Does social politics suppress facts?

Say, if some research concluded all people are bi-sexual, and it's their environment/upbringing that informs their preferences.

Or, if it was shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that more guns do NOT make a society safer.

I've been thinking about how dogmatic our national debates really are, and wonder if this also affects what kind of research actually reach's us, and gets reported.

True, people do not like facts that contradict their worldview. I once had a socially progressive type flat-out tell me that “inconvenient facts” should be censored and suppressed.

I've had a Flat-Earther tell me I'm limiting his freedom of religion and speech when I debunked an argument he had. :I

Originally posted by cdtm
Say, if some research concluded all people are bi-sexual, and it's their environment/upbringing that informs their preferences.

Or, if it was shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that more guns do NOT make a society safer.

I've been thinking about how dogmatic our national debates really are, and wonder if this also affects what kind of research actually reach's us, and gets reported.

I posted a story a month or two ago about climate change, it had one scientist saying that he knew of certain colleagues who were of the mindset that if it were shown that tree's contributed to climate change they would bury the data.

Also with guns we're already seeing people ignore research, it's just not the pro gun people ignoring it. The research I'm talking about is that which shows there are, at minimum, 500k defensive uses of guns per year and the maximum number could be in the millions. CDC confirmed this.

Let me make it clear: a defensive use of a gun does not mean the gun is used to shoot someone. If you try to rob me and you pull out a knife and I pull out a gun and aim it at you and you flee...that's a defensive use of a gun.

Originally posted by Surtur
Let me make it clear: a defensive use of a gun does not mean the gun is used to shoot someone. If you try to rob me and you pull out a knife and I pull out a gun and aim it at you and you flee...that's a defensive use of a gun.

That's actually the legal intention of a gun, for defensive purposes only. Agree on your two other points, people often shape the facts to fit their theory as opposed to shaping the theory depending on the facts available.

Even studies that are incontrovertible are questioned/rejected by people if it goes against their worldview so it would make little difference.

Originally posted by gauntlet o doom
Even studies that are incontrovertible are questioned/rejected by people if it goes against their worldview so it would make little difference.

Too many people let their politics shape what science they believe than let science shape what politics they believe.

A particular problem when those people are making legislation.

Originally posted by Surtur
I posted a story a month or two ago about climate change, it had one scientist saying that he knew of certain colleagues who were of the mindset that if it were shown that tree's contributed to climate change they would bury the data.

Also with guns we're already seeing people ignore research, it's just not the pro gun people ignoring it. The research I'm talking about is that which shows there are, at minimum, 500k defensive uses of guns per year and the maximum number could be in the millions. CDC confirmed this.

Let me make it clear: a defensive use of a gun does not mean the gun is used to shoot someone. If you try to rob me and you pull out a knife and I pull out a gun and aim it at you and you flee...that's a defensive use of a gun.

Also as far as I'm aware gun violence in general has gone down. However they're are some hotspots like Chicago and possibly Balitimore. However Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the US.

Originally posted by cdtm
Say, if some research concluded all people are bi-sexual, and it's their environment/upbringing that informs their preferences.

But...that's pretty much what the research shows. Even in twin studies, identical twin studies, where the twins were raised in different environments, after no-nonsense controls were put in place, still didn't have even a majority as both being homosexual (the previous, self-reported study was thrown out since it resulted in a confirmation bias rather than legit research).

Default state for humans: sexual. That's generally bisexual for most humans. Humans are better defined as hypersexual.

The extreme rares are people who are purely homosexual or heterosexual.

Also, sexual orientation has a lot to do with self-identification. You choose to identify as homosexual or heterosexual despite the fact that almost every single time, you're really bisexual

Originally posted by cdtm
I've been thinking about how dogmatic our national debates really are, and wonder if this also affects what kind of research actually reach's us, and gets reported.

It does especially with climate change. I posted about this before. You can get your biology research funded if you figure out how to throw in climate change or global warming as part of the study.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Too many people let their politics shape what science they believe than let science shape what politics they believe.

A particular problem when those people are making legislation.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Too many people let their politics shape what science they believe than let science shape what politics they believe.

A particular problem when those people are making legislation.