Far Left Ideology Is Infecting Science And Becoming Policy. We can see it in various forms. Fighting against Nuclear energy, fighting against GMO, and the most recent example denying biological dimorphism in humans. These beliefs then get pushed into the mainstream and become policy and sometimes even law. But the news and most people would tell you its conservatives who deny science when the truth is science denial is prevalent in all political ideologies. Social justice ideologies are apparently becoming prevalent in Universities where academics are predominantly left wing and hold regressive and ideological views that interfere with science.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
For most of my life. The common understanding was that the right denies science that conservatism republican
don't believe in signs. They believe in alternative facts and the left are the ones championing true science. The reality is, that's not true.
There have been studies showing that both the left and the right. Equally, that deny science
Denying science has nothing to do with your political ideology. It had to do whether or not you want to agree with your thrive, and you want you're trying to win and its a bit more complicated than that. But upon
Doing some research and looking at some recent events, I am now of the belief that left wing science
I'll is substantially more dangerous than right wing science and I'll, thereby accusations that right wing groups will fund scientific research that will benefit their industry and their business, and I think that's a fair argument and you can
but those studies, but when you realise that most people in academia lean left and the left has
embracing a moral ideology above science than it stand.
To reason that our true non partisan, academia doesn't exist and left wing ideology. Not politics is going to take over and going to infect. Our actual understanding of science
I want to go. Look at various articles and sources talking about the danger of science and oil, and I want to bring up why I believe, if we don't call out left wing science and right now or infra,
Europe's future. Before I get started, please had over a patriarch, dotcom, forts lashed him casts help support. My work patrons are the backbone of the content I create any
like this, because we want to see more than had over two patriarch dot com, forts Lushington Cast and become a patron today. The first thing I want to highlight is this: video from a debate that happened in Canada on Tv Ontario, between Nicholas Matt and Jordan Petersen, among many others for the clip
want to show is a professor on television saying there is no biological sex. Basically, it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex and I'm a historian of medicine. I can unpack that for you at great length if you want, but in the interests of time I won't
So that's a very popular misconception. This person is a historian of medicine and typically I try to refrain from criticising people or experts in areas where I am not an expert. However, it's just simply not true. Biological sex absolutely does exist.
Look science. Our understanding of sides changes over time, but there has now
been a major overhaul in the science of sex, you can still go on Wikipedia and see that biological sex absolutely does,
best, it's not controversial. Even they
organisms of many species are specialised into male and female varieties. Each known as sex. This it
A normal thing. Males tend to do one thing: females tend to do another, it's not absolute, there is no one, but for the most part there is male in there
Female human males, for instance, are typically stronger, taller, more muscle, mass, more collagen, denser bones, and human males, typically without medical or sign of intervention, cannot produce offspring. This is plainly visible. You can see it with your eyes. You can hear it in your ears. Males and females have different voices even an
I would tell you to deny that now to my main point: the reason why they are so dangerous that you have people on television. You have people in the universities who argue
or moral ideology over science. In my research, I came across this
article from city Journal, and they said my liberal
friend sometimes ask me why I dont devote more of my science journals into the sins of the right. It's fine
espouse pseudoscience on the left they say, but why aren't you and equal opportunity de bunker? Why not write about conservatives threat to science? My friends, don't like my answer, because there isn't much to write about conservatives.
You don't have that much impact on science. I know that sound strange democratic, decry republican creationism and call themselves the Party of Science, but I've done my homework. I've read the left's indictments, including Chris monies best sellers, the republican war on science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset. Where are the casualties? He was honest, say, but to huge threats to science are peculiar to the left and they're getting worse. The first threat is confirmation by us. The well documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices, and a classic study of peer review.
Seventy five psychologist were asked to referee a paper by the mental health of left wing student activists. Some referees saw a version of the paper showing that student activists. Mental health was above normal. Others saw different data, showing it to be below normal.
Sure enough. The more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favourable to the left wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way they quickly found problems with its methodology.
I want to say that academics have traditionally leaned left politically and many fields have essentially become mano cultures.
Especially in the Social Sciences, where Democrats now outnumber republicans at least eight
one in sociology, where the ratio is forty four to one
Student is much likelier to be taught by marks
spend. My republican lopsided ratio has led to another well documented phenomenon: people's beliefs become more extreme when their surrounded by like minded colleagues,
come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm, but also the truth
go on to add. Democrats outnumber republicans at least twelve to one, perhaps forty, two one in social psychology, creating what Jonathan hate calls a tribal moral community with its own sacred values, about what's worth studying and what's taboo when I was younger the left used to be.
Out science, so they claimed. But, as we know from the years, both sides can be equally anti science, but the level criticized the right footing.
Climate change and many on the right still do, and if you want do by all means there is a big problem when we can see the heavy bias and the moral ideology of the left. Now my politics in terms of policy economy and how the government forms are left libertarian. That means that I think power of government is derived from the will of the masses. You can't impose rules on people without their approval to an extent right. There is some authority, I'm not a total, no government type and I live
left in that I believe, more in cooperative economies than competitive economies, but I'm only centre left. The point is the modern left today is adopting authoritarian ideology, their beliefs and identity, politics and DE platforms
people these are based on ideologies as we saw in the beginning. There was a professor who claims that biological sex does not exist. That's just plain, not true.
There has been no major overhaul. You can simply go to any scientific publication and read that while, yes, there is,
the once and while new ideas are constantly emerging, the general consensus is that yes, biological sex exists. So it's dangerous, then, when you have people like this, who go out and make anti scientific claims, but it's also dangerous. When you realize the left claims to be the party of Science, they claim to be opposing those who don't believe in science when in reality they equally don't believe in science and then their beliefs start
in our culture and changing our governmental policies, for instance, the story I did yesterday my second channel, the feminist who was suspended from twitter, because
said. Men are not women, Megan Murphy, who founded the feminist blogging, podcast firmness current in twelve, had treated in October. Men aren't women, though, and how our trans woman, not men, what is the difference between men,
transport and on Thursday Murphy revealed on twitter that she had been notified by twitter that her language and the tweet had violated there. Rules against hateful conduct the idea that there are more than two genders the idea.
That there is no biological sex, these our moral ideological positions, not scientific ones, their arguments about society and not about science, biological sex- it does exist
So when you see twitter and nothing policies based on a moral ideology, that's held by even university professors, and we can see that in universities, the left out numbers the right to an extreme degree
stands to reason that moral ideology is prevalent among the sciences and will have a negative impact on society. Now, look by all means make the argument that right wing groups fund science to benefit their industry.
And yet the cope brothers and all these other arguments that have existed for a long time. But the issue then becomes who counters that, if we're supposed to be relying on academic institutions to provide impartial scientists,
research, but we learn at their overwhelmingly left, leaning on the left is being done.
Company by moral ideology, then who exists to actually counter bad science. We can even see
examples are the expansion of moral ideology in academia with, what's called the socalled squared hoax. What an audacious hoax reveals about academia, three scholars, rope, twenty fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions. James Linsey Helen Pluck rose and peer big ocean ropes, twenty fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions and try to get them placed in high profile journals in fields, including gender studies, queer studies and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable by the time they took their experiment
look late on Tuesday, seven of the articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer reviewed journals, seven more we're still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected, so look someone gets banned from
but it might be saying. Is that really a big deal, but I would argue yes, it is for a more specific reason. In the social Squared hoax, we learned that these three individuals rewrote a section of mine, Comf and change. Some of the proper nouns to feminist terminology
and it was accepted. That means you have scientific journals, peer review, journals, willing to publish mine, Comf ideology, so long ass
Proper nouns are switched out for feminist terminology, and this is the danger of our academia being take
over by moral ideology, the Republicans the right they are not doing that. That is on the left.
And a nominal I'm gonna get alot of flak from the left saying all but term now you're just finger pointing at the left will it needs to be done because, as I ve shown you, the left clearly dominates academia. They outnumber the right something like forty four to one in some respects, and you can see that when certain publications are willing to publish, complete and total nonsense, so that fit a moral framework, our sciences are being corrupt. It now I dont want to imply theirs.
Direct correlation between these two things. But I can say that when you learn about this, its unsurprising, when you see a story like us in the Atlantic which just came out yesterday, science is getting less Bang forts buck. Despite vast increases in the time and money spent on research, progress is barely keeping pace with the past
what went wrong and the article argues that most of the war?
being given out our for research in the eighties and we're not seeing that much new development in science as its typically keeping pace with the past, but we ve exponentially increased the funding. Perhaps it's because a lot of the areas where funding has been increased is moral ideology
not actual sciences and nonsense is being published and that nonsense clouds actual research and makes it harder to make real discoveries. Look ominously again that guy in the beginning, Nicholas met on television said: there's no such thing as biological sex. That's just plain, not true. We can claim to unpack it, but you can clearly go to
a common source, and it will explain to you what biological sex is. This is now being used in schools. This person is teaching young people. How do you think that's going to impact our society when you go to the doktor when you're getting a physical, it is important. They know your biological sex to tell you
they're, not you are at risk for certain ailments. Males are not going to get cervical cancer. Females are not going to get prostate cancer. These things are factually true
and if someone goes to the doktor and claims that biological sex does not exist, they could be at risk for a type of disease that is unique to a certain sex and the doktor is going to have a hard time trying to understand that. Thus, it's important to know if these things are real and there is a real danger in left wing ideology. The strange identity, carrion, ideology, infecting sciences, it's gonna have a real world impact. It could potentially caused loss of life. Not get me wrong. Climate changes bad too for sure. But again we don't see climate change, denial in academia, Jordan Petersen treated this on the second October. The stem fields are next on the S J, W headless. Beware engineers and he retreated this man, David Millard Hassle, who said a leading physicist, gave a talk, male side
Tests are discriminated against in favour of less qualified women posted evidence. It was taken down, lost his position. Other studies verify claim there was a preliminary study, arguing that Trans might be a trend it was taken down for being politically incorrect. There was that talk given by a physicist who said women who are less qualified are being promoted for the sake of ideology. He was five from his position. I dont think firing on was the right thing to do. I think arguing against his ideas and presenting data to challenge. It is the right thing to do, but here we can see the dangers of left wing ideology, infecting academia, Clare, lemon of queer, let tweeted brave at you. W lecturer, Stuart Regis wrote a
out the sex differences for quality. Here he explains what happened next quote. If you dare to discuss the science of sex differences, even at a university there's, a good chance, you'll be accused of violating. U S, law is fair to say it doesn't matter where you are politically. Your equally likely to deny science is fair to say that the left out numbers, the right to an extreme degree in academia,
which stands to reason left wing science and oil is extremely more dangerous than the right, because the right is not in a position of power in academia either. The point trying to get across. So let me know today in the commons below, will give the conversation going. How do you feel about
I'm gonna get among it, shoot out by the left, claiming all, but the right denies climate change, climate change worsen. All that look, I'm not the nine that I'm just saying Republicans aren't typically working on climate change, science for the most part. So what do you have to worry about? Most countries agree. Climate change is happening
We are now seeing you s law in various cities in various states that are saying, there's more than two genders or that bilateral sex doesn't exist and if even want to talk about the differences you could be
violating the law. The moral ideology which impact science transfers to U S, law and is going to have serious ramifications, but again, come at below gave a conversation going. You can follow me on Twitter, TIM Gas, stay tuned, new videos, everyday at four p m about more videos coming up on my second channel Youtube outcomes lashed in cats, news at six p m again, thanks for hang it up
I'll see you next.
Transcript generated on 2020-05-09.