Philosophy Discussion Forums

Stephen Colbert once joked, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.” Apparently, his words were prophetic.

Only 6 percent of American scientists are Republicans, but 55 percent are Democrats and 32 percent are Independents, according to a recent poll conducted by the Pew organization.

This is a striking imbalance.

Why are there so few Republican scientists?

Conservative pundits such as Andrew Sullivan and Daniel Sarewitz were quick to see this as evidence of academia’s “ivory tower” promoting group-think and elitism.

The under-representation of Republicans is touted as evidence of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices in the academy.

Ironically, this would make Republicans an oppressed minority in the scientific field — akin to women who are steered away from math careers by the invocation of so-called “innate differences between the sexes.”

In response to this apparent discrimination, numerous state legislators such as Florida and Michigan have even proposed laws to ensure a politically diverse academic community.

But is political diversity really the goal of scholarship?

There is little evidence that anti-Republican bias is the cause of ideological imbalances in academia.

After all, Republicans are not only underrepresented in the social sciences, but also in the physical sciences — which have no direct connection to politics.

The reasons for the lack of Republican scientists are more complex than mere political discrimination. The Republican Party has a long history of anti-intellectualism, favoring common sense over skeptical inquiry.

From lobbying for creationism in public schools, denouncing global warming as a “hoax” and blocking stem cell research, the Republican Party has reacted to science with hostility.

It’s not surprising few scientists would support a party so openly hostile to research unless it fits its ideological agenda.

On an even deeper level, it would seem conservative-minded people are just not inclined towards scientific thinking.

Conservatives tend to make a decision quickly and stick to it. They are uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, according to a comprehensive study conducted in 2003 by the American Psychological Association.

Liberals tend to be more attracted to novelty and creativity. They have an easier time reconciling conflicting information.

And scientific inquiry is a process that is always uncertain.

Experiments suffer from design flaws. Data are messy. Variables are not clearly defined. With science, conclusions are always tentative.

We can only hope each inquiry brings us a step closer to the truth — even if this ideal is unattainable.

Tentative conclusions cannot satisfy the conservative need for absolute certainty. There are no simple black and white answers in science.

To escape the terror of uncertainty, many conservatives turn to faith. Some seek solace in religious faith, others are comforted by faith in the free market.

Faith is belief without proof.

Faith means not asking questions.

The end result?

The Republican Party is largely comprised of people who don’t base their conclusions on evidence.

The faith-based ideology of the Republican Party is inherently in opposition to the methods of science.

A scholarly quest for knowledge is simply not a profession suited for people who need quick and easy answers.

Policing academia with political diversity laws will undermine the well-being of all universities.

Scholarship isn’t about diversity. It’s about evidence.

If Republicans wonder why they’re underrepresented in science, they should look to themselves for answers.

Maybe political conservatives adopt a simplistic attitude towards everything.

I agree broadly with what you say. However, political terms like "Republican", capital-C "Conservative", "Liberal", capital-L "Labour", or capital-S "Socialist", all imply their own brands of politically-correct thinking. For decades, science in China and Russia was trashed by the need to conform with PC thinking. Some would say the same about sociology, economics, and political studies in the Western university cultures over the last half century.

One cannot serve two masters. Like Judaeo-Christian monotheism, science will not admit of any other god. An unconditional personal commitment to any ideological system, whether Christianity, Islam, the Republican Party, or (that most contemptible of absurdities) "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", is not possible for a scientist. The two ways of thinking are qualitatively and fundamentally incompatible. When Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the universe", he stopped thinking like a scientist and thought like a peasant.

I do agree, though, that science is likely to foster a "liberal" or "left-wing" attitude to life, because scientists recognise that at any moment, new data may compel a re-appraisal of everything one thought one knew. In politics (any brand) and religion (any brand), unshakable faith in the face of contrary arguments is thought to be the greatest of virtues; in science, it is the greatest sin.

Alan Masterman wrote:One cannot serve two masters. Like Judaeo-Christian monotheism, science will not admit of any other god. An unconditional personal commitment to any ideological system, whether Christianity, Islam, the Republican Party, or (that most contemptible of absurdities) "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", is not possible for a scientist. The two ways of thinking are qualitatively and fundamentally incompatible. When Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the universe", he stopped thinking like a scientist and thought like a peasant.

Your scripture reference is out of context. I agree with you that a Servant of Science, that is, someone who has pledged their utmost devotion and loyalty to Science (capital-S), cannot serve God due to the demands and limits that Science requires. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. I believe in God, but I'm not aware of God saying, Thou Shalt Not Do Science. Yes, the Christian God says you shall have no other gods before me, but that's not an issue as long as I recognize Science as an enterprise - a fantastically successful enterprise, but one with built-in limits. I do not recognize Science as a god to be served to the exclusion of all other masters (though I did see it that way several years ago -- but it failed to provide meaningful answers to hard questions, forcing me to look elsewhere).

This is probably not the correct forum to discuss Science as a religion -- Moderators, please feel free to relocate this post as appropriate.

Conservatives tend to make a decision quickly and stick to it. They are uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, according to a comprehensive study conducted in 2003 by the American Psychological Association.

Liberals tend to be more attracted to novelty and creativity. They have an easier time reconciling conflicting information.

And scientific inquiry is a process that is always uncertain.

Experiments suffer from design flaws. Data are messy. Variables are not clearly defined. With science, conclusions are always tentative.

We can only hope each inquiry brings us a step closer to the truth — even if this ideal is unattainable.

Tentative conclusions cannot satisfy the conservative need for absolute certainty. There are no simple black and white answers in science.

To escape the terror of uncertainty, many conservatives turn to faith. Some seek solace in religious faith, others are comforted by faith in the free market.

Faith is belief without proof.

Faith means not asking questions.

The end result?

The Republican Party is largely comprised of people who don’t base their conclusions on evidence.

Why must you refer to conservatives and liberals in such a way? A person isn't simply a narrow-minded person thats scared of change and has a "need" for structure or an open-minded and creative person just because they are part of a certain party. There is no such thing as the perfect Republican/Democrat you speak of. People are not either progressive successful scientists or frumpy old men holding back progression.

The reason there are so many Democratic Scientists is because Republican Beliefs are frowned upon by an already predominately Democratic Scientific community. If you were a scrawny rich white kid would you prefer to go to the public school full of white hating minorities or the predominately white private school where you would fit in? (Not trying to be racist this was just the best analogy I could think of.)

HatersGonnaHate wrote:The reason there are so many Democratic Scientists is because Republican Beliefs are frowned upon by an already predominately Democratic Scientific community. If you were a scrawny rich white kid would you prefer to go to the public school full of white hating minorities or the predominately white private school where you would fit in? (Not trying to be racist this was just the best analogy I could think of.)

Well, no and no. First of all, to accept this claim is to ignore the fact that self-identified conservatives are radically underrepresented even in politically neutral areas of science; as best I can tell, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has no bearing on any political stance whatsoever. At best you have an infinite regress: conservatives are "uncomfortable" studying science because most scientists self-identify as moderate or liberal; this non-conservative hegemony results from... itself? Conservatives don't study science because not enough conservatives work in science; not enough conservatives work in science because conservatives don't study science, and round and round we go.

Second, it also ignores the empirical data that people who self-identify as conservative (by an overwhelming margin) tend to show greater neural development in the brain regions that mediate fear, suspicion and agression, while those who self-identify as liberal tend to have less development in these regions and greater development in the brain regions that process conflicting information.

Granted, you're right, labels are of limited use and no one element defines a person, but when objective research and study reveals such a strong and consistent correlation between two specifiable traits (political self-identification and neural structure), it would be unreasonable not at least to consider how the two may be causally related. My best guess is that the two traits are mutually reinforcing via the subject's response to ambiguity.

Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I have no political affiliation though I tend, more often than not, to be somewhat left of center depending on the issue. That said, the "center" is a moving target--twenty or thirty years ago, most of President Obama's platform would have marked him as a moderate Republican, whereas now anyone with the temerity to suggest that laissez faire capitalism is anything less than a divinely ordained miracle guaranteed instantly to cure every political and economic problem is branded a socialist.

BubbaD0g wrote:Conservatives don't study science because not enough conservatives work in science; not enough conservatives work in science because conservatives don't study science, and round and round we go.

This is what I meant.

Some people live for knowledge, some people live for power.

This is the core of the dilemma, and with the core of the idea I agree. There is no need to make this political.

Those that seek knowledge become more free thinking because knowledge only comes to an open mind. Those that seek power control(censor) their thinking so that they can control(censor) others.

The greatest people are the ones who are able to have both.

HatersGonnaHate wrote:

BubbaD0g wrote:Conservatives don't study science because not enough conservatives work in science; not enough conservatives work in science because conservatives don't study science, and round and round we go.

This is what I meant.

You meant to posit an infinite regress? I gotta tell ya, philosophically, that's never a good move (or a legitimate argument).