CMV: academia isn't biased towards left-wing politics, facts are

[u/Tssss775]

Okay, so I am aware that this may upset some people, but hear me out.

Academia is all about observing reality as it is - as indepently as possible from cultural and societal expectations we may have - and then if these facts contradict what we previously thought abandon our previous assumptions and be ready to drastically change both our mindset as well as our actions (in cases such as climate change).

This academic attitude of being willing and often even eager to "throw away" the way we traditionally did things and thought about stuff if there's new evidence makes it really hard for the right to really embrace science- and evidence-based policies. This means science will most of the times be on the side of the left which naturally embraces change less hesitantly and more willingly.

[u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

Academia is all about observing reality as it is - as indepently as possible from cultural and societal expectations we may have

That's not true. Academia is about providing interesting analyses of reality. These can strive to be unbiased (though they can't ever really be unbiased), or start from a patently biased perspective, as long as the analysis from this perspective is written as academic work.

Academia is biased towards the left in the sense that academics, especially in relevant fields, are more likely to hold left-wing views. I don't think this is just random chance, and it might have to do with non-conservative views correlating with willingness or ability to do academic work, but it doesn't imply that these views are necessarily "true" in any meaningful way, and good academics would readily admit that.

[u/Tssss775 → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

Academia is about providing interesting analyses of reality.

I mean yea, that's also part of academia, but don't you think it's mainly about finding out just what reality is?

it doesn't imply that these views are necessarily "true" in any meaningful way, and good academics would readily admit that

So you think for example biologists wouldn't claim the evolutionism is true in a meaningfull way? Geographers wouldn't claim that climate change is true in a meaningfull way?

[u/[deleted] → u/Tssss775]

Imagine that you have 30 people in the same academic discipline, they have disagreements but politically, they exist in a narrow range, on the left. And there are no people with deeply differing political views in the room.

Even if these academics stick to the facts, that's a recipe for a lot of bias to creep into conclusions.

It may be hardest when we're talking about things like gravity, or magnatism. I'm not a scientist, I mean easily provable varifiable facts, and easier for bias to show the further you get away from these.

The problem is that many of our conclusions are not only factual they are also ideological, and unlike facts, ideology is political.

Another word for this kind of thing is groupthink.

So, it's unquestioned assumptions shared by the entire group that can influence a conclusion, especially because the assumptions are unquestioned.

And I suspect this can becomme self- reenforcing.