Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

This is an interesting academic exercise, but what really matters is the science itself. For example, on climate change, the "liberal" position is largely correct (though I agree that many who hold those positions do so for reasons less related to their grasp of the science than ideal) while the "conservative" position is incorrect, by and large.  


The other thing that matters a lot in American politics is that conservatives are represented by the Republican Party (and the "Tea Party") which involves a great deal of anti-science activism, while liberals and centrists are represented by the Democratic Party (mainly) which by and large does not.  


At the grassroots level, for example, we may see a litany of not very good science based proposals made to include in the party platforms (mostly anti-GMO positions) that never make it past careful considerations, in Democratic politics.  Meanwhile a leading Republican Senator can get away with using a snowball to indicate that climate change is not real. 


So, really, no.  

1 week, 4 days ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121283/when-it-comes-science-conservatives-are-no-more-biased-libera

Reply

All I can say is: "Why can't Bigfoot be real, dammit!"

I agree that hyper-belief is more of a problem than hyper-skepticism because it is so widespread. In a way, it is simply the ability to think beyond what we know, given some attainable hints.  If our hints were usually good, then this would give us as individuals more knowledge (which is all estimated, guessed at, not real knowledge) than we'd otherwise have time to accumulate.  

Thus, religion.  But also, maybe something worthwhile and adaptive.  Not necessarily, though. 

2 years, 4 months ago on The Hyper-Belief Problem

Reply

First, I'd broaden "hatred" to include a few more terms, such as "disdain" and "disrespect" and such to include all the relevant behaviors. Then, I'd insist on calibrating a term like "misogyny" per context and culture. If you don't we'll fall into the Richard Dawkins fallacy of turning away from any "first world" issue, when convenient, by pointing out some allegedly worse situation somewhere else.  A word that means the worst of the worst may be something we want to preserve, i.e., saving holocaust for The Holocaust, but misogyny does not really qualify for that standing.  Having said that, I see the word generally being used correctly, when adjusting for that context.  

2 years, 5 months ago on The New Misogyny

Reply

This is what a feminist (blog) looks like. Well done.  

2 years, 7 months ago on Why I Am A Feminist

Reply