[ch4s3]

I'm familiar with the premise, and don't disagree. I'm just of the opinion that for a social science to ignore biology is probably fine at a certain level of abstraction. I'm not arguing anything else at all.

Again, this is a bit outside of the areas in social science in which I regularly read. So if a particular set of dogmatic ideas run counter to our best scientific understanding, then those ideas deserve criticism. I think we agree on that.

[nemo44x]

I'm not an expert in these topics either. So I'd agree if used responsibly there's certainly room to abstract something away. So long as the sophisticated theory it is derived from and simplifies does not. And that's my problem.

My only point in my original comment was that the deliberate rejection of empiricism isn't reserved just for the dogma of the rightwing in the USA. The leftwing is just as guilty. And this concerns me a lot.

Seriously, if you find time read the book I recommended. Or at least the NYTimes or NYMag's review of it.

[ch4s3]

Yeah, I read the review a while back actually. While I agree that science denialism isn't the sole domain of the American right, it is think more broadly embraced in right of center political circles, and I believe the most visible public science deniers in the US are part of the political right. I don't think that's anything inherent in the political ideology per se, but a result recent historical accident, the "southern strategy", and the embrace by the American right of evangelical voters.

That said, the left has anti-vaccine nuts so no political leaning is immune.