On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 05:24:45 -0700, Christopher Green wrote: >It looks like social psychology is about to become the primary site of a >potentially nasty political struggle, at least in the US. >A soon-to-be-published survey shows sizeable minorities of social psychologists >willing to admit that a conservative perspective would make them less likely to >accept a journal submission, recommend a grant proposal, or hire a job >applicant. >http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias > >How are conservative legislators likely to respond?
There is the problem of treating "conservatives" as a monolithic entity where all believe in a fixed core of ideas and principles. There are conservatives that can fit in very well in traditional academic positions because they do not hold what might be called delusional beliefs about the nature of reality. Fiscal conservatives are very different from religious conservatives who can be explicitly anti-science and anti-intellectual. Consider Gordon Gauchat's analysis of the politicization of science over the period 1974 to 2010; here is the abstract of his article: |Abstract | |This study explores time trends in public trust in science in the United |States from 1974 to 2010. More precisely, I test Mooney’s (2005) claim |that conservatives in the United States have become increasingly |distrustful of science. Using data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social |Survey, I examine group differences in trust in science and group-specific |change in these attitudes over time. Results show that group differences |in trust in science are largely stable over the period, except for respondents |identifying as conservative. Conservatives began the period with the highest |trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period |with the lowest. The patterns for science are also unique when compared |to public trust in other secular institutions. Results show enduring |differences in trust in science by social class, ethnicity, gender, church |attendance, and region. I explore the implications of these findings, |specifically, the potential for political divisions to emerge over the cultural |authority of science and the social role of experts in the formation of public policy. http://asr.sagepub.com/content/77/2/167.short Here is one blog entry on the article which highlights some of the key points: http://scienceblog.com/53012/study-conservatives-trust-in-science-has-fallen-dramatically-since-mid-1970s/ Quoting from the blog: |“This study shows that the public trust in science has not declined since |the mid-1970s except among self-identified conservatives and among |those who frequently attend church,” Gauchat said. “It also provides |evidence that, in the United States, there is a tension between religion |and science in some contexts. This tension is evident in public |controversies such as that over the teaching of evolution.” | |As for why self-identified conservatives were much less likely to trust |science in 2010 than they were in the mid-1970s, Gauchat offered |several possibilities. One is the conservative movement itself. | |“Over the last several decades, there’s been an effort among those |who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it |means to be a conservative,” Gauchat said. “For whatever reason, |this appears to involve opposing science and universities and what |is perceived as the ‘liberal culture.’ So, self-identified conservatives |seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that |what makes ‘us’ conservatives is that we don’t agree with ‘them.’” What makes this even more discouraging is the following: |The study also found that the declining trust in science among |conservatives was not attributable to changes among less educated |conservatives, but rather to rising distrust among better educated |conservatives. “It is a significant finding and the opposite of what |many might expect,” Gauchat said. So, should an person or a manuscript be evaluated on the basis of their individual merits? Absolutely. However, if their views are anti-science, one might be concerned with whether one wants such a person for a scientific psychological position or having such a manuscript published in a scientific journal. I think the case of Bem's PSI research is relevant here. The editors of JPSP could find no "methodological" reason to reject the article (a point worthy of discussion) but, if memory serves, did not seem to object to Bem's notion that the most likely explanation for his results was that the future was somehow affecting the present (i.e., retroactive causation). Now, how anyone with any knowledge of physics can accept this as a valid explanation is beyond me but the JPSP editors seemed fine with it. Perhaps they were taken in by Bem's statement in his first paragraph: |The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy |transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical |or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive; it neither |implies that such phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything |about their underlying mechanisms. I'm willing to bet that one could probably find material in the parapsychological literature that are much more explicit about the underlying mechanisms which would be inconsistent with physical theory.(e.g. http://www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierman/publications/1987/imposworlds87.pdf ). So, the real question is Bem being honest with the scientific community or is he being Machiavellian in how he presents himself and his PSI research in order to maintain some semblance of scientific integrity? Or should we wait to discuss this issue until we have so many failures to replicate Bem's experiments that there is one unavoidable conclusion? On another list, Chris might remember, in a thread on the Dover school board trial on teaching "creation science" in U.S. public schools (for a reminder of this, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html ), there was a philosopher/historian of science who gave testimony at the trial **for** creation science. In response to this, one list member referred to having such a person on the list as being similar to: "Having an arsonist in the firehouse of science." I assume that maybe some social psychologists might feel the same way about conservative (i.e., religious conservative or what John Dean has referred to "authoritarian conservatives"; for the latter concept see: http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/B001G8WNEG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344439804&sr=1-1&keywords=John+Dean Getting back to Chris' original question: >How are conservative legislators likely to respond? Probably much like conservative legislators have responded to PBS for airing programs like "Intelligent Design on Trial": attempt to defund PBS and make it more difficult to operate. Expect funding for social sciences and psychology to be cut. After all, all one needs to know about human behavior can be found in the Bible. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- 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=19569 or send a blank email to leave-19569-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
