• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

  • Total voters
    73
radcen said:
Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.
Click to expand...

Depends on the field of science. Sociologists and Economists are certainly very susceptible. However, Biologists and Physicists, not so much.
 
radcen said:
I would disagree with your last statement. Really, a consensus is nothing more than collective individual conclusions or opinions. In fact, given the concept of group think and peer pressure I'd say it's even more prone to bias.
Click to expand...

Challenging prevailing thought is the hallmark of science. That said, some people never move with newer and stronger science. There were biologists in the years after Darwin that did not accept evolution. There were scientists that did not accept the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, and today there is a minority of scientists that don't accept AGW. So in some ways, the old adage about science progressing funeral by funeral has some truth to it.
 
radcen said:
Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.
Click to expand...

Not real science. Real science is done above table. Its best form is the research university. This is open and there are folks of all stripes taking part. Most scientists, aka professors, I have met could give a hang about politics. They loves some quarks though. They get lib art students to write their grants.
 
radcen said:
Yes, that's really the core of the question. Something like do they allow what they want to believe influence their interpretation and conclusion?
Click to expand...
Probably to one degree or another, but that's what peer review and repeated testing is supposed to combat - if results can be repeated, it confirms their conclusions.
 
Moderate Right said:
Sure. Have you ever heard of the Supreme Court? Same thing.
Click to expand...

The real question should be: "How well do the processes we have developed prevent bias from changing conclusions and results?. Scientific process, legal system, etc.
 
DaveFagan said:
If they work for Monsanto, they must say GMO is harmless.
If Big Chem must say chemicals are harmless.
If Big Pharma must say drugs are harmless.
If Big Energy must say climate change is a hoax and harmless. Or if you want a job with Trump Admnistration.
Hot damn y'all ah swar! How could you imply that scientists are susceptible to political bias?
Low Blow! Linda Lovelace would be proud.
/
Click to expand...


Scientists? Sounds like capitalists.
 
akyron said:
Oh yes...the earth was center of the universe and quite flat for a lengthy time indeed.

Rub an egg on a sick person then rub it on a tree to make the sickness go away.
Click to expand...
Precisely - scientific consensus is subject to change as individuals change their understanding of the world based on scientific study.
 
The Mark said:
Precisely - scientific consensus is subject to change as individuals change their understanding of the world based on scientific study.
Click to expand...

And throw a little personal biases into the mix - on both sides.
 
upsideguy said:
...so, you are saying smart people tend to be liberal..... I'd agree with that.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Different fields attract different personality types. Environmental scientists are almost all lefties, but harder sciences tend towards a 50/50 split.
 
Not 97%. But those 3% surely are. Even Rex Tillerson when he was the head of EXXON said there was Global Warming. If anyone thinks that the use of Fossil fuels in China and India which have exploded in the last 25 years have not changed the air quality and ultimately the climate. Well then logic as well as facts our not in your repertoire. We have 330 million people....those 2 countries have nearly 2.6 billion. Every time I turn on the news there are floods which they say are 100 year events to now 1000 year events. Our 4th largest city was nearly completely under water. But you can't argue with morons that think the earth is 5000 years old. And believe in creationism. There is no rationale. The divide is too great. Life is like a box of chocolates. The juicy sweet ones are the best. Too bad so many are tarts and nuts
 
Of course scientists are subject to political bias. Follow the money.
 
Middleground said:
I answered no. I work for a scientific organization and political bias is not even in the picture. Nothing gets a PhD more off than their research -- a research that is based-on actual research.*


* There are countless researchers in my organization who are still working despite being retired for 20+ years, LOL. It sometimes takes many decades to scratch the surface of their research and it's hard to let go.
Click to expand...

I voted no too. Because if you are biased you can't be a real scientist by definition..
Are there pseudo-scientists out there spreading junk science because they are paid to do it? Without a doubt.
 
radcen said:
Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.
Click to expand...

If you want to get a paper published, you had better not rock the boat too much.
 
Scientists are people, and all people are susceptible to political bias. It's human nature. Their work, though, cannot be. The scientific method is devoid of anything political, and that is the way it should be. Can't be objective about your results, otherwise.
 
I think they are more prone to intellectual biases than political ones, especially in an institutional setting. Unless something earth shattering comes along to shift the paradigm, we are pretty screwed.
 
radcen said:
Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.
Click to expand...

They are certainly aware of them. Some allow that to color their bias. How many? I dont know. That's one reason their research is generally reviewed and needs to be replicated when possible.

By no means does that mean that the scientific method doesnt work or that we can just discount some pretty basic stuff.
 
phattonez said:
If you want to get a paper published, you had better not rock the boat too much.
Click to expand...


Actually, if anything, there is often too much pressure for scientists to keep publishing new and revolutionary ideas and observations. They are the ones who become famous and get the grants. If you keep publishing "same old same old", you are more likely to lose funding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom