I suppose I should be grateful to that unrepentantly limp wristed pinko lefty my colleague Dr A. E. of Manchester for indicating (in another context) this fascinating article by Martin Robbins in teh Grauniad, in which the renowned columnist finds his gob smacked by the revelation – shock horror – that the number of right-leaning science bloggers can be enumerated on the fingers of one thumb, and that academics who profess rightward sympathies keep their politics quiet, in much the same way that homosexual people were until recently (and perhaps still) forced to dissemble on the subject of their sexual orientation. Cue much liberal hand-wringing about the oppression of minorities and similar tedious self-inflating attention-seeking behaviour of like fashion, and predictable asinine teenage rubbish in the comments thread about conservatives not being able to think because they prefer to espouse some central dogma, as if Lefties (and scientists) were never guilty of same. This comment – the very first – illustrates this tendency, which would be risible if it weren’t so sad:
of course academics lean left-liberal, that’s because liberalism is fundamentally based on free-thinking, whilst conservatism is fundamentally based on blindly doing what you’re told.
Pish, and, moreover, tosh.
Well, I am not grateful to Mr Robbins, nor indeed to my steamed esteemed colleague Dr A. E. of Manchester (who once referred to me in company as a ‘right-wing maverick’). Why? Because I don’t like being patronized. Lefties can only function on the presumption that they are speaking up for people who might not have a voice for themselves, irrespective of whether the group in question wants some carpetbagger speaking on their behalf, the result being such travesties as Black Sections, women- or ethnic-only shortlists, and – the one to cap it all – the Grauniad Women’s Page. Aside – the fact that Jewish people have historically resisted being patronized by anybody might explain why the Left retains such an undying hatred for Jews, at least under the figleaf of the eyecrossingly insane degree of Leftist opprobrium directed at Israel - because this refusal to be patronized strikes at the very core of Leftist belief. The refusal of minorities to be patronized punctures the Leftist raison-d’etre, the very reason for the Left to exist, and once you refuse such patronage, the Left should, by rights, shrivel up and die as a slug rolled in salt.
However, and notwithstanding inasmuch as which, it is possibly a mildly interesting point, that few science bloggers (and not many scientists) would publicly identify as conservatives.
Such woolly-minded pusillanimity is not for me. I vote Conservative. I have leafleted for the Conservative Party. I am even a member of the Conservative Party. That’s not to say that I agree with everything the Conservative Party stands for. When I attend gatherings of my local Conservative Party I reduce the average age to 103, and most Tories in Norfolk seem to be obsessed with immigration – whereas if I were at Number 10, I’d make immigration free and unrestricted. I don’t think much of the character of the current Tory Leader and Prime Minister David Cameron. I think the Big Society is as empty a gesture as Tony Blair’s Big Conversation (remember that?) In short, there are probably more different definitions of conservatism as there are conservatives, but what unites them all is a certain self-reliance, combined with a native scepticism, a contrarian streak, a demand to see the evidence for any assertion, and a refusal to take anything on trust, especially from people who appear to have set themselves up as authorities.
Let’s go through that again. A certain self-reliance, combined with a native scepticism, a contrarian streak, a demand to see the evidence for any assertion, and a refusal to take anything on trust, especially from people who appear to have set themselves up as authorities. Sounds familiar? Well, it should, because such attributes are those expected of any decent scientist, which makes me wonder why scientists aren’t all natural conservatives.
However, the tendency of the Left to indoctrinate and to claim academia as its own is deep-rooted. I can trace the genesis of my hatred of the Left to a very early age, when a cousin - a member of a notoriously Leftist side of the family – referred to his own brand of politics as ‘intellectual politics’, with the implication that anyone who espoused any other form of politics was, by definition, anti-intellectual, or not intellectual at all.
I can remember a commentator in the Torygraph referring to the editorial complexion of teh Grauniad (and the BBC, which the commentator said allowed all those who couldn’t write for teh Grauniad to broadcast for it) as a stance that everyone was welcome to adopt any view they liked, provided it was their view.
In other words, the Left harbours, as a means of self-preservation, the Orwellian ethic that not only are there no dissenting voices, but that such dissent is, in fact, impossible – perhaps even inconceivable. In which case, the relative absence of conservatives in academia and in science blogging becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, and the Left will do what it does best, which is turn the wagons inwards and talk to itself, congratulating itself on how civilized, inclusive and broadminded it is.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Left? Right? SCIENTIST? From on self-reliance, scepticism, contrarian streak, demanding evidence -- Topsy.com
Is swimming in a sea of logical fallacies also a trait of scientists, or is that restricted to conservatives? Or just your particular branch of conservantry?
Only asking, as, you know, I wouldn’t want to be accused of
verbal dissentrylacking a dissenting voice.Yes, of course. Scientists are always swimming in a sea of logical fallacies, because scientists are human, like everyone else, and for scientists to pretend that they have All The Right Answers and Always Think Logically is not only deeply unscientific but makes them look silly, and fosters suspicion among the very people they should be trying to convince. I mean, look at Richard Dawkins. QED.
Ahhh, that explains it. I always thought he was Richard Dawkins, FRS. No matter, it’s only another label.
What? Is this the sound of a Leftist being swayed by someone in authority? The fact that Dawkins is an FRS doesn’t make him correct, or any less of a twit.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, Henry. I said “it’s only another label”. I didn’t say it’s a divine right to be right.
Gloriously, I notice that the ‘Status’ field of your Facecrox profile (above) is ‘None’. Which still doesn’t make you right either.
As Austin notes below, complaining about lefties lumping all righties into a single mushy entity, by mushing all lefties into a single complaining entity, is probably not the most convincing way to promote your arguments.
Recent history has also shown that the level of dissent in the Labour party has not advanced their position, so to suggest that it is impossible is surprising. Unless you (like many) don’t really consider Labour to be a left leaning party any more.
Your conservatives are our progressives. So I can’t argue with you except about our perception of the colors of our flags. You say it is red and blue, but I say it is a different shade of red, and the blue, well, it’s completely not the same at all.
As for the truth, that’s philosophy. But as for facts, they have been proven to have a liberal bias.
What beats me is why the climate change dimwits and the creationist/IDers tend to be right-wing.
I mean, if one of the defining attributes of the political right is keen business sense/fiscally driven policy then looking to the evidence and acting on it would seem to point in the other direction.
There are plenty of supposedly left-leaning people who find themselves in rationally redundant positions as well. CAM would be one area you could dredge through and find them. I suppose most of them fail to realise that there are vast amounts of money being made on the back of their gullibility.
Rationally redundant positions for the left-leaning in the US include some anti-GMO attitudes, food faddism, and doomsteading wank. Though as Jeff Crook points out, UK conservatives are our progressives (I’m assuming he’s referring to the US). Few, if any, of the self-described left wing in the US (and I count myself in that group) are anything close to “socialist”, btw – all are pretty entrenched within, and supportive of, a capitalist system.
The creationists are motivated by religion, and fear. The climate-change people might be the same as those with vested interests in oil and so on, and tend to react against science because it is perceived as Leftish rather than neutral. But lunacy crosses the political divide. Anti-vaxxers and homeopaths are often washed-up hippies, for example, who are either leftish, or anarchists, or liberals of the feet-firmly-planted-in-midair variety.
I’d found that some of the people who are anti “climate change” and IDers stem from the “anti governmental attitude” and the fear that “my children shall be indoctrinated with X, Y and Z to not think for themselves”. And of course, the religious angle. I wonder how much it is the “scientists believe they are playing God” or at least “so sceintists think they nkow so much more than I do”…
I mean, I surely hope that someone who spends x amount of years doing something in detail is way better than I on it, if I were to give it a try…..
Well, Henry I would say that in your credo:
All but the first one would do equally well for me describing what I think are the reasons I am left-of-centre, and indeed the characteristics of all my liberal leftie friends in academia. So one could as well take these as descriptors for “liberal democratic socialism”, at least the brand I (and most academics, dare I say) espouse.
The one we might differ on is “a certain self-reliance”. From my perspective, liberal socialism recognises that, while self-reliance is a good thing, the gross and systemic inequalities inherent in free-market societies – which have got noticeably worse in the last three decades – mean that some less fortunate people need equalising help to enable them to be more self-reliant. If that sounds patronising, there you go.
Finally: I hesitate to say it, but you have this recurrent gambit of eliding everyone of vaguely leftist sympathies in UK academia (like me, for instance) into “indistinguishable from Steven & Hilary Rose and company”. The use of “anti-semitism” to describe the latter lot then risks becoming a very loaded term to tag all the left-of-centre people you disagree with, not just the tiny sect who want to have academic boycotts of Israel and similar ridiculous measures. I know you have strong feelings about this, and personal history with some of the Hard Left crew, but personally I rather object to being lumped in with them in this way.
@Austin: the anti-Israel boycott was signed by many establishment scientists, including Richard Dawkins and Colin Blakemore – who then published a piece in Nature denouncing boycotts without memtioning their part in one – and Patrick Bateson, who with the Grauniad’s connivance published private correspondence from me without my permission. These people are hardly a tiny and irrelevant sect of the Hard Left. BTW, your characterisation of me as a ‘right-wing maverick’ still rankles, and as Robbins might suggest, perpetuates the idea of a Tory intellectual as an oxymoron (rather than a Labour intellectual, who’s just a … Sorry, couldn’t resist). And yes, to lift up the disadvantaged in the old socialist way is not only patronising, but ineffective: at least from the perspective of the people themselves (from the perspective of the Labour Party it works a treat, as it retains its voter base.., until they all go and vote BNP).
@Mike: honestly, who knows what Labour stands for? Ed Millibong has dropped the ‘New’ from ‘Labour’, making it the most regressive party in mainstream politics.
Henry, I get that the “right wing maverick” line</i rankled/rankles, though I didn't write it with the intention that it would. Re. “rankilng”, see above for me re being lumped together with Steven Rose and the boycott folks.
BTW, I think Blakemore’s position was a bit more nuanced than that – the thing I remember reading was this article, which also has a correction mentioning you and Bateson, and there are also the corrections here.
You may deplore being ‘lumped in’ with the boycotters, but you have to admit that anti-Israel activity is absolutely rampant in British academia. It is all around you. I have seen nothing – nothing at all – from UK academia to deplore such activity or the antisemitism that motivates it, at least in part. Until such a change takes place, well, I’m gonna keep on lumping.
That correction hides a great deal. After the article was printed I complained to the Editor and got nothing. I complained to the journalist, and got the sort of snotty note of self-justification that you’d expect. A correction only came after Tim Radford of teh Grauniad, a good friend of mine, complained to the Grauniad’s reader ombudsman on my behalf. As you see they only corrected the point about the use of correspondence without permission, but I have never had any kind of apology from the Guardian, and of course I’d never expect one from Bateson.
I’ve wondered for quite some time now though; this “academics lean left-liberal”… I mean, I’d belive it sort of if you exclude all the “economics subjects” (most all of the ones I’ve encountered have been right leaning. And the engineering people I know, same there….
I am aware it’s ‘anecdotal story’, but I don’t think it is as easy as that. Then again, I know “my view on liberal” (as a Swede) might be way off compared to the “left-liberal” used in the US where I currently am. And I would think there is a difference to the UK version too? Liberal to me is more right than left… (more individual freedom than collective solutions)
Although, all in all, I guess if ‘Academics’ are thought of as scientists/profs working as “publicly funded” or “working in uni” I wouldn’t be too surprised if these people turned out to be more inclined of being “left” since afaik public funding and distribution of funds isn’t what the right wants to do the most? So, if you are right-leaning, wouldn’t you go into a company or somewhere else where you would have more potential of doing things “your way” and not rely on public funds from the government?
Actually, my impression is that there are more right of centre folk in UK University science departments than in arts and social sciences. Though, as Henry says, they may keep quieter about it than if they worked in, say, a PharmaCo. We certainly have some Tory voters where I work, and even one who clearly regards Cameron as far too soft.
One indicator (in the UK) of University staff political leanings can be membership of the staff trade union, which often correlates with left-of-centre politics and tends to be lowest in the science departments. Interestingly, there also seem to be “regional” differences, at least in union membership – when I was a grad student at UCL long ago the Physiology Department was 95% union members. When I moved to Manchester it was closer to 50%, with senior staff (esp Professors) rarely in the Union. In fact, when I got here in the late 80s there were more Protestant lay preachers (sic) on the Department Faculty than there were union members. Though some of the lay preachers were quite left-wing.
It is a bit too easy to say “academics on the public payroll, hence lefties”, IMHO – the disparaging phrase you often hear for this in the UK is the “the iron ricebowl.”. I think it is more that University education in the UK was historically seen as a public good, which is something lefties generally believe in and are thus happy to work for, even at less than they could earn elsewhere.
On that last topic, I would suggest that most people who get as far as the Faculty (at least in sciences) in UK Universities would expect to earn notably more doing something science-related in the private sector, though they would likely not have the same job security. When I was approached many years back to apply for a job running a group in a Big Consumer Products Co’s research labs, it was implicit that I could expect a significant pay rise. And when I interviewed a decade ago for a job in science admin for a leading UK charity, the pay scale was nearly 20% above what I made as a lecturer.
PS Cripes – Captcha just gave me the name of a noted post-modernist philosopher. Help! We’ve been inflitrated!
@Jeff @Chall @KristiV – of course, the political landscape in Britain differs from that in the U. S. and A. for all sorts of reasons. For all that Mrs Crox refers to me as ‘Genghis’, I’d probably be a Democrat in the US. Many people who identify themselves as Conservatives here would say that they were fiscally conservative (low taxation, sound money) but socially liberal. For example, in today’s Times and therefore almost certainly behind a paywall, Conservative commentator Danny Finkelstein argues that support for gay marriage should be a fundamentally Tory campaign issue.
@Austin – it’s true that various forms of activism tend to be concentrated around particular places and faculties. When I was at Cambridge, for example, Kings was regarded as notoriously Leftish, and Left-inspired anti-Israeli activity tends to come from arts and humanities schools (the School of Oriental and African Studies , for example, is repeatedly mired in controversies of this kind). On the other hand, the comments thread after Robbins’ piece suggests that people in some disciplines such as engineering are either neutral or Rightish. I do wonder whether there’s a legacy of the ‘Two Cultures’ here – that humanities tend to attract left-leaning toffs whereas science attracts people that the former would once look down on as ‘trade’.
However, all such things are in a sense distractions – Martin Robbins was talking about science bloggers in particular, and I guess that most of these, whether in Britain or the US, would see themselves as broadly Leftish in their politics.
It’s interesting that you bring up the issue of the left-wing hatred of Israel- because in Israel itself, “left wing” and “right wing” have entirely different meanings. The right wing has always supported the concept of a “greater Israel”, along with support for religious theocracy, whereas the left wing (not the radical left, but left-center, myself included) has always been in favor of territorial compromise and trying to move towards separation of synagogue and state. In fact, for these very theocratic reasons, I was married on the island of Cyprus, which is the closest to Israel that one can marry in a civil and non-religious ceremony.
Here in the US, I think it would be difficult for many scientists to support the Republican party, given the attitude of prominent leaders toward stem cell research, global warming, etc. Although admittedly, Republican congresses have been generous to science in the past decades.
In general, the Middle East suffers from insufficient democracy. Israel, on the other hand, has too much.
Light relief.
I’ll try that again when I can remember my password.
Buses and Stations. rpg: Buses and Stations.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMIrDDGZmuI]
OK, you asked for it.
Moishe, a Jewish actor, is so down and out he’s ready to take any acting gig that he can find. Finally he gets a lead, a classified ad that reads “Actor needed to play an ape.”
“I could do that,” says Moishe. To his surprise, the employer turns out to be the Zoo. Owing to mismanagement, the zoo has spent so much money renovating the grounds and improving the habitat, that they can no longer afford to import the ape they needed to replace their recently deceased one. So until they can, they’ll put an actor in an ape suit. Out of desperation, Moishe takes the offer.
At first, his conscience keeps nagging him, that he is being dishonest by fooling the zoo-goers. And Moishe feels undignified in the ape-suit, stared at by crowds who watch his every move. But after a few days on the job, he begins to enjoy all the attention, and starts to put on a show for the zoo-goers: hanging upside-down from the branches by his legs, swinging about on the vines, climbing up the cage walls, and roaring with all his might whilst beating his chest. Soon, he’s drawing a sizable crowd.
One day, when Moishe is swinging on the vines to show off to a group of school kids, his hand slips, and he goes flying over the fence into the neighboring cage – the lion’s den. Terrified, Moishe backs up as far from the approaching lion as he can, covers his eyes with his paws, and prays at the top of his lungs,
”
Shema Yisrael Adonai Elokeinu Adonai Echad!”
The lion opens its powerful jaws and roars the response,
“Baruch Shem K’vod Malchuto L’olam Va’ed!”
From a nearby cage, a panda yells,”Shut up, you schmucks. You’ll get us all fired!!!”
*laugh*
Missed this until yesterday (how did that happen) and though, as a dyed-in-the-wool Guardian reader I disagree strongly on a couple of points — universal antisemitism on the left and the accusation of suppression of dissent (partly true) — I did love it. Henry – you are one of my favourite Conservatives because you are so ready and able to articulate your view.
(Hope that doesn’t sound patronising! Not meant as such!).
Most left wing ideology stems from a kind of cult-like group think. Any deviation from their brainwashing, and it’s like they short circuit. They simply have not been programmed to handle dissent, even on the smallest scale. They also use cult-like psychology to keep the ranks in file. If you dare to question the dogma, you will be pointed out and debased. Most people can’t handle such humiliation. They’d rather give up their convictions and conform. It’s called cognitive dissonance. It’s very powerful, and the left wing architects know it. Their problem is–what will they do with those of us who simply have no concern over external validation?