Cargando…
Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder
Data from the General Social Survey indicate that conservatives’ self-reported trust in scientists has steadily decreased since 1974. In Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017), we suggested that this trend may have been partly driven by the increasing tendency of scientific institutions, and...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984958/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6 |
_version_ | 1783328687007989760 |
---|---|
author | Cofnas, Nathan Carl, Noah Woodley of Menie, Michael A. |
author_facet | Cofnas, Nathan Carl, Noah Woodley of Menie, Michael A. |
author_sort | Cofnas, Nathan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Data from the General Social Survey indicate that conservatives’ self-reported trust in scientists has steadily decreased since 1974. In Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017), we suggested that this trend may have been partly driven by the increasing tendency of scientific institutions, and the representatives of such institutions, to distort social science for the sake of liberal activism. Larregue (The American Sociologist, 2017) makes three opposing arguments: (1) It is “very hard” to establish the charge of bias, especially since we did “not state what [we] mean by ‘bias.’” (2) We did not establish a causal relationship between scientists’ (alleged) liberal activism and conservatives’ distrust of science, and we ignored activism by conservative scientists. (3) We were wrong to advocate “affirmative action” for conservatives in academia. We address these arguments in turn: (1) Larregue does not engage with our main arguments that liberal bias exists in social science. (2) In recent years, prominent scientific organizations have, with great publicity, intervened in policy debates, always supporting the liberal side without exception. It is not unreasonable to assume that this would diminish conservatives’ trust in these organizations. Contra Larregue, in Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017) we explicitly acknowledged that conservative scientists can also be biased. (3) We never advocated “affirmative action” for conservatives, and in fact we object to such a proposal. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5984958 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59849582018-06-28 Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder Cofnas, Nathan Carl, Noah Woodley of Menie, Michael A. Am Sociol Article Data from the General Social Survey indicate that conservatives’ self-reported trust in scientists has steadily decreased since 1974. In Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017), we suggested that this trend may have been partly driven by the increasing tendency of scientific institutions, and the representatives of such institutions, to distort social science for the sake of liberal activism. Larregue (The American Sociologist, 2017) makes three opposing arguments: (1) It is “very hard” to establish the charge of bias, especially since we did “not state what [we] mean by ‘bias.’” (2) We did not establish a causal relationship between scientists’ (alleged) liberal activism and conservatives’ distrust of science, and we ignored activism by conservative scientists. (3) We were wrong to advocate “affirmative action” for conservatives in academia. We address these arguments in turn: (1) Larregue does not engage with our main arguments that liberal bias exists in social science. (2) In recent years, prominent scientific organizations have, with great publicity, intervened in policy debates, always supporting the liberal side without exception. It is not unreasonable to assume that this would diminish conservatives’ trust in these organizations. Contra Larregue, in Cofnas et al. (The American Sociologist, 2017) we explicitly acknowledged that conservative scientists can also be biased. (3) We never advocated “affirmative action” for conservatives, and in fact we object to such a proposal. Springer US 2018-03-12 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5984958/ /pubmed/29962513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Cofnas, Nathan Carl, Noah Woodley of Menie, Michael A. Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder |
title | Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder |
title_full | Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder |
title_fullStr | Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder |
title_full_unstemmed | Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder |
title_short | Larregue’s Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder |
title_sort | larregue’s critique of cofnas et al. (2017): a rejoinder |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984958/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cofnasnathan larreguescritiqueofcofnasetal2017arejoinder AT carlnoah larreguescritiqueofcofnasetal2017arejoinder AT woodleyofmeniemichaela larreguescritiqueofcofnasetal2017arejoinder |