by Toni Airaksinen
- Researchers from the University of Oxford say conservative skepticism of scientific establishments is largely justified, given the prevalence of left-leaning “scholar activism” in fields like sociology and political science.
- Nathan Confas and his team argue that conservatives are primarily opposed to so-called “impact scientists” who conduct research with the explicit purpose of advancing liberal policy goals.
A new study by University of Oxford researchers suggests conservatives are right to be skeptical of scientific establishments, given the history of “scholar activism” in fields like sociology and political science.
Led by Nathan Confas, the study “Does Activism in the Social Sciences Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists?” can be found in the recent issue of the American Sociologist, a special edition dedicated to ideological diversity and conservative issues.
The study takes aim at the oft-repeated claim that conservatives distrust science because they find it threatening to their religious worldview, and the insinuation that religious conservatives align with a backwards, regressive approach towards science.
Research confirms that every decade since 1974, conservatives’ trust in scientists has decreased. But little has been done to explore why. Some suggest that conservatives are less likely to accept data that “threatens their worldview,” note Confas and his team.
But Confas told Campus Reform that this is a misguided approach. If anything, he said, published research indicates that liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discredit science if it conflicts with their world-view, citing studies such as this one and this one.
Confas and his research team propose a different explanation. They suggest that increasing levels of skepticism towards scientific institutions is partly a reaction to the politicization—namely, the liberalization—of these institutions.
The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.
“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas.
He points to the field of sociology as an example. A recent study surveying 479 sociology professors discovered that only 4 percent identify as conservative or libertarian, while 86 percent identify as liberal or left-radical.
The unstated goal of sociology, Confas suggests, “involves reorganizing society to fight inequality, oppression, poverty, hierarchy, and the like. Its ideological orientation arose out of…civil rights, feminism, Marxism, and other progressive movements.”
Most sociologists would claim, in good faith, to be objective. But emerging research suggests that the political slant in the field is corrupting objectivity, due to a variety of issues including confirmation bias and scholar-activism in the field.
“Taking the easy route isn’t something that I or my coauthors are tempted to do. We want to do our part to help correct the science,” Confas told Campus Reform.
“Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added.
The paper:
&
At last! Someone gets it!
Not that they’ll last very long…….
It’s hard not to be skeptical of the soft sciences with cranks like Chomsky running around: the Michael Mann of linguistics (and MIT is the CRU of linguistics). And he is despised in his own field. –AGF
‘…come less trustful of scientists since the 1970s’ Back in the 70’s when I was in collage I took a marketing course. That was an eye opener and why I became skeptical of “scientific studies”. Example: Create a buss. “Scientific studies” says coffee is bad. The grand statement would be: “Scientific studies” by, insert government agency name, says coffee is bad. Few months later do survey about “scientific study” If favorable, start marketing to get more people drink tee begins.
1. Liberal, Libertarian, and even Socialist skepticism of scholar activism is also justified. Because their record of failure is astounding and scary. Baffles me why mugs keep coming back for more.
2.
I’ve also become less trustful of scientists. But for different reasons: because climate activists and the like threaten the sanity and prosperity of humanity.
This Confas guy is interesting, a cat among the pigeons, take this pigeon comment from an online forum:
“Do you think the Jews will be able to infiltrate China and rule in alliance with treasonous native elites, like they have in the West?
Frankly, I think the only hope for a dignified future for the human race is if the Chinese manage to supplant the Jews as the world’s most influential ethnic group.”
Nasty antisemitism, from here:
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/03/19/reply-to-nathan-cofnass-review-of-the-culture-of-critique/
You can consider one way to deal with this issue is to reflect on the fact that ‘social’ areas seek to add science to their name, while science areas never seek to add ‘social’ to themselves. This one-way street is rather telling.
Trust has been declining since 1974? And in all the thousands of studies and surveys done in that time nobody thought to ask for more detail? Can we spell “confirmation bias”?
Sociology is biased?!!? Consider my mind blown. I never would have guessed.
So Michael Mann is an “impact scientist.” I guess I already concluded that but I did not have a name for it. Thanks.
…or maybe “agenda impact scientist”
I have other names for him – but I promised I would behave.
Any ‘establishment’ is only as respected as those who populate it – and once they’ve been corrupted – in most modern cases, by progressives – they are purely and simply no longer trustworthy.
Once you develop an ability to spot confirmation bias you see it absolutely everywhere!
What is a “conservative”?
In the old days, what we call a conservative now would have been known as a liberal or classic liberal. They tend to be very independent and need definitive proof of harm before any restriction on individuals will be considered. They tend to be very aware of cause and effect and like to trace events back to their root causes. In American usage it tends to be those who consider the words and structures of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to be literal and a prescription on how we should interact with government.
I have a feeling that whole books could be written on this subject and I am not the one to do so.
I am not skeptical of science just the poor saps who perform it.
I’m not skeptical of la science I just would like to met her first.
This:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507158396051927041
There’s a lot of confusion introduced by this article regarding what is considered “left”. So much of it is based on post-modernist nostrums and identity politics. Science has never been “neutral” in any case. The central issue, as the philosopher Hegel once commented, is not to describe what is happening, but to determine what is “true in happenings”. This aphorism certainly applies to any current discussion of climate.
The political corruption of the social sciences explains very well why only 4% of socio profs are conservative and 86 percent are liberal progressives. Guess what the other 10% are! I would venture a hunch that the only quality, objective work that can be done in this long time broken science is by the 4%. The rest are a consensus of progressives and further left. Sounds familiar -96% to 4%.
Bravo to the Oxford researchers. I’m happy to hear socio’s not 100% broken as I thought. Also maybe there are more worthy honest researchers at what I thought was a broken university, like the once great Harvard and the California greats of once upon a time.