Conservatism is anti-science

Post Reply New Topic

Scientists tend to disagree more with Conservative values, than with liberal values.
This is because the left wing liberals knows the reality of the world, and conservatives have false beliefs.

Studying science increases the chances you're becoming a leftist.
This is not because of some social norms or conformity, but because science allows you to see the world as it really is.

Knowing fact from fiction makes you liberal.

The problem isn't so much the disagreement of different policies.

The problem is that people tend to have opinions on false beliefs.

Examples:

Conservatives: "People on welfare should be forced to work for their welfare benefits, because it helps them get a real job."

Scientists says that most of those recieving welfare benefits are not lazy. They are genuinly needy, and you CANNOT make a welfare policy that allows for the genuinly needy only to recieve welfare benefits without making a large percentage of those genuinly needy suffer the reforms.

It's been tried in UK, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. It doesn't work. It doesn't help people get a job all, it is only worsening their health conditions.

https://psmag.com/news/why-work-for-welfare-doesnt-work

Conservatives: "Death penalty reduce murder rate."

Scientists says it doesn't - at all. Do a quick google-search and you'll see for yourself what science says about death penalty and murder rate. You'd be surprised.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studi ... cing-crime

And frankly speaking, science mostly agree with the left wing progressives/liberal values.
Conservatives are most wrong, when it comes to science, compared to those who have leftist/liberal values.

That's why left wing policies should dominate the world, and we should ban conservatism altogether - because conservatism is anti-science and anti-reasoning.

So what it all boils down to is "Conservatives are the evil white devils and are stooopid and we must get rid of them like the vermin they are by any means necessary!! !"

Because the liberals are all such champions of human rights ya know!

No, it means that political conservatism is anti-science because practicing science requires an open yet critical mind, objective observation, detailed experimentation, verification of results, and self-correction of erroneous ideas. Political conservatism requires none of these; only a closed mind, subjective opinions, sweeping generalizations, disdain for truth, and prohibition of contradictory ideas.

If Congress passed all of its laws based only on established scientific facts, those laws that are based on racism, religion, sexism, and other bigotted ideologies would soon be stricken from the books, and political conservatives would quickly lose their power based -- instilling fear and ignorance in the general public to maintain a submissive labor pool.

Last edited by Fnord on 05 Dec 2019, 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Frankly I think both liberals and conservatives make sweeping generalizations about each other. And the liberally biased media is not above distorting the truth to benefit their own political agenda.

Sure, but which side's sweeping generalizations are faith-based, and which are science-based?

Which side, for example, says whites are superior to non-whites, and which side says whites and non-whites are equals?

I dunno about 'equals'... the liberals USED to be about that, but now they seem to be about accusing every white male heterosexual Christian with money throughout history of being an evil bigot. You know, nobody responds well to being labeled as a villain...

Science-based legislation is in direct conflict with faith-based legislation, which conservatives have used for millennia to subjugate the masses under inhibitory laws against the alleged "immorality" of free will and civil rights -- concepts that conservatives see as threats to their authority and respond to with tough law enforcement, punitive incarceration, and resistance to immigration of people with new and different ideas.

This threat-oriented approach to individual liberty may have been appropriate to our Pleistocene ancestors -- whose survival depended on the security of the tribe united under one strong and suspicious leader -- but it is inappropriate to our modern culturally-diverse communities, where your next-door neighbors may be the first and only responders to your needs after a personal or natural disaster.

Well I disagree with quite a lot of that and I am a liberal.

Fundie conservatives specifically tend to lean towards false beliefs and some try to push their religious values in legislation , but that doesn't represent all the conservatives. Also there are liberals with false beliefs who value what they think more than what science says.

I mean remember the GMO nonsense, seemed to me it was mostly liberal people who are losing their sh*t about GMOs. And all that did was distract from the damage Monsanto was and is really doing. GMOs aren't bad, science says they aren't bad they can be useful...sure its a technology it can be abused but GMOs themselves were never the problem it was the way Monsanto was using them.

So I do kind of have to point out there is ignorance and non-science based beliefs among liberals to.

Seems there are some like that, but I don't think that really describes most liberals. Also there are white christian male liberals, some churches are liberal...not all the christians are conservatives.

Yes, and not all conservatives are uneducated fascists. Though some might seem that way.

Liberals can accommodate scientific research more easily into their views by accident, or maybe becauseiberalism is a newer ideology, so it's less outdated- it's not that they hold their beliefs more lightly - the GMO example sweetleaf gave is quite good, middle-class anti vaccers are another.
It's just that what liberals want to be pure - food, water- happens to matter a lot more than what conservatives want to be pure - virginity, race, morals etc.... In part,because of scientific advances like antibiotics.
Strict sexual morals used to be a good idea in times of syphilis.

That said, I honestly don't think science has an easier time with liberals, if it found something totally going against their beliefs.
Beliefs and atoms don't mix.

Science CAN get pretty amoral with little regard to human suffering. Much of what we know about medical science was learned by inhumane experiments done on human beings either during times of war or to the ones regarded as being less important by society (like prisoners and mental patients).

Plus lets not forget that science brought us the atom bomb and chemical warfare. It'll most likely end up being science that destroys our planet.

That is what the rightwing news sources are telling you, as they focus on only the most extreme examples and frame it as the stance of the Left. Using liberal is confusing for me here, because the Liberal party is the conservative party in my country, where liberal means the freedom for those with money to do what they want.

I am telling you that it is building a strawman to say that all the people in the left are "accusing every white male heterosexual Christian with money throughout history of being an evil bigot". What is being done that is close to that is showing some truths about idolized figures that were maybe not so good. Maybe a little awareness should be know if someone had slaves, if they mascaraed natives, or used dirty tricks to get on top? It is in no way a statement about all of said people, maybe even take some of the context that society influence on people that they were not just uniquely evil, but things out of their control meant they did certain things.

But you still get people, mostly on the right, that say everything great was made by men, so men should be the ones mostly listened to and put in power, while ignoring that for so long women were so discriminated against and treated as inferior in almost every way. Same with not white people, where people will say that white people are smarter, while black people are more likely to be criminal, not understanding the differences of economic opportunity that have been caused by awful things in history. And you have people on the right that call LGBT people perverts that are being indulged now as a social sickness while not existing in the past, ignoring the many reasons that such people were invisible in history, having to hide due to risks.

And I repeat, none of this is an attack against all "white male heterosexual Christian with money". If you think it is, get your head out of your arse and listen for once. If you look at historical heroes, and I don't mean that in some fantasy sense, you will see that such people have almost a monopoly on it, but it isn't that those people are actually anything more special than people outside of that group, those exist because of influences and lucky breaks. The sciences, including social sciences, are in a need to prove that fact, and starts by removing tinted glasses and saying that any random white male heterosexual Christian is not inherently better than say a black transwoman lesbian atheist. Which means leveling the playing field by pointing out any flaws that should not be idolized by any such figures, because that is a form of privilege, and for the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

It is okay to still like a cool "white male heterosexual Christian with money", but is it so wrong to understand that some such figures may have come at the cost of cool people that never got that chance? The frustrating thing is that most on the left, who are more into the sciences and open new ideas and concepts, are aware of that, while the more conservative people who maybe go by faith and change is scary, somehow understand it as an attack.



And who do you think cause those situations to happen. Wars started rightwing leaders that believe in the majesty or superiority of their race, and so decide to invade other lands, and so kill "bad guys" in the most efficient way and damn the consequences. As you said, science can be amoral, but take that in the sense that it is without morality, whether good or bad, and you are up to the leaders that use it, doing so for majesty of a country's glory, rather than an open mind that is ready to accept new information and put aside conservative beliefs.

I dont believe in heroes anymore, white or non-white.

I apologize if I'm now too bitter and cynical to accept that liberals are right about everything.

Conservatism is not anti-science per se. Conservatism only single-mindedly acts for its own benefit.

At least that's what it has morphed into...