Why Is That?

AS our next election looms large on the horizon….there are many questions that need to be asked and they all deserve an answer…..

I want to look at a little history.

Ever wonder where the whole Left/Right thing began?

Well boys and girls the Old Professor can help with that answer….

Depending on the country you live in, political opinion may be varied, or biased in one direction. In democratic countries, you obviously have the option to actually decide what direction your state should move towards via voting. And while a lot of political parties may opt for a safer middle ground usually more relatable for a wider demographic, there will always be the ones standing on, and for, the far right or far left.

But why do we call them that? It turns out the terms actually come with a rich history of their own and while they may mean different things in different countries and plenty of nuance on each side, a general classification comes from Scottish sociologist Robert Morrison MacIver, who in his 1947 treatise ‘The Web of Government’ classified things as such: “The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.”

Fascinatingly, despite seeming to be diametrically opposed on the surface, both sides of the political spectrum show manifestations of populism and may find a strong base in people belonging to each class of people from impoverished to rich.

In fact, there are proponents of the so-called ‘horseshoe theory’, which essentially says that the political far ‘left’ and far ‘right’ are, well, far closer to each other than they are to the ones traditionally holding the center. The reason for this is that the extremists on both sides tend to favour authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

There is more!

How Did the Practice of Calling Liberals Left and Conservatives Right Start?

Question asked….question answered….

Class Dismissed!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That Anti-Science Movement

I am sure you know someone who explains everything away as ‘false science’…..if not then you are very fortunate for they are everywhere and rattling on about everything.

How do these ‘people’ come by their misguided belief that all science is ‘false’ of ‘fake’?

Anti-science beliefs are built on four foundations, or bases, the authors said. These foundations are: thinking scientific sources lack credibility; identifying with groups that have anti-science attitudes; a scientific message that contradicts a person’s current beliefs; and a mismatch between how a message is presented and a person’s style of thinking.

“What all four of these bases have in common is they reveal what happens when scientific information conflicts with what people already think or their style of thought,” said co-author Richard Petty, professor of psychology at Ohio State.

For starters, industries are degrading trust in science by hijacking scientific credentials, using “sciency” sounding claims to bolster their clout for profits; pharmaceutical companies have most certainly given us plenty of reasons not to trust them. What’s more, science doesn’t always get things right, and large factions of the media are stoking sentiments against “elitist” experts and bolstering anti-science views.

All this doubt, conflict, and information overload are eroding people’s trust in scientists, and those of us often responsible for conveying scientific information to the public, like the media and government officials, are fairing even worse on the trust scales.

This distrust of the source of information is one of the four main barriers to accepting science Philipp-Muller and colleagues identify in their review.  

When information challenges a person’s core beliefs, challenges the group they identify with, or doesn’t match their learning style are the other main barriers the team highlighted.

“What all four of these bases have in common is they reveal what happens when scientific information conflicts with what people already think or their style of thought,” explains Petty.

https://www.sciencealert.com/distrust-in-science-is-causing-harm-but-these-researchers-have-a-plan

We need to fight for the science….but this will be an uphill battle for social media is a powerful tool to be used by the anti-science faction.

All we can do is ask question….question everything and look for the answers….not just something that agrees with your misguided perceptions….

Do you want to know what is true?

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”