Why I am a conservative (Part One of Two)

[Michael Hardner]

Along with John Manley.

So, my point wasn't about Conservative liberals but conservative liberals...

[ReeferMadness]

Why am I a conservative?

I have one of two simple answers to this question (although depending on thread drift, I may offer variations on a theme).

The scientific method involves testing a hypothesis. Our civilized legal system involves the "presumption of innocence". Combining the idea of "presumed/assumed innocent" with the "scientific method" makes me a conservative.

----

In science, there is an hypothesis.

In a civilised State, if the State (through its government) accuses an individual of a crime, the basic hypothesis is that the individual is innocent. (The government is wasting its time/taxpayer money with this prosecution.)

If you want to change things, if you want to put Citizen X in prison, then the onus is on you to prove why.

Hence, I'm a conservative.

So you think that your belief in the presumption of innocence and the scientific method make you a conservative? I guess that makes about as much sense as my fondness for blueberry yogurt and my favorite color being blue makes me a rocket scientist.

You invoke science in your self-definition of conservative yet the Conservative Government is no friend of science. Just as most scientists are not conservatives.

[August1991]

So you think that your belief in the presumption of innocence and the scientific method make you a conservative? I guess that makes about as much sense as my fondness for blueberry yogurt and my favorite color being blue makes me a rocket scientist.

You invoke science in your self-definition of conservative yet the Conservative Government is no friend of science. Just as most scientists are not conservatives.

Reefer, I think you confuse a C-majuscule with a c-miniscule in the word conservative.

But leave that distinction aside and let me consider your broader point. I fear any politicization of science, and I look with great scepticism when "scientists" enter the realm of politics.

I suggest that you read this text: Michael Crichton

[ReeferMadness]

I get the difference between conservative and Conservative. However, most people who self-identify as conservatives will vote for Conservatives whether or not they bear more than a passing resemblance.

Regarding scientists and politics, I don't see why they should be any less likely or any less welcome in the realm of politics than anyone else. In fact, I would respect their opinions more because they will be more inclined than the general population to separate personal biases from objective conclusions. Which is why (in my opinion), the thinking people (or scientists) are less likely to self-identify as conservative.

Because they see what happens when people vote Conservative.

[bleeding heart]

But leave that distinction aside and let me consider your broader point. I fear any politicization of science, and I look with great scepticism when "scientists" enter the realm of politics.

Well, that's just plain weird. I don't know what exactly you think "scientists" are...but they are just people who happen to be scientists. They are as political (or apolitical) as anyone else.

Of course, per the eugenics point, science can be bad, and can be badly used.

So can (and is) law, morality, religion, militarism, economics, capitalism, socialism....

Your "scientist" distinction is quite strange.

[TimG]

Well, that's just plain weird. I don't know what exactly you think "scientists" are...but they are just people who happen to be scientists. They are as political (or apolitical) as anyone else.

Yet when people claim that scientific claims are biased because the scientists are biased they are accused of inventing conspiracy theories. Personally, I think saying that the political outlook of scientists doing the research does bias the the results is stating the obvious. Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Yet when people claim that scientific claims are biased because the scientists are biased they are accused of inventing conspiracy theories. Personally, I think saying that the political outlook of scientists doing the research does bias the the results is stating the obvious.

Fine, but that's not what was said, and so not what I was responding to.

[TimG]

Fine, but that's not what was said, and so not what I was responding to.

It provides the context which you were missing. There are many who believe that scientists are ideally supposed to be impartial but when a scientist gets involved in the political realm then they are clearly abandoning any pretense of impartiality. This is only a problem for people who hold on to the view that science is unbiased. If one recognizes reality then hearing a scientist's political views is useful information like hearing that a scientific study was funded by an oil company or a left leaning think tank. Edited November 23, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

It provides the context which you were missing. There are many who believe that scientists are ideally supposed to be impartial but when a scientist gets involved in the political realm then they are clearly abandoning any pretense of impartiality. This is only a problem for people who hold on to the view that science is unbiased. If one recognizes reality then hearing a scientist's political views is useful information like hearing that a scientific study was funded by an oil company or a left leaning think tank.

I was responding to August's remark, which wasn't about being aware of potential individual biases among scientists, but was about how he doesn't like the very idea of scientists entering politics at all.

Which, as I said, is frankly bizarre.

Evidently there's no "bias" issue with the glut of lawyers and Businesspeople entering politics....are their biases not present, and potentially problematic, as well?

That is, what I responded to had little to do with what you're saying here.

And--again--how scientists are uniquely a bad thing for politics (compared to law or business, the two surest ways inside, currently)...well, no one has offered any reason.

Edited November 23, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Jimmy Wilson]

I was responding to August's remark, which wasn't about being aware of potential individual biases among scientists, but was about how he doesn't like the very idea of scientists entering politics at all.

Which, as I said, is frankly bizarre.

Evidently there's no "bias" issue with the glut of lawyers and Businesspeople entering politics....are their biases not present, and potentially problematic, as well?

That is, what I responded to had little to do with what you're saying here.

And--again--how scientists are uniquely a bad thing for politics (compared to law or business, the two surest ways inside, currently)...well, no one has offered any reason.

Surely you're not suggesting that business people might have a pro-business bias towards corporate profitability?

Surely you're not suggesting that those politicians who might have been educated at the...I don't know.."The Calgary School"...Wouldn't be predisposed towards that economic ethos?

Because that would never happen...

[Shady]

Surely you're not suggesting that business people might have a pro-business bias towards corporate profitability?

Surely you're not suggesting that those politicians who might have been educated at the...I don't know.."The Calgary School"...Wouldn't be predisposed towards that economic ethos?

Because that would never happen...

I'm not sure what you mean Jack. What's corporate profitability? Is the opposite of that corporate unprofitability? Cause I'm thinking that wouldn't work too well.

[bleeding heart]

The idea fundamentally is questioning why scientists are uniquely bad for politics.

The only answer I've yet received is "scientists are biased!"

Evidently a weakness that the majority of politicians (coming from a law or Business background) do not share.

[Bob Macadoo]

The idea fundamentally is questioning why scientists are uniquely bad for politics.

The only answer I've yet received is "scientists are biased!"

Evidently a weakness that the majority of politicians (coming from a law or Business background) do not share.

What they mean is they trust scientists/engineers inherently. If it comes to pass that they gravitate to the political arena they will have the same level of trust as MBAs, LLBs, RT. HONs, and unfortunate as of late MDs.

You believe they will raise the group, history will tell us they get brought down.

[Michael Hardner]

Yet when people claim that scientific claims are biased because the scientists are biased they are accused of inventing conspiracy theories.

I think the question is whether their views influence their work.

Scientists, teachers and so on are professionally charged with the pursuit and communication of 'truths' so understandably people get upset if their personal views cause them to colour their professional goals.

Business people, however, are charged with pursuing business interests - so the shoe changes feet when they are in parliament and suspected of working against the best interests of the people.

So - people don't want politics to enter the 'truth business' and people don't want self-interest to enter the politics business.

[TimG]

Scientists, teachers and so on are professionally charged with the pursuit and communication of 'truths' so understandably people get upset if their personal views cause them to colour their professional goals.

The trouble is many people (including scientists) have a real problem separating "truth" from opinions so simply believing that one is speaking the truth is not evidence that there is no bias.

[Michael Hardner]

The trouble is many people (including scientists) have a real problem separating "truth" from opinions so simply believing that one is speaking the truth is not evidence that there is no bias.

There can never be 'no' bias as we are humans after all. The difference is between those who strive for objectivity, and those who strive to propagandize while telling people that thay are 'fair and balanced'.

[bleeding heart]

What they mean is they trust scientists/engineers inherently. If it comes to pass that they gravitate to the political arena they will have the same level of trust as MBAs, LLBs, RT. HONs, and unfortunate as of late MDs.

You believe they will raise the group, history will tell us they get brought down.

Sure. No problem, no issue, in other words, aside from the already-existing political ones.

[ReeferMadness]

The trouble is many people (including scientists) have a real problem separating "truth" from opinions so simply believing that one is speaking the truth is not evidence that there is no bias.

In case not everyone has picked up on it, what Tim is saying is that it's OK to ignore scientific findings where such findings might happen to be counter to one's own interest. Climate science for instance. Those climate scientists, being human, clearly have their own biases and so it's perfectly OK for Tim to listen to someone who tells him something more to his liking. His florist, for example, or maybe his plumber.

[ReeferMadness]

I think the question is whether their views influence their work.

Scientists, teachers and so on are professionally charged with the pursuit and communication of 'truths' so understandably people get upset if their personal views cause them to colour their professional goals.

Business people, however, are charged with pursuing business interests - so the shoe changes feet when they are in parliament and suspected of working against the best interests of the people.

So - people don't want politics to enter the 'truth business' and people don't want self-interest to enter the politics business.

Sorry, but this is just so ridiculous.

Yes, everyone has a bias, scientists included. However, that does not make each person's opinions equal. And it certainly shouldn't preclude scientists from entering politics.

Science has built in checks and balances to allow for bias. That's the entire basis of the scientific method (make things as objective as possible) and it's why they have something called peer review.

Now, that doesn't prevent bias from creeping in. There is bad science just as there are bad haircuts. But I'm going to keep on going to my barber to get my haircut, I'm going to keep on listening to the weatherman for weather forecasts and I'm going to keep on paying attention to science when it comes to understanding the world.

[TimG]

Tim is saying is that it's OK to ignore scientific findings where such findings might happen to be counter to one's own interest.

What I am saying is all sources of information have a bias and one must take that bias into account when assessing the information. i.e. biased sources are not necessarily wrong but they should not be immediately accepted as the one and only truth.

[TimG]

Science has built in checks and balances to allow for bias. That's the entire basis of the scientific method (make things as objective as possible) and it's why they have something called peer review.

Fine in theory but in practice peer review is often a mechanism that allows influential incumbent scientists to suppress ideas that they don't like. That is why a paradigm change in science often has to wait for the old generation with a vested interest in the current paradigm to die off. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, but this is just so ridiculous.

What's ridiculous ?

[TimG]

Yes, everyone has a bias, scientists included. However, that does not make each person's opinions equal. And it certainly shouldn't preclude scientists from entering politics.

The point that you are missing is a scientist who enters politics will find it extremely humiliating to adopt a different position should more evidence come it. It pretty much guarantees that the scientist in question will not objectively assess new scientific evidence but rather be most concerned for how the evidence supports their publicly stated positions. This often occurs without scientists going into politics but it going into politics certainly amplifies this tendency.

[dre]

It pretty much guarantees that the scientist in question will not objectively assess new scientific evidence but rather be most concerned for how the evidence supports their publicly stated positions.

Im know this does happen, but to say it "pretty much guarantees" is not true. The scientific method has components that are designed to help expose, and correct for this kind of bias. Its not a perfect system, but its the best we have and you arent providing any alternative. All you really do is whine, and alledge vast conspiracies whenever one or some scientists dont parrot your position.

[ReeferMadness]

What's ridiculous ?

Politics and truth don't need to be mutually exclusive. Nor, necessarily, do self-interest and politics (provided it's declared).