Liberals v. Science

Science is unpopular. Many, especially among the uneducated branches of the religious right, reject evolution.

It is equally unpopular among many liberals, who reject what science says about sex differences.

As educated liberals have much more influence over the formation of national policy than uneducated religionists, I’m more concerned about liberals.

For instance, yet another study came out showing, once again, that males have a much greater variance in math achievement than females. That is, female scores tend to bunch together near the mean, while male scales are more likely to be way up or way down. While this leaves the average unchanged, it implies both more math PhDs and more special education students will be males. More of the typical ‘good students’ (but not overachievers) that teachers like are females.

Visually:

Unsurprisingly, the New York Times reports the study as finding no sex differences. Other liberal publications, such as the Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, and The Chronicle of Higher Education toe the party line. This would be like a Jack Chick pamphlet describing modern biology as reporting no evidence for evolution.

Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who supports science) gets it right.

Thanks to gnxp, Marginal Revolution, and Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science for helping to uncover this story.

7 thoughts on “Liberals v. Science”

  1. Interesting. You have always considered me progressive (I assume you mean “liberal” by that), and you and I have always been in agreement on this subject. I think a better title would be hardcore feminist pseudo-science v. science.

  2. Would you consider the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chronicle of higher ed to be under the control of “hardcore feminist pseudo-science”?

  3. Jeffrey,

    Thanks for the help.

    As a conservative, I find myself looking at liberal organizations from the outside. I’ve long considered the New York Times to be “mainstream liberal,” though I appreciate the feedback indicating I may have been giving them too much credit.

    Thank you.

  4. “As a conservative, I find myself looking at liberal organizations from the outside. I’ve long considered the New York Times to be “mainstream liberal,” though I appreciate the feedback indicating I may have been giving them too much credit.

    Thank you.”

    ?

  5. All I said was that it depends on who is writing the editorial/article. Last time I checked, Thomas Friedman writes for the NYT, and he seems to somewhat fit your brand of conservatism.

  6. Friedman is part of the editorial board (as are Bill Krystol, Bob Herbert, etc), and seperate from the newsreporting bulk of the newspaper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *