Why Are Scientists Overwhelmingly on The Left?

Can you please explain what being an “alpha male” has to do with academia?

If every study confirms the “liberal mindset” then isn’t that a strong indication that it is correct?

Or do you believe reality has an obligation to remain neutral when it comes to political issues?

If you are asserting that selecting choice A  is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.

Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?

Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?

Reality is neutral. Always has been. Always will be. Reality will confirm whatever the truth is. The first casualty of politics is truth.

Advertisers have even taken notice. Fox News prime time is famous for its ads praying on the gullibility of its audience and selling miracle cures. The founder of ScotteVest certainly noticed when he called fox viewers gullible idiots, and then there’s the whole Ivermectin fiasco…

There is no equivalent to this on the left. The closest you can find is the issue with policing statistics, but this is no where near the same level of nuttery.

What if it turned out that the one doctor got confused and checked the wrong box, so now it’s 1000-0? Does that change anything? Serious question.

You can Google the actual statistics. On the show when the contestant asked the audience they turned out to be right 95% of the time and almost none of those examples had 99.9% agreement among actual experts, so claiming you are not more likely to be correct by going with them is just factually, objectively false.

You really seem obsessed with avoiding argumentum ad populum but don’t seem to understand when it is a logical fallacy vs when it’s not.

So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?

Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?

So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?

Yes, I understand that. Why do you bring that into the conversation?

Whatdoes that actually have to do with academia? 

Yes, until someone other than tobacco companies started funding them.

Beyond this fallacious example, what is your point, that study results mean nothing because humans are not perfect?

Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. Reality is objective, not neutral.

So yes, it is certainly possible that one side could be wrong all the time, in fact it’s not even implausible. All it takes is to start with the wrong foundation, from there everything else falls apart.

Thank you for confirming my point of why liberals don't question the dubious depth of studies all confirming liberalism.

I’ve always wondered that. 

Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.

Yes, until someone other than tobacco companies started funding them.

...it is certainly possible that one side could be wrong all the time

...you should spend some time focusing on that rather than victimizing yourself.

Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.

How about focusing on what industry they are in?

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.

 It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.

How about not.

Focus on the merits

Or, you could just pay attention and make a honest attempt to understand what the person you are conversing with is saying.

We are already in agreement on the merits or lack there of on the tobacco studies, that’s why you brought it up.

So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.

WTF? Please explain to me how it is impossible for one side to be wrong all the time. I can’t wait to be enlightened.

Studies that always confirm leftist positions are bogus.

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter?

I quoted what you said

Nope. I used the tobacco study as an example of studies that always confirm one position

I write, but you pretend not to see. No studies on human nature can all confirm one position. Not only is it not logical, but reality refutes it.

So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.

Those studies are flawed because they are guided by politics, not science.

It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.

[God "exists" as a matter of definition] may or may not be a logically coherent claim

A definition of the term, "exist," incorporates spiritual being. God is a spiritual being; therefore God "exists." Lexically speaking, the dispute is resolved rather simply. If however we intend to have more fun with with the notion and explore the scope of existence and define logical parameters, I suppose we could. But as you'd recall, I'm a proponent of, how did you put it, ontological bedrock. I'd simply repeat what I've consistently stated: everything exists, and nonexistence is irrational, much more, value statements which seek to give it information.

Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?

1. Non-alpha men mitriculated to academia.

2. These men tended to hire non-alpha men like themselves.

3. Soon, academia was majority non-alpha men.

4. Non-alpha men tend to be liberal.

4. Scientists are grown in academia.

You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.

For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?

If all 1,000 doctors are "equally qualified" to provide an answer, then it doesn't matter whose counsel I take. The probability of my selecting the correct answer would be still be 50% whether I select choice A or choice B. The fact that 999 doctors chose choice A doesn't make it more reliable or "likely to be" correct as a consequence of comparing the number of doctors who chose choice A to the one doctor who chose choice B. If you are asserting that selecting choice A  is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.

sO, basICally, god "exists" with the same validity as lochnessbigfootspacealiens.

Is there no room in your ontology for a distinction between "concrete nouns" and "abstract nouns" ?

It's also worth considering that the QUESTION ITSELF is unlikely to be about a subject "highly disputed and controversial within the medical community" the QUESTION ITSELF is most likely something from a well respected and well referenced textbook that 999 out of 1000 doctors would generally agree upon.

Yep, studies telling you that you are wrong, must be wrong. Thank you for proving my point. Again

...we already agree that the studies were bogus.

You can quote my words all day long, that doesn’t mean you are actually responding to them.

We’re not talking about human nature.

There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature...

This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right. 

...and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human nature

Sounds like someone is trying to wiggle out of the fact that they are just wrong and won’t admit it.

This is just plain stupid and really makes me wonder why I bother with you.

Tobacco studies were not guided by politics, they were guided by capitalism.

Tobaccocompanies funded the studies to convince people their products were safe so they would buy them. How do you not know this?

What the hell is “leftism”?

Yes, there is no room for distinction between "concrete" and "abstract." I value scientific integrity no more than I do spiritual integrity.

If you're going to dodge the questions Hosea, it's smarter to not respond.

And why were those studies bogus genius? Could it be that because they ALL confirmed the tobacco industry's position?

First you claim I'm not trying to  understand what you're saying, when I show you that I am, you ooze to a different claim of me not responding. You argue dishonestly, but I will beat anyway.

We’re not talking about human nature.

Sure we are. Politics is human nature.

There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature...

There is such a thing as "right" when we're talking about studies.

This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right.

Your "they" above correctly refers to the studies, not the human nature. Dishonesty is a piss-poor logical tool.

...and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human nature

But smoking does.