Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Bernie's Green New Deal

  1. #41

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    wait wut?
    I think what he meant was "...not as prominent ideologically as blood purity and Jewish subversion myths". At least I hope that's what he meant.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsumoto View Post
    In terms of climate research, what ideological blindspot could a liberal have that a conservative wouldn't, though?
    I wouldn't know. Like most people, I don't know much about climate research. To what degree (if any) it has made a difference, I also don't know, but it can't be good for science when one's beliefs on the issue have become a matter of identity, as it seems to have in the US. It certainly hasn't been good for doing anything about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsumoto View Post
    Is the issue really that pronounced that people are justified in their distrust of academia just because it happens to be dominated by liberals?
    I can make logical arguments for distrusting nearly everything produced by sociology and the majority of what is produced by social psychology, and whatever this is:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Abstract: The literature suggests that community-based participatory research holds the potential to democratize and decolonize knowledge production by engaging communities and citizens in the research enterprise. Yet this approach, and its associated claims, remain under theorized, particularly as to how power circulates between and among academic and community knowledge work/ers. This paper puts forth a postcolonial analysis of participatory techniques that sustain academe’s epistemic privilege through producing, subordinating and assimilating difference; claiming authenticity and voice; and dislocating collaborative knowledge work from the historical, political, social and embodied conditions in which it unfolds. Postcolonial readings of community-based participatory action research offer a powerful theoretical framework for interrogating the divide between the discursive claims and material practices that undermine this democratic project. Drawing on critical reflections on two community-based participatory action research projects, this paper offers modest proposals toward (re)placing community-based knowledge work/ers in space, time and bodies. Although this paper presents a critique of community-based participatory action research, it is not in pursuit of revealing “bad” participatory praxis or recuperating a better practice, but rather seeks to open up dialogue on the circulation of power in the campus/community encounter.
    A relevant example:

    At the back of a small room at Coogee Beach, Sydney, I sat watching as a psychologist I had never heard of paced the room gesticulating. His voice was loud. Over six feet tall, his presence was imposing. It was Lee Jussim. He had come to the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology to talk about left-wing bias in social psychology.

    Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths. Because of this, he said, the field was riddled with flaky research and questionable theories.

    Jussim’s talk began with one of the most egregious examples of bias in recent years. He drew the audience’s attention to the paper: “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax.” The study was led by Stephan Lewandowsky, and published in Psychological Science in 2013. The paper argued that those who believed that the moon landing was a hoax also believed that climate science was a fraud. The abstract stated:

    We…show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings above and beyond commitment to laissez-faire free markets. This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.

    After describing the study and reading the abstract, Jussim paused. Something big was coming.

    “But out of 1145 participants, only ten agreed that the moon landing was a hoax!” he said. “Of the study’s participants, 97.8% who thought that climate science was a hoax, did not think that the moon landing also a hoax.”

    His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.

    While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.
    If you've heard of the replication crisis, it's because Lee Jussim exposed it. Most of the fundamental textbook concepts in social psychology turned out to be BS (a general audience article he wrote on the topic).

    Lack of viewpoint diversity is certainly a problem, but to be clear, I'm not arguing climate science has the same type of issues as sociology or social psychology. I doubt the same type of personalities tend to go into climate science, and like I said, I don't know much about it, but then neither do most people who have strong opinions on it one way or the other. Working in academia, I happen to be in a better position than most to be able to assess what is or isn't a reasonable level of skepticism on a certain issue. It's a problem that it's a partisan issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #43

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeft View Post
    I've never understood climate change denial. How do you get to the point where you say, "Tens of thousands of eminent, reputable scientists with their peer reviewed research are all wrong and the bloke on YouTube wearing the tin foil hat is obviously right"?
    As a biochemist I've gone over the science and there is no way to deny CO2 (and MH4, H20) adds to climate change (published over 100 years ago). However I've asked colleagues and many just know the theory and haven't looked into it very much because it's not their field (most biologists aren't educated in the hard science of infrared absorption), and they're focusing on writing grants, teaching, etc. The major problem is there isn't a predictive model that works. They predict it'll increase X over Y time and it increases Z. This is opposed to say gravity which we can predict and see its affects, always 9.8 m/s2. Also, depending on what field you're in and what numbers/papers/methods you use the climate started warming in the 1650's then when the Industrial Revolution started (causing CO2) and thermometers were used, it looks like that is the only culprit, but you always need a baseline before a measurement or else you can't be sure Y is a result of X. If you subscribe to the pro-hockey stick method, it looks like 1850 temperature started going up. If you don't, it looks like the temperature increase per year is the same as before the IR as after.

    Also, only scientists that are more dramatic in their hypothesis get funding. It's like before marijuana was as acceptable as it now is, 20+ years ago you could only get funding to show cannabis is dangerous/bad/whatever. If you wanted funding to do the opposite or just be as neutral as possible, no grant money for you.

    EDIT: I've been on "pro" GW/CC forums, and they are some of the most viscous forums I've ever been on. Asking them to explain their positions is near a banable offense (not really, but don't expect anything but vitriol from them).
    Last edited by NorthernXY; August 23, 2019 at 09:34 PM.

  4. #44
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,352
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I think what he meant was "...not as prominent ideologically as blood purity and Jewish subversion myths". At least I hope that's what he meant.
    Yes but whose ideology does he think he’s talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernXY View Post
    As a biochemist I've gone over the science and there is no way to deny CO
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernXY View Post
    2 (and MH4, H20) adds to climate change (published over 100 years ago). However I've asked colleagues and many just know the theory and haven't looked into it very much because it's not their field (most biologists aren't educated in the hard science of infrared absorption), and they're focusing on writing grants, teaching, etc. The major problem is there isn't a predictive model that works. They predict it'll increase X over Y time and it increases Z. This is opposed to say gravity which we can predict and see its affects, always 9.8 m/s2. Also, depending on what field you're in and what numbers/papers/methods you use the climate started warming in the 1650's then when the Industrial Revolution started (causing CO2) and thermometers were used, it looks like that is the only culprit, but you always need a baseline before a measurement or else you can't be sure Y is a result of X. If you subscribe to the pro-hockey stick method, it looks like 1850 temperature started going up. If you don't, it looks like the temperature increase per year is the same as before the IR as after.

    Also, only scientists that are more dramatic in their hypothesis get funding. It's like before marijuana was as acceptable as it now is, 20+ years ago you could only get funding to show cannabis is dangerous/bad/whatever. If you wanted funding to do the opposite or just be as neutral as possible, no grant money for you.

    EDIT: I've been on "pro" GW/CC forums, and they are some of the most viscous forums I've ever been on. Asking them to explain their positions is near a banable offense (not really, but don't expect anything but vitriol from them).


    My heart sank reading this. It’s depressing but true. A close relative of mine was all set to become a full time researcher in biomedical science in which she got a first class honours, however once she found out how corrupt the medical industry was she quit. Research that showed results benefitting corporations and big pharma got more funding. It was incredibly ethical.

    I’ve spoken to her about the subject a few times actually. She didn’t want to be a lapdog being obedient to get grant money in return. She’s an annual green party voter. This is proof that belief in climate science is predicated on factors beyond, if not other than faith in academic rigour.

    I also know of this through conversations with a counsellor I know. He told something along the lines that 20 years ago in the business, a doctor wouldn’t give you anti depressants unless you had showed symptoms for about six months. Big pharma and their lobby groups got this shortened to 4, then 2 months. In 2019, it now only takes 2 weeks for a doctor to be able to diagnose you with depression. This is incredibly problematic as those who for example lost a spouse can be grieving in this time, go to a doctor and that doctor can give them tablets bought by the NHS from American pharmaceutical companies. It’s sick and academia needs to buck up it’s effing game.
    Last edited by Aexodus; August 23, 2019 at 10:34 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

  5. #45

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    I just remembered my entrance into both science and climate change. My freshman year was around the time "An Inconvenient Truth" came out and so everybody was REALLY talking about it. In my first biology class lab we had to pick a side in a debate, research it, and present our case with evidence. One option was global warming (before it was changed to climate change) real or not. The side against it was avoided like the plague, I think I took it just because I like arguing a point I don't necessarily agree with (and I was the last person to pick and naturally no one picked it).

    I forget why but the people who were to be my partners in research got to not participate because it was such a HOT issue. Being more of a historian than scientist at this point I studied climate shifts in history, solar flares, Earth tilt (remembered that ~12,000 years ago Egypt was tropical), etc. Two weeks later I gave my talk and while some of my arguments were little more than theories, my competition's supporting info was atrocious (most people's talks were horrible). Yeah they were freshmen, but nothing they brought-up I didn't have a counter-point to or even supported their argument, an was about a quarter of mine's length. I was really bad at giving talks, nerves, but I could tell by the faces on the audience most people were actually taking in what I was saying and processing it as much as their young minds could, their faces reacting to my points with general surprise or intrigue.

    If it were about any other topic, I would have won hands down, the other side was truly terrible and didn't bring up points in their own talk that I researched I knew would have hurt my side. However when it came time to vote I didn't get a single one. I could easily see everybody just felt compelled to vote for global warming because we were all freshman, didn't know anything, and that's what Al Gore was saying, also nobody wants to be different.

    My only solace was most people didn't have the courage look me in the eyes when they voted. So from the beginning I started exploring ideas that I might not have agreed with, but at least explored the validity to, something I've found that isn't very common, even in the sciences.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    "Green New Deal"



    i hope more ppl read this, too many just assume they know what is about based on the name alone
    You know you've played too much Stainless Steel when in every other mod you play you think cavalry is too weak.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Bernie's Green New Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I can make logical arguments for distrusting nearly everything produced by sociology and the majority of what is produced by social psychology, and whatever this is:

    A relevant example:

    If you've heard of the replication crisis, it's because Lee Jussim exposed it. Most of the fundamental textbook concepts in social psychology turned out to be BS (a general audience article he wrote on the topic).

    Lack of viewpoint diversity is certainly a problem, but to be clear, I'm not arguing climate science has the same type of issues as sociology or social psychology. I doubt the same type of personalities tend to go into climate science, and like I said, I don't know much about it, but then neither do most people who have strong opinions on it one way or the other. Working in academia, I happen to be in a better position than most to be able to assess what is or isn't a reasonable level of skepticism on a certain issue. It's a problem that it's a partisan issue.
    A good argument for dismissing people who claim academics have a liberal bias. The entire premise is silly when you think about it, academia should be judged on its own merit, not perceived ideological slant.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •