Liberals Are Anti-Science Too

'Cognitive creationists' and fuzzy environmentalists abound on the left

The right's troubled relationship with science is well documented, but what about the left's?

Liberal-leaners have their own set of anti-science beliefs on a par with creationism, writes Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and popular figure on the smart set lecture circuit, in Scientific American.

One example: "cognitive creationism." That's the name Shermer gives to the idea that human character and intelligence are shaped entirely by nurture, not by nature.

"Belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals," writes Shermer. He points to groups such as the "Orwellian-named" Science for the People, which aims to combat the idea that men and women might have different brains (just for example).

Another area where liberal sacredness rears its head is the environment, says Shermer:

"Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food."

Via Scientific American.

Do you agree with Shermer that the anti-science left is a problem?

[twinertia]

Those fools are laughed at by BOTH sides.

[hwyangel]

Science never was the problem, just a way to deflect attention away from the problem. If science was ever a determining factor then abortion would be illegal and creationism would be taught in school.

[Zazziness]

You do know there is absolutely no science behind creationism, right?

[dances-weebles]

i'm not sure where you get this stuff, angel, but keep it coming. it's hilarious.

[hwyangel]

@Zazziness

Hydroplate Theory

Biogenisis

Geocentrism

neuroscience

Paleontology

To name a few..

[Mogal]

@hwyangel Lol, paleontology?
Really?

[Zazziness]

@hwyangel Throwing around random words does not make for proof. For instance, neuroscience means only "the science of the brain." It does nothing to back up creationism. If you meant neurotheology, then yes, that is an interesting field of research but it still does not have anything to do with creationism.

[Zazziness]

Malarky. Science tells us we need a suitable environment to survive.(Common sense tells us that, too.) It is not foolish or anti-science to want to pass a suitable environment down to the next generation -- it is a survival trait of benefit to our species (and many others).
As for nature vs nurture? I've never read anyone debate it in general and certainly not to the extent broad generalizations could be made about the political leanings of those involved. I would say a scientist claiming women's brains make them more inclined to dusting than men would need to have good data to back that up but then every scientific claim needs data to back it up.

[Zazziness]

"Science for the People" was written in 1972. Perhaps it might be more relevant if citations were from this century.

[PoliticalSpice]

There are differences in the femal brain. No one denies this. Indeed a very good book by that very name, written by a women MD describes it. Even without a book, does any one deny they love to shop? As to dust, I can not say, but my current gf is the first that can enjoy sitting around my apartment without starting to clean it up. A pleasure, because once they start to clean they also start to complain about the mess.

And the idea that it is unscientific to think we need clear air or water is nonsense. The propenet of this theory should drink a glass of water mixed with cyanide or breath air with cunide gas and test his theory that having clean air or water is not required.

[Mogal]

Um, I HATE to dust or clean.

[Zazziness]

@Mogal lol. I didn't say we *do* like to dust more than men. Only that if a scientist claimed that was a verifiable gender difference, he or she would need to present data to back up that claim.

[VVP]

Never heard of em, Not really compelled to care. Theres too many vapid "pro science" zealots that the anti science position is of nominal concern.

I would state, at least with the Tabula Rasa thought, there is a shred of plausibility, as when it comes to matters of nature vs nurture, One could theorize that even before birth people "experience" things that influence their actions and that it is simply not possible for a blank slate to exist. However there is ample data to refute this such as studies on separated twins.

It basically borders into a philosophical debate as to when does the influence of experiences begin shaping us as we simply cannot know for a fact.

[Real4WheelDrv]

sUnfortunately that also feeds into the "when does life and when does human thought begin" debate, which is a much more vocal sticking point for both sides.

[stepped_in_it]

"Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food."
Are "we" saying conservatives place the need/want for sex above their surrounding environment.....sounds a little cesspool-ish to me!

[dances-weebles]

no... that's not what has been said. read it again.'conservatives' believe that sex should be pure and only should happen within a 'marriage relationship'... they even go so far as to try to say who can and can't have sex like it makes some sort of difference to the world. not only that, but if you haven't heard them ranting on and on about how the purpose of sex/marriage is procreation, then you haven't been paying attention. not only that, but it does seem to be that it's mostly the religious conservatives who keep screaming about there being some 'moral' connection between sex, marriage, and procreation

now, that's not to say that many liberals don't follow the notion that sex is somehow a 'sacred union' between a man and a woman, but it does seem more unusual.

[TheJimmy]

There are very few things more important in this world than hot chicks and money.

[stepped_in_it]

@dances-weebles Ohh, just having a little fun with "that" statement!
As for "them ranting on and on about how the purpose of sex/marriage is procreation".... yes, I've heard them "ranting" that! Makes me understand why many conservatives have issues later in life with both young girls and boys and why conservatives wives hang their panties on "others" bedposts! LOL.
I always considered marriage a bond, a union of "back to back" against the cruel world and sex to be more recreation versus procreation....HMM....maybe that's why I don't have any kids, I never took sex to seriously.

[stepped_in_it]

@TheJimmy And not necessarily in that order!

[Tralee]

@stepped_in_it LOL - I have never seen such a load of liberal dog doo in my life. Love it when libs. get on and obsess about the sex lives of conservatives, really, we aren't at all like the old TV show Dallas, truly, we aren't. I see, you "never took sex to (should be too but what the heck the rest of the statement is also incorrect) seriously." Just as well, you probably weren't all that good at it anyhow, glad to hear you didn't procreate though, thanks. Now, this lovely conservative lady, married to a handsome and successful conservative man, has been married for almost 45 years, never needed or wanted to stray once, nor did my hubby, too bad you seem to get your facts from the back of a cereal box. But, did enjoy the laugh and you definitely DID step in it with this one.

[Fitz]

People should have enough respect for other people's beliefs.

[Mercury34]

The Anti-Science Left is just as big of a problem as the Anti-Science Right. While the Anti-Science Right is mostly about creationism and global warming conspiracy theories,the Anti-Science Left is mostly about enviornmental extremism(Voluntary Human Extinction Movement anyone?) and vaccine denialism.

[Zazziness]

No sane person, left or right, is part of a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and if there was science backing up concern over vaccines, instead of just Jenny McCarthy, then you would see more people being concerned. See, that's the thing with science. It requires proof.

[Real4WheelDrv]

On most issues I lean conservative, but I'm very liberal in many ways. I believe global warming is real, I'm also convinced humans play a part in it...how much of one I can't say. I care about our environment and acknowledge we are killing ourselves off...but i'm also practical about it. We can't prevent clear cutting rainforests cause the people who LIVE there need the land to make money...we can't prevent poaching because there are too many people who want expensive things and/or parts for folk medicine. We can't prevent overfishing because we're gluttons, etc. We just don't have the science to solve the problems we've created, and every year that passes things will just get worse.

[RobertJHarsh]

Science is like AIDS and Cancer, both are political issues and neither will be cured until they stop being political issues. Both the left (crazy environmental wackos) and the right (earth in 6000 years old). Both sides are abusing science for their own political gains.

[Russell797]

I couldn't disagree more. Science is not political. AIDS, Cancer, AGW, you name it....there is the science and then there is the politicization of the science. Two different things. Anthropogenic global warming is not political, the question of what to do about it if anything is political.

[XLP]

This article was intended to probably incite this, but... I don't mean to be insulting. But, Liberals/Progressives/Democrat s are a sort of personality type. I would argue that it is a condition. They fail to see important cause and effect relationships. Science is more complicated than events connected to historical facts; like evolution vs. religion and so on. The important thing is most can’t see past 1st or 2nd order effects. This is significant to the problems they cause. I really don’t intend on being insulting. But it is like a dog being afraid of a vacuum cleaner. It is not going to hurt them, but the dog is certain it will. So it reacts according to its emotion. Or a dog drinking sweet anti-freeze - It is sweet so it must be good to eat, and it kills the animal.

[DARSB]

Science is hard, and it's easy to give in to the temptation to cherry pick bits to support an agenda. But science doesn't care much for agendas, eg, "legitimate rape" or " being gay is a choice" or " nuclear energy is safe and clean."

Perhaps that's why the NRA has suppressed research into gun violence and the Family Research Council never seems to do any research

[BelinKS]

I agree with twinertia. They are laughed at by both sides. The human mind is genetics combined with how you raise a child. The proof in point is my son. I reared him, his father nowhere in sight, yet my son has a tendency to act like his father. Same temperament, demeanor, walk and voice. When he starts to get angry like his father, I have to steer him to something else. When he's full blown mad, it's hard to tell the difference between the two. All the same actions.
Also, republicans stance on some things come from their religious beliefs. I have a neighbor who moved here from California when her husband was transferred. She worships nature and the sun is god. When I take my child to school she is outside in her front yard worshipping the sun as it rises. She is a far left liberal. She believes all life should be respected. Grass, trees, rocks ect, except for unborn babies. She is a staunch supporter of abortion. How does that make sense? Sometimes I wonder if she's inside crying when her husband mows the lawn? She refused to be outside when he is mowing. I would also love for her to believe in deodorant. She says that is just the natural musk of a human. Her musk keeps me standing feet away when speaking with her. I never bring up her beliefs or judge her. I just asked her one day, since she worships nature, what her position on abortion was. She told me and I said ok, just something else we'll have to agree to disagree about. We get along fine. I'm a Christian, but I respect other people's choices when it comes to that. The abortion thing does bug me when I have seen her cry because a flower bush died.

[Zazziness]

"She is a staunch supporter of abortion."
No one is a staunch supporter of abortion. Most people are staunch supporters of a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. Just sayin'.

[BelinKS]

@Zazziness
I'm just repeating what she said. Staunch is not a word I would usually use, but that is the way she said it. But then against she's a fruit basket.

[Zazziness]

@BelinKS She probably doesn't debate the issue much. If she did, she'd have found out the hard way how important it is to be precise on this issue. Lots of quicksand on either side of the path.

[BelinKS]

@Zazziness
Yes there is, but I did point out she is a fruit basket.

[SomethinsFishy]

One of the HUGE problems in this country is that everyone likes to stereotype, to cubbyhole, to hang a label on anyone. Not everyone fits into these cookie-cutter molds, folks. It's not nice to generalize!

[harold_lloyd]

This was written by, and misunderstood by, people who don't really understand science.
Science is a way of thinking.
Science is not Truth.
Science just is a systematic method for approaching objective reality ever more closely.
The purpose of science is to be able to predict the future.
If your belief system isn't comfortable with that, I don't mind, but I have found that science and the scientific method work pretty well.

[Waynestew]

This dude is making a bit of a stretch. Tree huggers are ridiculous but not anti- science.

[DogLady_1]

Personally, I believe in the purity and sanctity of air, water, food AND sex... all are designed by God to provide pleasure, comfort and existence. Oh, and I am a serious science buff.... I don't believe you have to be one or the other... despite the popular rhetoric to the contrary, most of our finest and genious scientists are/were believers of God.

[kirbstomp1]

Its funny that when you actually study science open minded, you don't need faith to come to a conclusion. Its there in front of your face.

[Grubby]

So, what are you implying? Stupid article.

[AundriaP]

I believe in God. And that's not political.

[stephen]

lab animals has a fuction.