All Episodes
Nov. 17, 2018 - Tim Pool Daily Show
13:51
Far Left Ideology Is Infecting Science And Becoming Policy

Far Left Ideology Is Infecting Science And Becoming Policy. We can see it in various forms. Fighting against Nuclear energy, fighting against GMO, and the most recent example denying biological dimorphism in humans.  These beliefs then get pushed into the mainstream and become policy and sometimes even law. But the news and most people would tell you its conservatives who deny science when the truth is science denial is prevalent in all political ideologies.  Social justice ideologies are apparently becoming prevalent in Universities where academics are predominantly left wing and hold regressive and ideological views that interfere with science.   Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
13:37
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
For most of my life, the common understanding was that the right denies science, that conservatives and republicans don't believe in science, they believe in alternative facts, and the left are the ones championing true science.
The reality is, that's not true.
There have been studies showing that both the left and the right equally deny science.
Denying science has nothing to do with your political ideology, it has to do whether or not you want to agree with your tribe and you want your tribe to win, and it's a bit more complicated than that.
But, upon doing some research and looking at some recent events, I am now of the belief that left-wing science denial is substantially more dangerous than right-wing science denial.
There have been accusations that right-wing groups will fund scientific research that will benefit their industry and their business.
And I think that's a fair argument, and you can look up those studies.
But when you realize that most people in academia lean left, And the left has been embracing a moral ideology above science.
Then it stands to reason that our true non-partisan academia doesn't exist.
And left-wing ideology, not politics, is going to take over and going to infect our actual understanding of science.
So today, I want to take a look at various articles and sources talking about the danger of science denial.
And I want to bring up why I believe if we don't call out left-wing science denial right now, we're in for a dangerous future.
But before we get started, please head over to patreon.com forward slash Timcast to help support my work.
Patrons are the backbone of the content I create, and if you like these videos and want to see more, then head over to patreon.com forward slash Timcast and become a patron today.
The first thing I want to highlight is this video from a debate that happened in Canada on TV Ontario between Nicholas Matt and Jordan Peterson, among many others.
But the clip I want to show is a professor on television saying there is no biological sex.
unidentified
Basically...
It's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex, and I'm a historian of medicine, I can unpack that for you at great length if you want, but in the interest of time, I won't, so that's a very popular misconception.
tim pool
This person is a historian of medicine, and typically, I try to refrain from criticizing people who are experts in areas where I am not an expert.
However, it's just simply not true.
Biological sex absolutely does exist.
Look, science, our understanding of science changes over time.
But there has not been a major overhaul in the science of sex.
You can still go on Wikipedia and see that biological sex absolutely does exist.
It's not controversial, even.
They say organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as sex.
This is a normal thing.
Males tend to do one thing, females tend to do another.
It's not absolute, there is nuance, but for the most part, there is male and there is female.
Human males, for instance, are typically stronger, taller, more muscle mass, more collagen, denser bones.
And human males typically, without medical or scientific intervention, cannot produce offspring.
This is plainly visible.
You can see it with your eyes, you can hear it in your ears.
Males and females have different voices, even.
And they would tell you to deny that.
Now, to my main point, the reason why I think it's so dangerous is that you have people on television, you have people in the universities, who argue for moral ideology over science.
In my research, I came across this article from City Journal.
And they said, My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don't devote more
of my science journalism to the sins of the right.
It's fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say.
But why aren't you an equal opportunity debunker?
Why not write about conservatives' threat to science?
My friends don't like my answer.
Because there isn't much to write about.
Conservatives just don't have that much impact on science.
I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the party of science.
But I've done my homework.
I've read the left's indictments, including Chris Mooney's bestsellers, The Republican War on Science.
I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset.
Where are the casualties?
He goes on to say, But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the left, and they're getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists.
Some referees saw a version of the paper showing that student activists' mental health was above normal.
Others saw different data.
Showing it to be below normal.
Sure enough, the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists.
When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.
They go on to say that academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans at least 8 to 1.
In sociology, where the ratio is 44 to 1, a student is much likelier to be taught by a Marxist than by a Republican.
The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon.
People's beliefs become more extreme when they're surrounded by like-minded colleagues.
They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm, but also the truth.
And they go on to add, Democrats outnumber Republicans at least 12 to 1, perhaps 40 to 1, in social psychology, creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a tribal moral community with its own sacred values about what's worth studying and what's taboo.
When I was younger, the left used to be about science, so they claimed, but As we know from the years, both sides can be equally anti-science.
But the left would criticize the right for denying climate change, and many on the right still do.
And if you want to, by all means.
There is a big problem when we can see the heavy bias and the moral ideology of the left.
Now, my politics In terms of policy, economy, and how the government forms are left libertarian.
That means that I think power of government is derived from the will of the masses.
You can't impose rules on people without their approval, to an extent, right?
There is some authority.
I'm not a total no-government type.
And I lean left in that I believe more in cooperative economies than competitive economies, but I'm only center-left.
The point is, The modern left today is adopting authoritarian ideology.
Their beliefs in identity politics and deplatforming people, these are based on ideologies.
As we saw in the beginning, there was a professor who claims that biological sex does not exist.
That's just plain not true.
There's been no major overhaul.
You can simply go to any scientific publication and read that while yes, there is nuance, and while new ideas are constantly emerging, the general consensus is that Yes, biological sex exists.
So it's dangerous, then, when you have people like this who go out and make anti-scientific claims.
But it's also dangerous when you realize the left claims to be the party of science.
They claim to be opposing those who don't believe in science, when in reality, they equally don't believe in science.
And then their beliefs start affecting our culture and changing our governmental policies.
For instance, the story I did yesterday on my second channel.
The feminist who was suspended from Twitter because she said men are not women.
Megan Murphy, who founded the feminist blog and podcast Feminist Current in 2012, had tweeted in October, What is the difference between men and trans women?
On Thursday, Murphy revealed on Twitter that she had been notified by Twitter that her language in the tweet had violated their rules against hateful conduct.
The idea that there are more than two genders.
The idea that there is no biological sex.
These are moral ideological positions, not scientific ones.
They're arguments about society and not about science.
Biological sex?
It does exist.
So when you see Twitter enacting policies based on a moral ideology that's held by even university professors, and we can see that in universities the left outnumbers the right to an extreme degree, it stands to reason that moral ideology is prevalent among the sciences and will have a negative impact on society.
Now look, by all means, make the argument that right-wing groups fund science to benefit their industry, and you have the Koch brothers and all these other arguments that have existed for a long time.
But the issue then becomes, who counters that?
If we're supposed to be relying on academic institutions to provide impartial scientific research, but we learn that they're overwhelmingly left-leaning, and the left is being dominated by moral ideology, then who exists to actually counter bad science?
We can even see examples of the expansion of moral ideology in academia with what's called the Sokal Squared Hoax.
When an audacious hoax reveals about academia, three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.
James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies.
Their success rate was remarkable.
By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of the articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals.
Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process.
Only six had been rejected.
So look, someone gets banned from Twitter.
You might be saying, is that really a big deal?
But I would argue, yes it is, for a more specific reason.
In the Sokal Squared hoax, we learned that these three individuals rewrote a section of Mein Kampf and changed some of the proper nouns to feminist terminology, and it was accepted.
That means you have scientific journals, peer-reviewed journals, willing to publish Mein Kampf ideology so long as certain proper nouns are switched out for feminist terminology.
And this is the danger of our academia being taken over by moral ideology.
The Republicans, the right, they are not doing that.
That is on the left.
And I know I'm going to get a lot of flack from the left saying, oh, but Tim, now you're just finger-pointing at the left.
Well, it needs to be done.
Because as I've shown you, the left clearly dominates academia.
They outnumber the right, something like 44 to 1 in some respects.
And you can see that when certain publications are willing to publish complete and total nonsense, so long as it fits a moral framework, our sciences are being corrupted.
Now I don't want to imply there's a direct correlation between these two things, but I can say that when you learn about this, it's unsurprising when you see a story like this in The Atlantic which just came out yesterday.
Science is getting less bang for its buck.
Despite vast increases in the time and money spent on research, progress is barely keeping pace with the past.
What went wrong?
And the article argues that most of the awards being given out are for research in the 80s, and we're not seeing that much new development in sciences.
It's typically keeping pace with the past, but we've exponentially increased the funding.
Perhaps it's because a lot of the areas where funding has been increased is moral ideology and not actual sciences, and nonsense is being published, and that nonsense clouds actual research and makes it harder to make real discoveries.
Look, I'm gonna say it again.
That guy in the beginning, Nicholas Matt, on television said there's no such thing as biological sex.
That's just plain not true.
He can claim to want to unpack it, but you can clearly go to any common source and it will explain to you what biological sex is.
This is now being used in schools.
This person is teaching young people.
How do you think that's going to impact our society?
When you go to the doctor, When you are getting a physical, it is important they know your biological sex to tell you whether or not you are at risk for certain ailments.
Males are not going to get cervical cancer.
Females are not going to get prostate cancer.
These things are factually true.
And if someone goes to the doctor and claims that biological sex does not exist, They could be at risk for a type of disease that is unique to a certain sex, and the doctor is going to have a harder time trying to understand that.
Thus, it's important to know that these things are real.
And there's a real danger in left-wing ideology.
This strange identitarian ideology infecting sciences, it's gonna have a real-world impact.
It could potentially cost loss of life.
Don't get me wrong, climate change is bad too, for sure.
But again, we don't see climate change denial in academia.
Jordan Peterson tweeted this on the 2nd of October.
The STEM fields are next on the SJW hit list, beware engineers.
And he retweeted this man, David Millard Haskell, who said, A leading physicist gave a talk.
Male scientists are discriminated against in favor of less qualified women.
Posted evidence.
It was taken down.
Lost his position.
Other studies verify claim.
There was a preliminary study arguing that trans might be a trend.
It was taken down for being politically incorrect.
There was that talk given by a physicist who said women who are less qualified are being promoted for the sake of ideology.
He was fired from his position.
I don't think firing him is the right thing to do.
I think arguing against his ideas and presenting data to challenge it is the right thing to do.
But here we can see the dangers of left-wing ideology infecting academia.
Claire Lehman of Quillette tweeted, Brave at UW lecturer Stuart Regis wrote about the sex differences for Quillette.
Here he explains what happened next.
Quote, if you dare to discuss the science of sex differences, even at a university, there's a good chance you'll be accused of violating US law.
It's fair to say it doesn't matter where you are politically.
You are equally likely to deny science.
It's fair to say that the left outnumbers the right to an extreme degree in academia, which stands to reason left-wing science denial is extremely more dangerous than the right because the right is not in a position of power in academia, and I think that's the point I'm trying to get across.
So let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
How do you feel about this?
I'm gonna get, I'm gonna get chewed out by the left claiming, oh but the right denies climate change, climate change is worse and all that.
Look, I'm not denying that.
I'm just saying Republicans aren't typically working on climate change science for the most part.
So what do you have to worry about?
Most countries agree climate change is happening.
However, we are now seeing U.S.
law in various cities in various states that are saying There's more than two genders, or that biological sex doesn't exist.
And if you even want to talk about the differences, you could be violating the law.
The moral ideology, which impacts science, transfers to U.S.
law, and is going to have serious ramifications.
But again, comment below, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4 p.m.
I've got more videos coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
Export Selection