The Crowhill Report - Content

Views and opinions on the news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
Crowhill Publishing
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing@gregkrehbiel

Who’s more anti-science, the left or right?

by Greg Krehbiel on 30 October 2017

The left likes to accuse the right of being “anti science” — mostly because of evolution and climate change. But it’s not as if the left is free of guilt here. They regularly reject “science” that shows sex differences, for example. The truth is that both sides believe “science” only when it suits them.

Here’s an example of when the left doesn’t like what the scientists have to say. The Politicization of Motherhood

I put science in quote marks above because often the “you don’t believe science” stuff isn’t very fair. It’s possible to believe that science will eventually come to the right conclusion, but that the current fad isn’t correct. Here’s an example of how scientific dogmatism prevented geologists from understanding some rather dramatic formations out west. They were so convinced of gradualism that they wouldn’t even consider evidence of catastrophes.

Another thing to remember is that what most people think of as “science” is really newspaper reporters badly explaining things they barely understand. I rarely read an article on a science topic and fail to find a rather amusing mistake, especially when it’s a topic I know something about. (Actually, almost every time I read an article on a subject I know a lot about — scientific or not — I find an error.)

But even when the issue is reported accurately, there’s no compelling reason to accept today’s scientific fad. It’s probably better for you than listening to an astrologer, but fads come and go, and scientists (like everybody else) are very far from being objective.

The scientific process seems to do a pretty good job of self correcting — eventually. But that might take several decades — as in the geology story I linked above.

Also, there’s science and then there’s science. Food science and social science are very different things than chemistry. A handy rule of thumb is to ask yourself, “will this eventually become engineering?” If the answer is no, … hold it very loosely. It’s likely to be junk anyway.

2017-10-30  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 6

  1. Dave Krehbiel Dave Krehbiel
    30 October 2017 @ 9:58 am

    Who is more anti-science? It depends in part on your definition of science. My eighth grade science teacher defined science as the use of the scientific method.

    From that point of view, I believe the left is more anti-science. They preach many things which cannot be proven Or observed.

  2. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    30 October 2017 @ 2:08 pm

    Do they differ from the right in that regard?

  3. Robin R.
    30 October 2017 @ 2:57 pm

    Life itself demands convictions that are not and often cannot be based on science. No wonder that these find their way into politics. But I wouldn’t that anti-scientific.

  4. Robin R.
    30 October 2017 @ 4:17 pm

    *I wouldn’t call that anti-scientific

  5. HispanicPundit HispanicPundit
    30 October 2017 @ 11:58 pm

    Actually, you are being too kind. The real war on Science comes from the left. City Journal did a comprehensive breakdown on this issue. See

  6. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    31 October 2017 @ 7:18 am

    Good article. I think I’ve read that before.