Bias in Science

One of the funny things about political bias is that it's incredibly difficult to detect it in yourself. You spend so long identifying with a certain ideology that - eventually - it seems like a self evident fact. We can see a number of examples of this in modern society, but one example I want to draw on is this article from 2010.

Note, first of all, the smug sense of satisfaction. The author has found a theory that explains why Liberals are better than Conservatives. Tres bien! No need to worry folks, we've settled in once and for all. As much as I'd love to lay into the personality factors present in this article I want to stick to the psychological issues at work.

The problem with this article is not the internal logic (although that is a bit iffy) but just bad science in general. First of all note the definition of Liberal:

"...the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others." 

 This definition is fine as it goes, so long as it is true. But is it? One of the main problems with deductive reasoning is that you have to start with a true premise and work down, but how do you know the premise is true? You have to work up (inductively) from evidence. Is there evidence that this definition is true? I'm sure many Liberals would identify strongly with it, but I know plenty of Conservatives (particularly Christians) who would ALSO identify with it. What are we to make of that? The author offers no reasoning for this definition, merely that it is "reasonable" to assume that's what defines Liberalism (presumably the opposite idea; not caring for others and unwilling to contribute private resources to help people is indicative of Conservatism, but as I said earlier can we reasonably assume that?), the author also claims that this "usually" translates to support for welfare programs. The author does not entertain the idea that a person may wish to help others but also oppose welfare programs (trust me, these people exist.

Another sticky issue that the author blithely tosses aside is the fact that Conservatives are more charitable (presumably because they are more religious). This, according to the author, is explained by the theory because truly altruistic Liberals don't mind giving indiscriminately and so support blanket higher taxes and welfare programs. Conservatives on the other hand are deeply prejudiced people who want to decide who they help (the example is, unsurprisingly, old white men) and who they don't want to help (poor black women).

Finally the author presents us with some seemingly unselfconscious circular logic. A common complaint, they say, is that Liberals control the major social institutions. This, apparently, is true. It's true, according to the author, because Liberals are smarter, and therefore more likely to control things. How do we know they are smarter? because those same institutions have done studies proving it. Apparently unable to acknowledge this bias the author ends by alluding to the apparent evolutionary novelty of Liberalism (as opposed to Conservatism) and stating that the smarter people (liberals) are therefore more adaptive to modern society.

Now, I don't want you to get the impression I am ragging on Liberals and vaunting the Conservatives. I'm not a fan of either group and I don't identify with either one. In fact, like a lot of young people, I tend to take a more eclectic view of personal philosophy and political ideology. Sometimes I take a liberal stand, sometimes a conservative one and sometimes (more often than not) I take a mixed stand.

My point is that politics is one of those areas where we have a vested interest in preserving the integrity of our group and actively harming the integrity of the out group. Liberals are convinced Conservatives are evil, and vice versa. The problem is that when this bias bleeds into science we can become incredibly stupid. One only has to take two ideologically opposed media institutions, for example, to see how twisted facts can become; for example The Guardian - a broadly left wing paper in the UK - will often carry stories of the depravity and general incompetence of Conservatives in and out of government. Similarly the Telegraph - a right-wing paper of similar repute - will carry studies, facts, figures and so on about how bad the Liberals are.

Who is right? We don't know, because unless you dig up the research and look for yourself (and let's be honest, who does that?) you are at the mercy of the authors bias. I could probably do a similar analysis as I have done above by picking apart an article on why Conservatives are better than Liberals and you'd see the exact same level of bias.

Hopefully this blog post has given you a bit of a flavour for the problems with a) hypothetico-deductive reasoning based on faulty premises and b) the dangers of political (or other) biases in science.

Just remember that there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the fence...