I'm not biased; you're Satan

An interesting article by Ronald Bailey at Reason.com analyzes how ideological and/or political bias can cause "moralization" of contested scientific theories or topics, leading to resistance--on moral grounds--of data that conflicts with an individual's point of view. Citing two previous studies that demonstrate how moral, political and cultural identity influence bias, Bailey says that liberals and conservatives (the article also uses the terms "Democrats" and "Republicans") each moralize their own sacred issues: "while conservatives moralize about the purity and sanctity of sex and reproduction, liberals fret about the moral purity of foods and the sanctity of the natural world." This moralization creates a barrier against accepting scientific data that goes against preconceived narratives; furthermore, not only is the data perceived to be incorrect, it's judged immoral. No, I won't accept your data that suggests that this animal should be removed from the endangered species list. And by the way, you're the devil.

Possibly owing somewhat to my own bias, I notice this moralization phenomenon more often among liberals than conservatives, and obviously not just in regard to science (You didn't vote for Obama? You must be a racist). Pertaining to science, the issue that inspires the most zealotry (apart from assertion that the fetus is not-and-I-mean-it-you-son-of-b****-not a person) is climate change. Though really just a plank in the larger environmentalist doctrine, global warming has gotten legs in the last decade as an unquestionable article of faith among a significant swath of the liberal public. As sometimes happens with dogma, the more zealous of the faithful view their opposition as morally depraved--and thus fair game for attack and dehumanization.Thus, Al Gore's  characterization of global warming skeptics as Holocaust Deniers or racists. Gore, no stranger to demonization, had previously referred to his ideological opponents as "Brown Shirts."

To be sure, conservatives, can also use ad hominem, sometimes viciously so, a recent example being Rush Limbaugh labelling Sandra Fluke a "slut" (Rush apologized a few days later. I'm pretty sure he never called her a Nazi. Still waiting for an apology from Al, btw). In the months leading up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of conservatives questioned the patriotism and the intestinal fortitude of those who opposed the wars. And of course, we on the right have had our little jokes about the President being a socialist. Although, in fairness, he's a socialist. But in general, I don't often observe conservatives characterizing their opponents as the lowest forms of humanity for simply having the audacity to disagree. I think that Richard Dawkins' belief in Darwinian evolution is wrong; I don't think he's stupid, a racist, a misogynist or any other cruel or sub-humanizing term one could conjure. Dawkins, by contrast, wants to separate the "brights" who believe in macroevolution from the..."not-brights?" "Dims?" ... such as myself, who do not accept the theory. That might be a softer marginalization, but which group do you want to be in? You want to be considered bright, don't you? Don't you?

Do I as a conservative moralize science? Owing more to being a Christian than a conservative, I am obviously biased against the theory of naturalistic evolution. Thankfully, I believe there are very good scientific reasons for rejecting the theory, but I can certainly understand how someone who does not believe as I do could see me as dogmatic and irrational. Yes, it would cause a "moral" crisis in me if this theory were somehow proven incontrovertibly true. Indeed, the entire meaning of life for me would be destroyed. But again, I feel no contempt toward those who disagree with me. So my "moralization," such as it is, does not extend to defamation.

There are other science-related bones of contention about which conservatives tend to be like minded, but which don't necessarily involve moralization. I am skeptical of Anthropomorphic Global Warming--or at least the most hysterical renderings of such--but I feel no moral compulsion whatsoever to hold this view (whereas, according to Bailey, this as an environmental concern tends to be a moral issue for liberals). I'm open to having my mind changed. But I'm not impartial, and the Yale Cultural Cognition Project that Bailey cites identifies one of the reasons: AGW skeptics have a deep mistrust of Al Gore. I confess, I wouldn’t trust Mr. Gore to demonstrate the correct way to affix a paper clip. His reputation as an ethically-challenged, disingenuous, opportunistic hypocrite was established long before his dreams of making a quick billion from the climate change racket became apparent. Of course, Gore's defects don't make him wrong. But add to this the “Climategate” scandal, in which a veritable who's-who of the world’s leading climate change scientists (indeed, some of the very same scientists whose work was used in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth) were found to be falsifying data, intimidating journals that dared to publish against the narrative, and demonstrating a willingness to delete damaging documents rather than comply with a FOIA request, and the AGW brand appears damaged, to say the least. And, there is this pesky and ever increasingly corroborated trend (corroborated even by the CRU's Phil Jones!)  that would seem to indicate that the planet hasn’t warmed in at least a dozen years. Now, I could be completely wrong and ultimately found out as a fool for my stance, but for now I am not buying into the hysteria.

Anyway, back to the article. Having compiled survey responses from liberals and conservatives on a handful of science-related issues, Bailey compares them to "majority scientific opinions" to suggest how the particular biases of the left and right lead to inaccuracy in their understanding of specific areas of scientific study. (yes, consensus of scientists is not science, yes it's not a very rigorous study, no, it can't account for the political biases of the scientists themselves--but the results are interesting nonetheless). The areas of research analyzed are: "climate change, biological evolution, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, exposure to synthetic chemicals, concealed carry of guns, vaccines, [harmful effects of] video games, fracking, organic foods, and sex education. A quick rundown, if you're too lazy to read the article (or haven't abandoned this one yet): As I more or less expected, the findings suggest that scientific opinion more often aligns with conservative opinion on nuclear power (good), modified crops (good), synthetic chemicals (benefit outweighs risk), conceal/carry (does not lead to increased violence), and fracking (good). Conservatives also "win" on organic foods, on the basis that there's no benefit to the environment or remarkable nutritional value from buying organic. As I likewise guessed, liberals were more harmonious with broad scientific opinion on global warming (real), evolution (real), video games (not harmful), and sex education (beneficial). The one area where both the right and left are complete whackjobs, it turns out, is vaccinations.

I take exception with Bailey's oversimplification/lumping of non-naturalistic evolutionists into the categories of “young Earthers” and “intelligent designers”--the latter defined as those who believe that God used evolution to guide life. While there are non-young Earth Christians who are comfortable with evolution (Dinesh D’Souza  being one example), most "I.D.ers" of whom I am aware reject macroevolution outright (for the record,  I'm an “old Earth Intelligent Designer"). By and large, the article is an interesting and fair examination of the correlations between the things we value and how that bears upon the "science" we believe.