The War On Science Isn’t Coming From The Right

Loading

We’ve been told conservatives don’t believe in science and that there’s a “Republican war on science.” 

But John Tierney, who’s written about science for The New York Times for 25 years and now writes for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, told me in my latest online video, “The real war on science is the one from the left.”



Really? Conservatives are more likely to be creationists — denying evolution.

“Right,” says Tierney. “But creationism doesn’t affect the way science is done.”

What about President George W. Bush banning government funding of stem cell research?

“He didn’t stop stem cell research,” Tierney reminds me. “The government wouldn’t fund it. It turned out that it really didn’t matter much.” Private funding continued and, so far, has not discovered much.

“People talk about this Republican war on science, but if you look around, my question is, where are the casualties? What scientists lost their jobs?” asks Tierney. “I can’t find examples where the right wing stopped the progress of science, whereas you can look on the left and you see so many areas that are taboo to research.”

Some research on genetically modified foods became taboo because of protests from the left. That may have prevented a second Green Revolution to feed Africa.

Scientists can’t even talk about whether genes affect intelligence without being threatened by the left. Political scientists who continued to investigate the topic are screamed at on college campuses, the way Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve,” has been.

Tierney adds, “The federal government stopped funding IQ research decades ago.”

Likewise, researching gender differences is dangerous to your career.

“You can’t talk about sexual differences between men and women, (although) it’s OK if they favor women,” laughs Tierney. “You can say men are more likely to commit crimes, but you can’t suggest that there might be some sexual difference that might predispose men to be more interested in a topic.”

Google fired engineer James Damore merely for suggesting that sex differences might explain why more men choose to work in tech.

“Damore just pointed out very basic scientific research about differences between the sexes,” argues Tierney. “The experts in this, as soon as he published that memo, said, yes, he basically got the science right.”

It’s not as if women aren’t doing well in life, says Tierney.

In universities, “women dominate virtually every extracurricular activity, but all the focus has been: ‘Why aren’t there more women physicists and mathematicians, and of course in the sports area, too?'” says Tierney. “There’s this idea that they’re being discriminated against, (but) there have been enormous studies of who gets grants, who gets tenure, who gets interviews for jobs, and women get preference.”

However, one group does get discriminated against in colleges: conservatives.

“In the social sciences, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least eight to one. In fields like sociology it’s 44 to one. Students are more likely to be taught in sociology by a Marxist than by a Republican,” says Tierney. “It’s gotten worse and worse.”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/heres-why-an-article-about-feminist-glaciology-is-still-the-top-read-paper-in-a-major-geography-journal
Feminists are far to the Left.
This one’s “scientific” research is widely read as a perfect example of gobbletygook:

Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research,” drew criticisms from columnists and peers who called the article “gibberish” and others who initially dismissed it as a hoax.

The article argues that most research in glaciology — the study of glaciers — “stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics,” and that the scientific understanding of glaciers has ignored feminist perspectives.

Complete rot!
Every word.
But he is a published “scientist!” (Yes, males can be feminists.)
This is how the Left destroys science.
By dilution of it with idiocy.

Simply put, the left has replaced science with ideology. Sometimes the two can almost intersect and, as the Nazis did, they can make science dance to their tune. With a few skewed graphs and some suppressed data, they can, for example, make it appear that global warming is real. However, science is reality and liberal, leftist ideology is not.

Deplorable Me. Ideology like Global Warming/Climate Change,Evolution, Etc they want to persicute skeptics like they did Galileo and Copernicas the worshipers of Gaia

$331,000 To Study Whether “Hangry” Spouses Are More Likely To Stab Voodoo Dolls

When members of Congress get hungry for pork, they gore taxpayers. When spouses get “hangry,” they stab voodoo dolls representing their partners, according to a pricey study from the National Science Foundation. And what does this mean? According to this vital and ground-breaking research, it turns out that people get prickly when they’re hungry. From the report:

Over the course of twenty-one consecutive evenings, 107 couples were given a chance to stick up to 51 pins into a voodoo doll representing their spouse.173 The pin-pushing happened in secret, away from the other partner. Participants then recorded the number of pins they poked into the dolls. Those tests revealed what may already be obvious to many couples: a spouse with low blood sugar was an angrier one, and stuck more pins in the doll (on average).

[…]

Not all academics believed the results. Two psychologists who reviewed the work suggested, “[I]t might be a big leap to interpret the results with voodoo dolls
as indicating risk for actual physical aggression against a spouse.”

Funding for the voodoo doll project came in part from National Science Foundation grant worth $331,000.
Dont give your man a pin if you are late for preparing dinner can I have300K