Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why are so many social scientists left-liberal?

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    At 1% it would take 900 years for the earth to reach boiling point - not that great a difference, on the grand scale of things - it still signifies that it is physically impossible to avoid.

    At 0.1%, it would take 9000 years - and humans have been around for at least that long, no reason to think we won't be around then - it's still physically impossible to keep growth in energy use going like that, so he's not really misusing extrapolation.

    At 0.1% growth, you'd practically already be within reach of a steady state economy anyway, and you wouldn't have much room for expanding economic growth (certainly not enough, to avoid constant economic crisis, due to how the monetary system and buildup of debt works - I think I elaborated on that in the Humanities thread).


    It takes energy to produce goods (many of which the US gets from China these days, so it's not going to show in US energy usage charts) - economic growth comes from an increase in production of goods and provision of services; it all requires energy.

    Here is the worldwide increase in energy production over the last 200 years (averaging more than 2.5% per year increase since WWII, using 6x more energy since then):


    The 2.3% is incorrect - as I've shown, it's actually >2.5%!

    Yes, he's not talking about carbon, he's talking about just energy production - it does not matter if that energy is from the sun: All energy conversions are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and produce waste heat.

    Even if you can efficiently use up all the energy the Sun sends the Earth's way, that only buys you time (and not that much, when you consider that the growth is exponential - at 2.3%, Earth itself would put out as much energy as the Sun, after 1400 years) - so it's still physically impossible to go on with neverending growth.

    The point is: Growth will have to be finite (which I don't think you disagree with?) - current mainstream economic theory, most especially due to the way the monetary system works, depends upon it being effectively infinite.

    The past involved a transition to technological societies and higher population growth. It's a major error to extrapolate. All western countries have seen increases in GDP per capita and reductions in the oil equivalent per capita in the last 20 years and that's without really trying. And future population growth is going to be much lower than the last 200 years or even 60 years. Your previous 2.5% includes population growth and technological transitions.

    you are still not getting the first law of thermodynamics with regards the boiling point ( you are right about if the 2.5% were correct there would be a limit *for renewable energy* equal to the Suns energy hitting the earth but it's not likely).

    "Waste heat" is a largely nonsensical term. If we got all our energy from renewables we would generate no extra energy than we get from the Sun, no more energy than is already there because that's the fundamental law of physics. Turn wind energy into the energy which powers Las Vegas and the wind cedes some energy to turbines which create electricity etc. Net extra energy on earth is the same as if Las Vegas were dark.


  • #103
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    The past involved a transition to technological societies and higher population growth. It's a major error to extrapolate. All western countries have seen increases in GDP per capita and reductions in the oil equivalent per capita in the last 20 years and that's without really trying. And future population growth is going to be much lower than the last 200 years or even 60 years. Your previous 2.5% includes population growth and technological transitions.
    Ya but you're extrapolating an increase in energy efficiency there, which has to become exponential to keep up with growth - that won't happen.

    You have to look at world energy use, not western countries - which have exported much of their industry to the third world effectively (importing the resulting products); world energy use per capita is on a steady rise (may need to adjust starting year on graph):
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/world/energy-use-kg-of-oil-equivalent-per-capita-wb-data.html

    Population may stabilize at some point - but then you're going to have to do away with growth, because it's unlikely you can have neverending economic growth with the same population size.
    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    you are still not getting the first law of thermodynamics with regards the boiling point ( you are right about if the 2.5% were correct there would be a limit *for renewable energy* equal to the Suns energy hitting the earth but it's not likely).

    "Waste heat" is a largely nonsensical term. If we got all our energy from renewables we would generate no extra energy than we get from the Sun, no more energy than is already there because that's the fundamental law of physics. Turn wind energy into the energy which powers Las Vegas and the wind cedes some energy to turbines which create electricity etc. Net extra energy on earth is the same as if Las Vegas were dark.
    You haven't made any point referencing the law of thermodynamics? His point is very simple: Energy production (i.e. energy conversion) can not be 100% efficient, so there will be some waste heat generated and released into the environment.

    Despite wildly optimistic predictions, we are unlikely to get all our energy from renewables anytime in the foreseeable future - and it costs energy to manufacture/setup renewable energy capture, such that their 'Energy Returned on Energy Invested' is still not that impressive (except hydro), especially when you factor in infrastructure required to handle variable energy by storing lots of energy.

    At 2.5% increase, we'd be using up all the suns energy hitting earth in 1,200 years anyway - and that's assuming 100% efficiency - hitting the waste heat problem again; so neverending growth is still impossible, and is still subject to the same thermodynamic limits I mentioned (the only factors that change, are timing - and timing changes very little, on the grand scale of things).


  • #104
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,971 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Eramen wrote: »
    Bet you never thought you'd even be saying that on boards? The leftist Borg 'opinion-monopoly' is now over.

    The whimpering, self-abasing guilt-complex that is leftism just ain't sexy and everyone knows it. The New Right is where it's at - Booh-Yeah! :cool:

    By any chance, would this be propped up Jobbik/FN-style by Putin?


  • #105
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    Most social scientists are left liberals who think that if data can be collected about the inequities in society they can use that data to socially engineer those problems away.
    Left liberals believe humans are born good and made bad by environment.
    Conservatives who are religious believe humanity is born with original sin and is personally responsible for his/her actions and his fate good or bad is his/her hands.
    Scientists who are not weighed down by ideology and can look at the facts of human beings know that human behavior like that of other animals is governed by genes and inherited ingrained instincts and how they interact with the environment.
    The economic system of capitalism which is the latest form of dog eat dog survival of the fittest, the hierarchical form of government, tribalism, racism, sexism, violence and crime are features of humanity because they are rooted in our animal nature.
    Our primate cousins display forms of behavior that appear to show the primitive origins of modern human behavior owe much to genetics and are not entirely environmental.
    Studies of the brains of criminals, psychopaths and the mentally ill appear to show physical features of their brains play a major role in their behavior.
    Scientists are coming closer and closer to being able to model and predict what the personalities of people will be like when they are merely embryos by mapping their genes.
    Ideologically inflexible left wingers in the social sciences seem to cherry pick evidence that supports their pseudo scientific views while rejecting evidence that demolishes it.
    They believe in progressive politics and progressive policy despite evidence that shows ingrained human behavior cannot be legislated or trained away.


  • #106
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,971 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Studies of the brains of criminals, psychopaths and the mentally ill appear to show physical features of their brains play a major role in their behavior.
    Scientists are coming closer and closer to being able to model and predict what the personalities of people will be like when they are merely embryos by mapping their genes.
    Ideologically inflexible left wingers in the social sciences seem to cherry pick evidence that supports their pseudo scientific views while rejecting evidence that demolishes it.
    They believe in progressive politics and progressive policy despite evidence that shows ingrained human behavior cannot be legislated or trained away.

    Where are these studies you speak of?


  • #107
    Philo Beddoe
    Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭Philo Beddoe


    Maybe if you're either (a) stupid or (b) selfish, you don't become a social-scientist?


  • #108
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,559 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Because scientific progress is achieved with liberal and open minded thinking.

    "Progress" and a "conservative" mind are not good bedfellows generally.

    I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid, I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative.


    John Stuart Mill


  • #109
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Where are these studies you speak of?

    Here are just 3 peer reviewed studies I could find with a quick google search that support genetic and physical causes for psychopathy:

    "Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds", Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:6 (2005), pp 592–597

    http://www.socialbehavior.uzh.ch/teaching/semsocialneurosciencews07/Vidingetal_2005JCPP.pdf

    "Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis" Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, Volume 174, Issue 2, 30 November 2009, Pages 81–88

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925492709000882

    "A genetic factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality." Larsson, Henrik; Andershed, Henrik; Lichtenstein, Paul
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 115(2), May 2006, 221-230.

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/115/2/221/

    The is also evidence that autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, altruism etc have genetic causes rather than purely environmental causes.

    If extreme human behaviors are most likely genetic then why not "normal" human behavior?

    Pseudo-scientific Marxist ideas about human behavior is dead wrong.


  • #110
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because scientific progress is achieved with liberal and open minded thinking.

    "Progress" and a "conservative" mind are not good bedfellows generally.

    My thoughts exactly. Some of the rational used by conservatives is not conducive to scientific thinking.


  • #111
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    My thoughts exactly. Some of the rational used by conservatives is not conducive to scientific thinking.

    Any examples?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because scientific progress is achieved with liberal and open minded thinking.

    "Progress" and a "conservative" mind are not good bedfellows generally.

    Very sweeping statements. Any examples?


  • #113
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    reprise wrote: »
    Very sweeping statements. Any examples?


    Eh, the clue is in the name.

    Conservatives are called so because they want to retain traditional social institutions in culture and civilisation. Progress and discovering new ways to see the world and of doing things is contrary to its very foundation.


  • #114
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,610 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Not sure there is any link between rationality and labels as broad as "conservative" and "not conservative".

    There are plenty of examples of policies and ideas on the left which, as Orwell himself said are so stupid that only very intelligent people could believe in them.


  • #115
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    TheBeardedLady wrote: »
    Eh, the clue is in the name.

    Conservatives are called so because they want to retain traditional social institutions in culture and civilisation. Progress and discovering new ways to see the world and of doing things is contrary to its very foundation.

    We are talking about science. It doesn't matter how liberal I might like to think I am, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and the speed of light won't be changing to suit trendy little me.


  • #116
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    TheBeardedLady wrote: »
    Eh, the clue is in the name.

    Conservatives are called so because they want to retain traditional social institutions in culture and civilisation. Progress and discovering new ways to see the world and of doing things is contrary to its very foundation.

    You are completely wrong.

    Retaining traditional social institutions in culture and civilization is NOT a barrier to progress and discovering new ways to see the world is NOT contrary to their very foundation.


  • #117
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    reprise wrote: »
    We are talking about science. It doesn't matter how liberal I might like to think I am, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and the speed of light won't be changing to suit trendy little me.

    I thought we were talking about SOCIAL sciences?

    Not sure what the trendy comment was in relation to.


  • #118
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    You are completely wrong.

    Retaining traditional social institutions in culture and civilization is NOT a barrier to progress and discovering new ways to see the world is NOT contrary to their very foundation.

    Well that's me told!


  • #119
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭conorhal


    reprise wrote: »
    Very sweeping statements. Any examples?

    Hang on, he'll be back in a moment with a survery from the Sociology department to back it up, probably the one from Professor Fauxscience called, 'The right, just a bunch of dicks eh?'


  • #120
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,559 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    What would be the point in wasting my time? You'd only gainsay it with some shite anyway.

    In any case, if you cannot see the point in saying that a liberal, open minded, approach to social aspects is a boon, then there's no helping you.

    If society had to rely purely on conservative mindsets to advance society, we'd still be jailing gay people for the "crime" of homosexuality.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Tony EH wrote: »
    What would be the point in wasting my time? You'd only gainsay it with some shite anyway.

    In any case, if you cannot see the point in saying that a liberal, open minded, approach to social aspects is a boon, then there's no helping you.

    If society had to rely purely on conservative mindsets to advance society, we'd still be jailing gay people for the "crime" of homosexuality.

    Social scientists decriminalised homosexuality? who knew?


  • #122
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    TheBeardedLady wrote: »
    I thought we were talking about SOCIAL sciences?

    Not sure what the trendy comment was in relation to.

    er, you wandered into culture and civilisation. Feel free to elaborate...


  • #123
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,559 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    reprise wrote: »
    Social scientists decriminalised homosexuality? who knew?

    That's what you took from the point? :rolleyes:

    Oh dear.


  • #124
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Tony EH wrote: »
    That's what you took from the point? :rolleyes:

    Oh dear.

    Well yes.....

    :rolleyes:

    Perhaps you would consider making points germane to the topic if it bothers you.


  • #125
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Well to be honest many of the right wing seem to base their views on self entitlement and emotional views. Neither are conducive towards scientific progress.


  • #126
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well to be honest many of the right wing seem to base their views on self entitlement and emotional views. Neither are conducive towards scientific progress.

    Yes, because being emotional is a construct of the right....
    This narrative is bollox yet you still perpetuate it and your the scientist for crying out loud.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »
    Social Democracy is the only game in town. 75 years of post war analysis has shown that Western Europe has very little time for gibbering lunatics on the right or gibbering lunatics on the left. We are pragmatic creatures. The last 30 years has seen a trend towards social liberalism and soft economic conservatism. It's a fine place to be at the moment. It's a freedom of choice.

    If we take the Rawl's original position do we not all end up with social democracy as the outcome, at least in western societies?


  • #128
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Yes, because being emotional is a construct of the right....
    .

    That's not what he said.


  • #129
    RobYourBuilder
    Registered Users Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    TheBeardedLady wrote: »
    I do agree with what he's essentially saying but the very fact that the field is full of lefties says it all, really. I doubt they're discriminating against right-wingers who want to get into the field - they simply mustn't have that much of an interest.

    The social sciences are how most left wing politicians earn their crust. Right wingers make their money, themselves, before entering the political spectrum.


  • #130
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    I assume it's been mentioned by now (I only ever read the first page, sorry) but in general. sociologists are only employed by the State and quasi-state agencies.

    Their income and professional activities depend on the State and on tax transfers from productive workers.

    Little wonder that they're left-leaning, unlike many finance, legal and engineering professionals, whose work is more profitably supported by the private sector.


  • #131
    RobYourBuilder
    Registered Users Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    How many quangos exist in Ireland? How many people are employed by these quangos? How many of them would you consider to be 'right wing'?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    That's not what he said.

    So pray tell, what was he trying to say?


  • #133
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Social science is a contradiction.


  • #134
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    conorh91 wrote: »

    Little wonder that they're left-leaning, unlike many finance, legal and engineering professionals, whose work is more profitably supported by the private sector.

    Most tax dodging bankers and their clients support both sides of every political argument. It's called hedging your bets. When the thieves get caught they hire equally crooked lawyers to get them off. Private sector heroes.
    Engineers are overpaid mechanics - but we'll leave them off for now as they have no history of profession-wide criminality.


  • #135
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    FloatingVoter wrote: »
    Most tax dodging bankers and their clients support both sides of every political argument. It's called hedging your bets. When the thieves get caught they hire equally crooked lawyers to get them off. Private sector heroes.
    Floating voter you say?

    I'd say whatever left-wing rabble-rouser is concocting the greatest political outburst has your vote, sure enough.

    To accuse financial and legal professionals en masse of being tax dodgers, or the defenders of same, is so overblown that for the first time on boards.ie, I am left speechless.

    Well, almost speechless.


  • #136
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Well, almost speechless.

    Do us all a favour and stay speechless. Its often how original thoughts form.


  • #137
    RobYourBuilder
    Registered Users Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    FloatingVoter wrote: »
    Do us all a favour and stay speechless. Its often how original thoughts form.

    That's a mean thingto say. You're better than that.


Advertisement