May 22, 2021 | David F. Coppedge

Science Capitulates to Leftism

Finding any science journal or science reporter who takes a conservative position is hopeless now.

News about Leftist cancel culture, woke-ism, anti-racism and outrage against anyone questioning Leftist positions is a daily occurrence. It is nearly driving conservatives underground. For instance, The College Fix on May 14 told about a “Scholar booted from APA discussion group after suggesting there are only two sexes.” Would scientists reject crazy notions like that? Don’t count on it. They are all in for the diversity-inclusion-BLM-socialist-Marxist-outrage community that classifies people into oppressors and oppressed. Their calling cards are abortion, climate change, antisemitism, anti-Trumpism and evolution. Anyone who dares disagree with their feelings on these matters risks ostracism and vehement rage to the point, sometimes, of violence.

Individual scientists might do good work in their specialties, but those who pretend to “speak for science” (journal editors, lobbyists and mainstream science reporters), have all capitulated to leftist ideologies and talking points. This makes little sense, because one of the talking points of the Left is that “math is racist.” How is a new generation of scientists going to arise from schools that refuse to allow gifted students to master the advanced mathematics that is required to do science? And how will science function among those who deny the facts of biology, such as sex chromosomes?

Who Are They to Judge?

Another reason to distrust science came from Science Advances on May 21. Marta Serra-Garcia and Uri Gneezy, two professors from the UC San Diego school of management, did some “meta-science” by looking into citations of scientific papers. They found, to their dismay, that “Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones.” That means that the journals are more often pushing falsehoods than truth, at least when it comes to psychology, economics and “general interest” science! Researchers care more about what is “interesting” than what is verifiable, and the journals lower their standards to accommodate the desire to publish sexy news. This failure of integrity continues even when the guilty parties have been told that the research cannot be replicated.

We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more “interesting,” they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility.

Gneezy said in Phys.org‘s write-up about this, “Interesting or appealing findings are also covered more by media or shared on platforms like Twitter, generating a lot of attention, but that does not make them true.

This embarrassing failure of scientific integrity sets the stage for questioning Big Science when it talks about politics, ethics, and public policy. Here are recent examples of capitulation to the Left. It infiltrates almost everything they write about.

Leftist Propaganda: Recent Examples

Abortion: “Roe v. Wade gave American women a choice about having children—and changed their lives” (Phys.org). How objective is this article that uses the leftist terminology “reproductive health rights” going to be? Abortion is justified on the grounds of the woman with no mention of the rights of the child, or the father. Conservative states seeking to limit abortions and President Trump are demonized in this Phys.org article. Quiz: How hard would it be to justify Nazi atrocities on the same pragmatic grounds? Life News related sadly that the “Democrat Party Says Killing Babies in Abortions is a ‘Fundamental Freedom.'”

The long-term impact of restricted access to abortion on children’s socioeconomic outcomes” (Hajdu and Hajdu, PLoS One 15 March 2021). These two promote abortion by shedding tears for the hardships families faced after Hungary limited abortions. No tears shed for the innocent unborn denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Leftist cancel culture is watching you, scientist.

Antiracism: “Tackling systemic racism requires the system of science to change” (Nature Editorial, 19 May 2021). BLM says jump, and Nature’s editors ask “How high?” on the way up. “In response to the global Black Lives Matter protests, many institutions pledged actions to combat racism. That’s not enough,” they say with virtue signaling. In response to the “systemic racism” charge being thrust everywhere by race-bating Marxists, listen to popular black sportscaster Jason Whitlock talk about it on Prager U.

Anti-Trumpism: “2016 US presidential election skewed BP, heart rhythms in those with existing conditions” (Medical Xpress). This article shows the misuse of statistics used to bolster one’s politics. It conveys the message, ‘That nasty Donald Trump! He nearly gave people heart failure after he was elected in 2016!’

Yes, the COVID vaccine came out super-quickly—but here’s why it’s safe (Medical Xpress). Guess who was most responsible for getting the Covid-19 vaccines out super-quickly? Guess how many times this article gives Donald Trump credit for that? Zero, zilch, nada.

Transgenderism: “New research documents the severity of LGBTQA+ conversion practices—and why faith matters in recovery” (Phys.org). Your chromosomes don’t matter. Your feelings are all that counts – that’s the position of Leftists, and they are stamping out anyone who disagrees. Some churches have tried counseling the confused by helping them accept their createdness as male or female, but the transgender-rights people have made that illegal in some states. Here is a propaganda piece justifying the censorship: “New research reveals the harms of religion-based LGBTQA+ conversion practices are more severe than previously thought,” these secular moral judges say. “People who have been harmed by attempts to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity are often left with chronic, complex trauma and face a long journey of recovery.” Well, we can’t have that. Go after the churches with pitchfork and torch!

Climate Change: “Most people consider climate change a serious issue, but rank other problems as more important. That affects climate policy” (The Conversation). Another typical hit piece against climate skeptics who fail to rank climate change as the most serious problem facing mankind. Strange; there is no anger at “climate conversion practices” by leftists feeling obligated to nudge (or coerce) skeptics to join the bandwagon.

— “How to talk to people about climate change” (Univ of British Columbia). This is another elitist piece by academics wanting to nudge nonconformists into the consensus. There is no room for debate about scientific evidence. There is only room for compliance. It may be nudges now, but coercion eventually.

Extremism: “Researchers shed light on the evolution of extremist groups” (Phys.org). Any mention of Antifa? Any mention of Black Lives Matter extremists? Any condemnation of those who burned cities, burned businessmen’s livelihoods, and killed bystanders? Of course not. The only “extremists” who “evolved” are conservatives—you know, like “gun rights” groups. Researchers want to pursue objective science and “shed light” on this kind of negative natural selection. “That’s the conclusion of a new study [prepare to be hoodwinked] published today [May 19] by researchers at the George Washington University.”

Politics: “The consequences of online partisan media” (PNAS, 6 April 2021). Would you trust these four behavioral scientists from four leftist universities any farther than you could throw them? Do you think they are really going to be objective, when all their colleagues in academia are leftists? They talk about using the “nudge” technique to help citizens who are not yet fully partisan get away from the biased media they tend to like. And who might those partisans be? One easy guess.

See “How to Nudge an Elitist”, 11 June 2017.

Please, readers, don’t let yourself pretend that scientists today are objective. Being aware of their academic environment and filter bubble can help protect you from being hoodwinked by their “studies” that for some strange reason always end up supporting the Democrat Party and the Far Left. Remember, these are the same “science experts” who have canceled Darwin skeptics for decades, cannot fathom the self-refuting nature of evolutionary theory, and think human life is a commodity to experiment on or abort. They cancel anyone who disagrees with them politically (the opposite of scientific objectivity). Repeatedly we have also seen that their work is often not replicable, and now, that falsehoods get more citations than facts! One has to carefully sift what science proclaims these days. “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21).

 

(Visited 366 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.