Hi Some of discussion on PESTs of this issue follows below.
Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology and Chair 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> Michael Palij <[email protected]> 07-Jul-12 6:15 am >>> (5) So, since this issue was thoroughly discussed on PESTS, anyone want to provide a summary so that non-PESTS can benefit from your discussion? *************From PESTS******************** Jim, FYI, the US group you are probably thinking of is the National Association of Scholars. Frank Fair On 6/29/12 2:52 PM, "Jim Clark" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi > >The conservatives in Texas may not support PESTs, but they certainly >brought it back to life! > >Probably many of us saw this when it came out a few months ago (I can't >remember if it was posted here), but survey data has indeed shown a >decrease in trust in science among conservatives in the USA. Here is >one report of the phenomenon: > >http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10911111-study-tracks-how- >conservatives-lost-their-faith-in-science?lite > >So no need to restrict discussion to Texas or to use proxies like >positions on specific scientific or pseudo-scientific issues. Attitudes >of conservatives do appear to have changed for the worse compared to >democrats (although not moderates, interestingly?). > >I agree very much with Scott that we (academics, largely liberals, or >at least moderately so) are perhaps more sensitive to challenges to >science from the right and more tolerant of equally or more egregious >challenges from the left. As one indication, we might think about our >professional organizations (i.e., professorial ones, not necessarily >psychological ones). I'm more familiar with Canada, where the Canadian >Association of University Teachers (CAUT) was seen (more or less fairly) >by some people as more concerned about threats from the right, leading a >small group (mostly psychologists) to form the Society for Academic >Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) a number of years ago, which tried to >provide some balance (although in some people's eyes it might be better >viewed as biased in the other direction). I believe there is something >similar in the USA, although I don't know the names of the >associations. > >Along related lines, I would suggest that the threats to science from >WITHIN the academy probably come more from the left than from the right >(cf. Gross & Levitt's Higher Superstition). > >Take care >Jim > >James M. Clark >Professor of Psychology >204-786-9757 >204-774-4134 Fax >[email protected] > >>>> "Herbert,James" <[email protected]> 29-Jun-12 12:55 PM >>> >Hi, Scott. > >As usual, I think we're mostly in agreement. And I also agree with you >that any differences we do have are more a matter of emphasis and >strategy. As we both keep saying, abuses can and do happen from both >sides. > >Now, in terms of emphasis, it's true that I didn't note this >qualification (i.e., that abuses can stem from the political left) in my >outrage of the latest Texas GOP platform. I can see your point there. >However, I do think you (inadvertently, of course) set up a false >equivalency when you fail to note distinctions between the current >iterations of the political parties in their regard (or disregard) for >science, evidence, and reason. When you note various examples of >anti-science and attribute roughly half to the left and the other half >to the right, it leaves the impression that both parties are equally >blameworthy, and that's just not true. It is relevant whether it's >80-20 (or maybe more like 90-10!) or 50-50, as the former statistics >imply a more systematic disregard for evidence relative to the latter. >Again, I'm not talking about historical progressive vs. conservative >perspectives, but the modern Democratic and Republican parties of >today. > >As for strategy, I understand your perspective of not wanting to >alienate smart and open-minded folks on the right, and you may be >correct. However, I'm not sure which approach will be more fruitful. >My perspective is that we need to call out this sort of nonsense >forcefully wherever we find it, and if that means attacking a political >party (in this case the Republicans) when it officially adopts such >things in its platform, then so be it. This might prod more reasonable >people in the party to speak up in an effort to take back their party >from the extremists who have taken it over. I've had many conversations >with traditional conservative friends and colleagues who are quite upset >about what has happened to their GOP, but unfortunately few of them have >done much to try to do foster a course correction. > >And BTW, this really isn't about either of our political leanings. >It's true that, like you I suppose, I am a center-left progressive on >most issues. However, I hope I would have the courage to speak up just >as loudly against anti-science when if comes from the left as the right, >and in fact I think I have. It's just that at this point in our >history, there's a lot more coming from the right. > >One additional point I'd make is that it's not always so easy to >discern which political side is behind any particular instance of >anti-science. For example, you list the vaccination-autism theory as >coming from the left. In fact, in my experience it's actually the right >that is behind that particular fight (e.g., advocates of "health care >liberty" over public health initiatives). Just a couple of weeks ago I >had a frustrating interaction with a Tea Party type who was adamantly >convinced that vaccines were part of a vast left-wing conspiracy, led >jointly by Obama and Bill Gates, to reduce global population by killing >Africans and creating autistic individuals in the West who wouldn't >reproduce! Really! > >Best, > >James > >James D. Herbert, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology >Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences >Drexel University >Stratton 119 >3141 Chestnut Street >Philadelphia, PA 19104 > >215.571.4253 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[cid:BF080E15-63A8-4023-B200-306321E7002F] > >From: <Lilienfeld>, Scott Lilienfeld ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: RE: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting >PESTs! > >Hi James: > > Don*t quite know what it means that as someone who is socially >liberal on the substantial majority of issues, I so often find myself on >academic listservs being the *apologist* for conservative positions >(even though I disagree with most conservatives, at least in the U.S., >on something like 80-90 percent of social issues)*will have ponder this >one! > We again partly agree, although just to be clear * I never set >up an *equivalency.* I agree that in 2012, social conservatives in >the U.S. are generally more skeptical of science than are liberals. And >I mostly agree that there is more *spillover* of these views into >party platforms and the like on the right than on the left, although I >see the difference as a matter of degree. > > What I was reacting to in your messages, I think, was the >implication (perhaps not intended) that the problems lie exclusively or >almost exclusively on one end of the political spectrum. My reaction >was, I suspect, mostly motivated by what you didn*t say in your >message, namely, that there are extremists on both sides of the >political spectrum, but that when it comes to many of the issues that >justifiably matter to many of us, like natural selection and climate >change, conservatives have typically been on the forefront of more >nonscientific views. I actually suspect we mostly agree here, and that >our differences are primarily ones of (a) emphasis and (b) strategy. >Re: emphasis, I suppose it doesn*t interest me all that much (and I >recognize that reasonable people will hold different views) whether one >apportions the blame 60% vs. 40% or 80% vs. 20%. or whatever. My point >is simply that we have to be careful not to ignore the threats from >anti-science stemming from the left, e.g., vaccines and autism, >alternative medicine (although conservatives have certainly played a >role here too), New Age wackiness, political correctness (e.g., arguing >that it is flat-out unethical to conduct genetic research on IQ, as a >few of my colleagues in biology and cultural anthropology believe), and >the like. I*d argue that this is all too easy to do that given that >most of us are social liberals, and I worry * perhaps needlessly? - >about a potential blind spot here. Re: strategy, I worry that the >nearly exclusive emphasis on the antiscience on the political right, as >exemplified by the writings of Mooney and scores of others, may alienate >us from some open-minded folks (and yes, they do exist..) on the >conservative end of the political spectrum. Many social conservatives >perceive us as close-minded ourselves and as having a political agenda >of our own, and I fear that they often use our reflexive dismissal of >them to dismiss us reflexively in turn. That*s in large part why I >also advocate for strenuously combatting antiscience and pseudoscience >on both ends of the political spectrum (and admittedly, I*m less >focused on which side is more guilty than the other), even as I agree >with you that when it comes to many * but definitely not all - of the >bread and butter scientific issues, social conservatives pose a greater >threat in the current political environment. > >*.Scott > > >Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. >Professor >Department of Psychology, Room 473 >Emory University >36 Eagle Row >Atlanta, Georgia 30322 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 404-727-1125 > >The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his >work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his >education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. >He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of >excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is >working or playing. To him * he is always doing both. > >- Zen Buddhist text > (slightly modified) > > > >From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Herbert,James >Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:55 AM >To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting >PESTs! > >Scott, > >Yes, of course I agree with your examples. Science, reason, and >evidence can be distorted by either extreme. > >However, in an effort to be even handed, it may be that you're setting >up a false equivalency between the modern institutions of the left and >the right (the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively). To my >knowledge, the mainstream Democratic party does not espouse >anti-vaccinationism and the like in its platform. There are undoubtedly >some on the fringes who advocate such things, but they are on the >fringes. However, the mainstream Republic party has become largely >co-opted by those who are pushing things like climate change denialism >into the center of the platform. > >My argument is not that science cannot (and has not been) abused or >neglected by folks on the left. My argument is simply that the modern >political parties are not equivalent in their disregard of science, >evidence, and reason. To argue that both sides ignore evidence and >reason equally is in fact not dissimilar to the false dichotomy implied >in the "teach the controversy" idea. > >Best, > >James > >James D. Herbert, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology >Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences >Drexel University >Stratton 119 >3141 Chestnut Street >Philadelphia, PA 19104 > >215.571.4253 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[cid:[email protected]] > >From: <Lilienfeld>, Scott Lilienfeld ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: RE: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting >PESTs! > >James..yes, I in part agree (although I wouldn*t go as far as your >dogcatcher comment, which I would argue is true only in some parts of >the country). But let*s recall that we social liberals (of which I >count myself) aren*t in any way immune from anti-science either (and >let*s not fall prey to the groupthink of Chris Mooney and others in >this regard). Fears of genetically modified foods, the link between >vaccines and autism, and all manner of weird New Age beliefs have mostly >been the province of the political left rather than the political right, >at least here in the U.S. In the long run, I think it will less >productive to trash one political extreme than to advocate for better >science * and combat lousy science * across the political spectrum. >Plenty of blame to go around on both ends. > >*Scott > > >Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. >Professor >Department of Psychology, Room 473 >Emory University >36 Eagle Row >Atlanta, Georgia 30322 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 404-727-1125 > >The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his >work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his >education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. >He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of >excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is >working or playing. To him * he is always doing both. > >- Zen Buddhist text > (slightly modified) > > > >From:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Herbert,James >Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:00 AM >To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting >PESTs! > >Monica, > >Yes, I agree. The issue is not about honest conservatism. It's about >a distorted, bastardized version of conservatism that denies evidence >and reason. As I'm sure you know, "classic" conservatives couldn't get >elected dog catcher these days within the modern GOP. > >Best, > >James > >James D. Herbert, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology >Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences >Drexel University >Stratton 119 >3141 Chestnut Street >Philadelphia, PA 19104 > >215.571.4253 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[cid:[email protected]] > >From: Monica Pignotti ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: Re: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting >PESTs! > >Agreed, James and let's also not let it reflect poorly on conservatives >as a whole, as there are some very bright conservatives who are very >much on the side of critical thinking -- Sally Satel and R Chris Barden >are two who come to mind, who have proven track records. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Herbert,James ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >Scott and Monica, > >Agreed that the term has been used in many ways, some of which diverge >from our particular use. > >But reading the platform, it appears that the motivation of the TX >Republican party is advocating that schools avoid teaching methods that >would enable students to challenge "fixed beliefs." You don't have to >search too hard to appreciate what kinds of "fixed beliefs" they are >referring to here. But the heart of any reasonable notion of critical >thinking (and of course including the scientific version to which we all >subscribe) is precisely this questioning of received authority, and >evaluation of the evidence. > >I fear that you're giving these guys too much credit. The Texas >Republican party is a few steps to the right of Attila the Hun, and >would appear to prefer a Christian theocracy rather than a well educated >and enlightened citizenry. As an (ex-)Texan, this makes me sad. And >unfortunately, although it shouldn*t of course, it ends up reflecting >poorly on the state as a whole. > >Best, > >James > >James D. Herbert, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology >Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences >Drexel University >Stratton 119 >3141 Chestnut Street >Philadelphia, PA 19104 > >215.571.4253<tel:215.571.4253> >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[cid:[email protected]] > >From: Monica Pignotti ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: Re: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting >PESTs! > >This is difficult to evaluate what exactly the program consisted of, >since the article was so brief. I too had wondered if it was actually a >sound program in critical thinking or "critical thinking" in the name of >a political agenda or the promotion of some ideology. As Scott pointed >out, the term has been egregiously misused. If the latter is the case, >then conservatives are correct to be concerned. It would be interesting >to get a more detailed description of this program. And yes, I do know >many conservatives who are fine critical thinkers and some liberals who >have much to learn in that area, so the stereotypes implied also need to >be questioned and challenged. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Lilienfeld, Scott O ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >Needless to say, I find this news appalling. At the same time (and I >am definitely, definitely not implying support for the platform...), I >do have to wonder whether a bit of the fault lies with us as advocates >of critical thinking. We've allowed the term to be co-opted and >misused, especially by our colleagues in the humanities and cultural >anthropology, many of whom use the term "critical thinking" to mean >things like challenging orthodoxy, questioning authority, defending >social justice, etc., etc. (I believe that some scholars have identified >about 20 different meanings of the phrase, several of which carry such >implications). > >Having attended a number of teaching conferences on critical thinking, >I'm struck by how many people use the phrase in markedly different ways >than most of us in PESTS probably would. I could be wrong, but I'd bet >that most of us conceptualize critical thinking as a set of tools, >grounded in science, designed to minimize errors in inference (including >cognitive biases) and thereby arrive at a closer approximation of the >truth. Instead, at teaching conferences, even in psychology, I've seen >people use the phrase to refer to things as diverse as questioning the >status quo, doubting what the government tells us, challenging sexism, >homophobia, and racism (which I'm all for, of course, but I'm not sure >it's how I'd conceptualize critical thinking), values clarification, and >the like. > > I wonder if Texas conservatives and others would raise the same >objections if our conception of critical thinking were more narrowly >circumscribed to focus on scientific methods designed to minimize error. > I don't know. > >.....Scott > > >Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. >Professor >Department of Psychology, Room 473 >Emory University >36 Eagle Row >Atlanta, Georgia 30322 >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; >404-727-1125<tel:404-727-1125> > >The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his >work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his >education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. >He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of >excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is >working or playing. To him - he is always doing both. > >- Zen Buddhist text > (slightly modified) > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On >Behalf Of Jim Clark >Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 9:19 AM >To: PESTS-L >Subject: [PESTS-L] Conservatives (in Texas) won't be supporting PESTs! > >Hi > >See > >http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/06/29/texas-gop-vs-critical- >thinking > >Take care >Jim > > >James M. Clark >Professor of Psychology >204-786-9757<tel:204-786-9757> >204-774-4134<tel:204-774-4134> Fax >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "pests-l" group. >To post to this group, send email to >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >[email protected]<mailto:pests-l%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr >oups.com>. >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/pests-l?hl=en. > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=18867 or send a blank email to leave-18867-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
