain respect not accorded to other professions by virtue of being, well, clerics.
Re: Who do _you_ believe ?
Date: 7/1/11 15:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 16:17 (UTC)For the alternative medicine types this fits their world view about medicine. It does not help that many of the alternative medicine types are essentially fundamentalists, taking anecdotes and isolated studies that support their beliefs rather than actively trying to tear down their own beliefs.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 16:29 (UTC)Right, but not very many of us try to tear down our own beliefs
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 18:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 19:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 21:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 21:59 (UTC)They forget to mention the law of large numbers. If we do millions of experiments, we should expect effects that only happen (due to random circumstance) one in a million times.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 02:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 17:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 19:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 03:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/1/11 16:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 18:15 (UTC)But yes, people of all political persuasions tend to construct myths to explain their understanding of the world. Science is an attempt at an objective understanding so that those myths are no longer necessary, which is where the conflict comes in.
As far as one party or the other distrusting mainstream science, I don't think there is anything inherent in conservatism or liberalism that leads to hatred of science; I think it's in the way they're sold. Conservatives say they value individualism, that everyone should be able to decide for themselves, so when some dude with a fancy degree walks up and tells them their understanding of the world needs to change, of course there will be hostility.
Liberals (if there is one coherent philosophy among them) believe that government, or some authority, can make large systems run more smoothly. That requires experts to determine which systems are running smoothly, how they can be improved, how to implement change, etc. It makes sense that liberals would be more generally accommodating to expert consensus.
Of course, I may have just constructed my own myth.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 20:33 (UTC)I think we're in agreement for the most part but let me respond to your first paragraph. I didn't mentioned Republicans or Democrats nor did I assert any sort of "equivalence". In the last sentence I allowed that as a matter of fact it may be the case that conservatives may end up often being hostile to science more frequently. My argument, to try to be a bit clearer was that there's nothing inherent in being politically right or left that is likely to make one more or less likely to embrace science, which you seem to agree with, so, cool. Rather, what makes us less likely to embrace scientific results is the extent to which those results will conflict with the set of beliefs we already hold.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 20:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 19:41 (UTC)We are all marketing monkeys pushing the levers given to us by our evil overlords.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 20:37 (UTC)And curiously enough, the Whole Foods CEO and founder is a rabid right winger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackey_%28businessman%29, but that's a story for another day.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 21:05 (UTC)Citation needed. And not just a reference to someone else claiming that also. Some definition of what is meant by the statement would also be nice.
This is pretty much correct.
As for your other discussion, since it's actually Autism Spectrum Disorder, meaning there are multiple groups of symptoms (and causes really), it's not at all unlikely that there was something in one or several vaccines that caused one type of autism. The studies disproving that thesis that I've seen have analyzed all autisms together which would hide the link to one of them fairly effectively. And then if you consider the problem with science (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all) it becomes even muddier.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 21:17 (UTC)But, it's an interesting question, i.e., whether not reality really does have a liberal bias (and what exactly that claim amounts to.) it would make for a great discussion.
"And then if you consider the problem with science it becomes even muddier"
Oh come on, you can't just say, "oh, also, science is fucked so everything is unclear" and then just point me to an article. What gets muddier, how does it get muddier, why does it matter in this cases?
BTW, if you really do think vaccines cause autism, okay, that's not the point I was trying to make, so I'm just going to resist the urge to discuss.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 23:50 (UTC)This is a great example of people's reluctance or inability to open their minds to points of view or to give fair consideration to evidence that challenges or contradicts beliefs or values that they hold.
In a way, people who claim that the very fabric of reality validates their political opinions are not much different than religious fundamentalists who invoke divine support for their legislative and policy initiatives.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 00:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 00:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 00:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 01:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 01:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 02:36 (UTC)I don't think that, but I also don't think it's been actually proven that a particular one wasn't involved with one type of autism.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 02:51 (UTC)Right, but that's not what science typically demonstrates, i.e., that X doesn't cause Y, just look for causal/correlational links between X and Y.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 02:38 (UTC)So, you are saying that this statement is what you meant by "reality has a liberal bias"? I would still like some kind of explanation of why you think this.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/11 22:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 00:55 (UTC)If we assume that science if more likely to produce more accurate assumptions about reality than other forms of assumption-generators, and we also assume that liberals in general are more likely to accept scientific conclusions (which I believe is supported by the evidence), then this implies that it is true that "reality has a liberal bias". Or more accurately, that liberal politics have a greater bias towards reality than other forms of politics.
Of course, this is a very broad way of looking at the issue, which ignores the fact that each part of the political spectrum can be broken down into hundreds of seperate beliefs and issues, each of which may or may not be true, regardless of how relatively close or far away from reality that political position in general may be.
I personally think that many conservative views are quite accurate and superior than the equivalent liberal views, but because of certain major specific issues where conservatives tend to reject the conclusions of science in an inconsistent and frankly, reality-ignoring fashion, that makes me identify myself as more liberal leaning. However, when I have discussions with heavily liberal leaning people on some certain social issues such as feminism, I tend to get labelled a redneck conservative. I'm sure you have probably experienced the converse treatment from the far-right on various issues.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 01:02 (UTC)The method of knowledge seeking used by the vast majority of people to conclude that vaccines may cause autism is commonly known as "pulling paranoid delusions directly from my ass".
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 02:44 (UTC)I'm not sure who this "no-one" that you're referring to is, as that is actually the common assumption by the general public, as science has replaced religion in a significant number of people's belief system.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/11 03:53 (UTC)We need to distinguish science per se from "science" as a slogan. I think the left, at least in American culture, does tend to identify more strongly with "science" as a slogan. Surely there are some counter-examples, but as a rough generalization this seems to be true. But "science" as a slogan doesn't have much significant relation with science per se.
Look at, for example, the popular interest in evolutionary psychology. A lot of people will consider a support of evolutionary psychology to be an important aspect of their character, and will present this aspect in their communities, as e.g. in political debates, on forums like this, etc. But they tend not to have read any evolutionary psychology books, they almost invariably cannot even define it, let alone do they understand the debate about its place in the larger science of psychology or in the larger relation of science to things like ethics. It just sounds sciencey, and they identify with things that sound sciencey.
That we can identify clusters of political beliefs along these sorts of identifications is certainly true. But whether this has anything to do with the actual practice of science is a rather different question.