| HN Mirror

You can keep spamming the same links but it does only so much to solidfy your position.

kebman 2512 days ago

Dude, relax. Can you post proof to the contrary? If you cannot, then your position is indeed weakened. In any case, those links are in line with my own studies at four colleges and universities in Norway. If you can document something that disproves those links, I'd be quite happy to see them! :)

I’m doubting what parent says, why would I need to disprove if they’re going by handwavy articles and personal anecdata?

I think we've provided some evidence that suggests there at least might be a problem.

Publishing a rigorous scientific paper saying "well look, here's the problem" is going to be difficult, given the issues such a paper would address. It could be career suicide if handled indelicately.

Given that we have weak evidence that there is a problem, the burden of proof is now on you to provide stronger evidence that there isn't a problem, unless we have a strong prior for there not being a problem or something.

Applying higher standards to things you disagree with is a great way to end up biased. If you require a well reviewed research paper showing that there is a problem, you should also require a similar paper showing you there isn't a problem.

At the very least trying to provide a counter viewpoint to the evidence you've already being presented with would be polite.

I think that "all universities across the board" is a bit of a high standard. Even something as low as 30% would be enough to be a big problem.

I think there's evidence of a fairly significant amount of bias being introduced.

Then let’s see the evidence for bias, for bad science being done by mostly leftwing or leftist people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_ac...

I can do both of those things separately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis offers the best evidence I can offer for bad science being done.

Goes over the issues related to politics, conservatives aren't as under-represented when you include STEM fields, but pay special attention to the disciplinary variance.

>Focusing specifically on social psychology academics, a 2014 study found that "[b]y 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans had climbed to more than 11:1.

Also note what fields are facing the most obvious replication crisis.

I expect you'll want to do your own research, but that should get you started.

[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-science-...

I was not talking about bad science in general. I could say that in general, science seems to be in crisis [1] and pinning it down to people whose political affiliation does not suit your needs is reductive. Also, because there’s some different distributions does not mean leftwing = bad.

Another interpretation could be: the GOP platform is highly anti-science and most scientists wouldn’t want to be associated to such a horrendous organization which doubts scientific consensus regarding an issue that’s threatening the whole of civilization.

Right, like I say I can show both of those things separately, but I can't demonstrate that they're correlated.

How would you go about finding that evidence? What would be sufficient evidence that they're correlated for you?

You put it in your question, right? I’d like to see a study that EXPLICITLY correlates political views and activism with measures of ‘bad science’ like no citations, impossible reproducibility etc