Does reality have a left-wing bias?
My research and life experience have taught me that it does. So being 'bi-partisan' would make me dishonest.
41-45, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
In the United States, to a significant degree. A lot of right-wing rhetoric just falls flat in the face of academic research in a variety of fields.
Topics from economics (tax cuts do not work. redistributing wealth is not socialism), to earth sciences (humanity is contributing to climate change), to biology (yes, there are more than 2 genders. yes, vaccines work. no, life does not begin at conception), to history (the second amendment was intended to protect the government, not to defend against it).
That isn't to say that left-wing rhetoric is exactly 100% fact-based itself, since it does take a lot of liberties with social sciences. But comparing the two as objectively as one can, the left actually gets a lot more right than the right
Topics from economics (tax cuts do not work. redistributing wealth is not socialism), to earth sciences (humanity is contributing to climate change), to biology (yes, there are more than 2 genders. yes, vaccines work. no, life does not begin at conception), to history (the second amendment was intended to protect the government, not to defend against it).
That isn't to say that left-wing rhetoric is exactly 100% fact-based itself, since it does take a lot of liberties with social sciences. But comparing the two as objectively as one can, the left actually gets a lot more right than the right
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@TinyViolins Mostly agree and its somewhat true of the British right too.
Social sciences don't claim to be natural sciences. Some sociologists are empiricists and some have different methodologies. Frankly, post-modernism is pretentious wank. It is good to study how power works in society and have demonstrable theories of that though, even if it does involve some value judgements.
I also think economics should be regarded as a social science. When it's understood (as some do) as like physical science, it runs into big problems.
Social sciences don't claim to be natural sciences. Some sociologists are empiricists and some have different methodologies. Frankly, post-modernism is pretentious wank. It is good to study how power works in society and have demonstrable theories of that though, even if it does involve some value judgements.
I also think economics should be regarded as a social science. When it's understood (as some do) as like physical science, it runs into big problems.
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
@Burnley123 When I was in school, economics was broken up into both a liberal arts curriculum and a scientific one based around statistics. One mainly dealt with policy and theory, while the other dealt more with data collection, modelling, and regression analysis.
I dabbled in both, but ultimately got the degree in liberal arts. But you're right on that last point. A lot of economists can't help but design their models and data collection methods around an ideology, and so the results they get tend to reflect their biases.
I dabbled in both, but ultimately got the degree in liberal arts. But you're right on that last point. A lot of economists can't help but design their models and data collection methods around an ideology, and so the results they get tend to reflect their biases.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@TinyViolins
That is true. I'd take it even further and say that economists need to be humble and see the bigger picture. All conventional economists missed the 2007/08 financial crash because their models did not take account of 'systemic risk'.
The data they were basing their predictions on did not take into account the whole picture and were based on the (ideological but not knowingly ideological) assumptions of constant growth. Their models were based on a belief that their information was perfect, which it wasn't.
The Post-Keynesians had the theory of economic cycles that was historical and effectively factored in mass psychology too. They were right but I also think it is true that human society is too complex for a perfect model. Empiricism and data absolutely have their place but economists need to know that there are too many variables (inc some always hidden) for their discipline to be like natural science.
A lot of economists can't help but design their models and data collection methods around an ideology, and so the results they get tend to reflect their biases.
That is true. I'd take it even further and say that economists need to be humble and see the bigger picture. All conventional economists missed the 2007/08 financial crash because their models did not take account of 'systemic risk'.
The data they were basing their predictions on did not take into account the whole picture and were based on the (ideological but not knowingly ideological) assumptions of constant growth. Their models were based on a belief that their information was perfect, which it wasn't.
The Post-Keynesians had the theory of economic cycles that was historical and effectively factored in mass psychology too. They were right but I also think it is true that human society is too complex for a perfect model. Empiricism and data absolutely have their place but economists need to know that there are too many variables (inc some always hidden) for their discipline to be like natural science.
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
@Burnley123 Yeah, I'm right there with you.
