Johan Braeckman
It’s a few days late for this post, but I’m just back from a trip to Germany that was rather exhausting (to speak at the 2012 World Skeptics Congress in Berlin).
While over there, I recorded the latest installment of the recently acclaimed Point of Inquiry podcast with Johan Braeckman, a philosopher at the University of Ghent, on a very troubling topic for European defenders of science and reason–the spread of Islamic creationism in European countries.
You can listen to the show here; it is getting a lot of downloads now. And not surprisingly; this topic isn’t much discussed, but it is quite disturbing.
Show here.
Rachel Maddow in Seattle
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
For progressives, PolitiFact has become a joke. After years of demanding the media do a better job of holding politicians accountable and “calling a lie a lie,” the left was given PolitiFact instead. Now liberals place PolitiFact as file #1 in the evidence locker for why journalism is helpless in its role of referee of our modern political discourse. PolitiFact poxes every house, splits every baby, sees all sides to every story and places the truth as the midpoint between these positions.
And in Chris Mooney’s recent analysis of how the two parties fare under the fact checkers, non-partisan fact-checkers rate Republicans as more wrong, more often and more brazenly – including PolitiFact.
As Mooney writes:
Early into the fray was the Smart Politics blog at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, which analyzed the Pulitzer Prize–winning PolitiFact’s work during the period from January 2010 through January 2011, surveying more than 500 stories. Sure enough, it found that while the site fact-checked roughly as many statements by current or former Democratic elected officials as current or former Republican officeholders during this period (179 versus 191, respectively), Republicans were overwhelmingly more likely to draw a “false” or even “pants on fire” rating (the worst of all). Out of the ninety-eight politicians’ statements that received these dismal ratings, seventy-four were made by Republicans—or 76 percent. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann fared worst, with eight and seven PolitiFact slams, respectively.
Thus, Smart Politics blog determined that based on these numbers, Mooney concludes, that “PolitiFact is biased against the right.”
We pause to give you a moment to let that sink in. PolitiFact is biased. Against the right. PolitiFact.
For a taste of how progressives view PolitiFact, here are a few quotes from Rachel Maddow: (more…)
Don't like science? Play the "phrenology" card
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
What makes the recent Weekly Standard cover story by Andrew Ferguson on “The New Phrenology” worth spending some time on is this: It perfectly captures the quandary faced by conservative intellectuals, who try to hold themselves up as a counter to the stereotype of grassroots conservatives as backwoods “hillbillies,” in Ferguson’s own words (sensitive much?).
As the “thinking man’s” conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard has never been profitable. But it was kept afloat by Rupert Murdoch as an idea incubator for a small but very important slice of the conservative block–the neoconservatives, and also free-market capitalists who find justifications for bare-knuckle markets in Darwin, and for whom the closest thing they have to scripture is The Virtue of Selfishness and other thoughtful writings of Ayn Rand. This audience puts up with the GOP’s constant plays for fundamentalist Christian votes due to the “savvy-ness” of using religion to rally the “hillbillies” – as they see them – to achieve a different set of ends.
The Standard knows well from experience what happens if they support the science too overtly. (more…)
I haven’t blogged much lately about Point of Inquiry, the podcast that I co-host with Indre Viskontas–but it turns out we just got named as one of the top tend podcasts by Business Insider. We’re thrilled at the recognition.
A new and pretty controversial show has just gone up, by the way.
It’s with Greta Christina, the prominent atheist blogger and speaker. I interview her about her new ebook (coming out in print in June), entitled Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things that Piss Off the Godless.
Some of you may surmise that though I’m an atheist myself, I’m skeptical of atheist anger. However, Christina is very passionate and convincing in her views, and I believe we have the same basic goal…making the world just a little more rational.
I think that came across in the interview. You can listen here, and buy Christina’s book here.
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
When Bill Clinton came into office after 24 years of Republican presidential rule (with a brief Carter intermission), a large majority of the federal bench had been appointed by Republicans. It was hoped Clinton could correct that, but after the Republican Revolution in 1994, the GOP employed a strategy of halting Democratic appointments.
Over 60 of Clinton’s nominees were prevented from receiving a hearing, let alone a vote. According to Kevin Drum at the Washington Post:
Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee’s home state objected to (or “blue-slipped”) a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton’s nominees.
Drum notes that this “anonymous holds” tactic–allowing a single senator to obstruct a nomination–“was used extensively by Republicans during the Clinton administration.”
Things got so bad, Hatch even bragged that he chose Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees. According to his autobiography, Clinton called to ask who he’d let through, and Hatch suggested Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Supreme Court.
Of course, once George W. Bush took the White House, Hatch and the Republicans removed these impediments to appointment. (Hatch, it should be noted, is now in danger of being ousted by his own party for being too willing to compromise.)
Even with a Democratic Congress, 200 of about 240 nominees put forth by George W. Bush were allowed to be confirmed. Now under Obama, Congress has not confirmed a single nominee in 2012. Of the 23 appointments Obama has made for federal judgeships, three have passed.
This is not an isolated incident. (more…)
The cover story of the latest Weekly Standard, by Andrew Ferguson, is entitled “The New Phrenology.” In it, the writer slams The Republican Brain and pretty much dismisses the whole field of scientific research on ideology.
Why? Ferguson’s complaint rests on a variety of methodological objections to psychology studies, especially those relying on undergraduates (as if the field has not considered these criticisms, and as if these are the only studies involved).
In other words, and just like Jonah Goldberg, Ferguson falls directly into the trap set by The Republican Brain. He attacks a book about how conservatives blithely dismiss science by….blithely dismissing science!
I expect we are going to have several posts here about this article—both because it is very revealing, and because it ups the ante when it comes to conservative attacks on the book. But let me make a few comments first. (more…)
From PNAS
:
The genetic architecture of economic and political preferences
Daniel J. Benjamin et al. (long list)
Preferences are fundamental building blocks in all models of economic and political behavior. We study a new sample of comprehensively genotyped subjects with data on economic and political preferences and educational attainment. We use dense single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data to estimate the proportion of variation in these traits explained by common SNPs and to conduct genome-wide association study (GWAS) and prediction analyses. The pattern of results is consistent with findings for other complex traits. First, the estimated fraction of phenotypic variation that could, in principle, be explained by dense SNP arrays is around one-half of the narrow heritability estimated using twin and family samples. The molecular-genetic–based heritability estimates, therefore, partially corroborate evidence of significant heritability from behavior genetic studies. Second, our analyses suggest that these traits have a polygenic architecture, with the heritable variation explained by many genes with small effects. Our results suggest that most published genetic association studies with economic and political traits are dramatically underpowered, which implies a high false discovery rate. These results convey a cautionary message for whether, how, and how soon molecular genetic data can contribute to, and potentially transform, research in social science. We propose some constructive responses to the inferential challenges posed by the small explanatory power of individual SNPs.
Reflection on these results: (more…)
Bill Maher by David Shankbone
This is a guest post by Dylan Otto Krider, a skeptic, journalist and science fiction author whose work on the politicization of science has appeared in Skeptic, Dissent and other outlets (www.dylanottokrider.com).
The ideas of “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue” politics has gained some traction lately. The basic concept is to paint your opponent as guilty of your sins, so that balanced centrists split the difference and say “everybody does it.”
Thus, Democrats are waging a War on Women because Republicans are getting a lot of flak over forced vaginal ultrasounds. In a sure sign The Republican Brain: The Science of Why they Deny Science – and Reality is having an impact, conservatives are now throwing together Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Science Left at break-neck speed.
There are many cynical reasons for encouraging partisanship, but one no longer need to search for economic or political self-interests to explain inexplicable stands: tribal politics is reason enough. There is now literally nothing for which conservatives will not find reason to become enraged.
Who can argue with encouraging kids to exercise and eat healthy? Sarah Palin, for one, who showed up at a school with sugar cookies to protest Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.
Bill Maher’s recent monologue perfectly skewered this knee-jerk opposition:
I’m not saying the right objects to Mrs. Obama’s efforts because the Teabaggers are stupid, or because they’re hysterical, or because they hate black people, though all of that is true, but what does it say about America that even a First Lady’s suggestion has to be controversial? Especially when she picked one no one could disagree with. (more…)
Cara Santa Maria
Over at the Huffington Post, science correspondent Cara Santa Maria has just done an awesome video about political personalities–how who we are drives what we think–for her “Talk Nerdy to Me” series.
In the video, I play the role of talking head, via Skype.
The big scientific study this is all based on, by the way, is here.
I can’t figure out how to embed the video here–Wordpress issues getting to be a serious hassle–but it’s right at the link below. Plus, there’s a brief political personality quiz that Huffington Post has set up, which is simple but also pretty revealing.
So check it out. What personality are you? Liberal or conservative? (Grin)
Link here.
Up with Chris Hayes is a television marvel: a deeply smart, highly intellectual show that nevertheless manages to be pretty entertaining. And all of that and more was on display yesterday on my more than 20 minute long segment with Jonathan Haidt, discussing U.S. polarization and the science of ideology.
WordPress will not cooperate and post the video right now, but it is here. And a picture is to the right.
There is tons to discuss about this segment, and most prominently, how Haidt and I differ. It is a pretty subtle affair.
But I’m thrilled that he put his stamp of approval on The Republican Brain‘s science reporting, noting:
Chris has done a great job of surveying the literature. I want to give him a stamp of approval. He is not cherry picking, he is representing the current state of thinking about politics and personality.
More soon. For now, if you haven’t already, watch the segment.
