Larregue's Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder.

The American Sociologist Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-03-12 DOI:10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6
Nathan Cofnas, Noah Carl, Michael A Woodley Of Menie
{"title":"Larregue's Critique of Cofnas et al. (2017): A Rejoinder.","authors":"Nathan Cofnas,&nbsp;Noah Carl,&nbsp;Michael A Woodley Of Menie","doi":"10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Data from the General Social Survey indicate that conservatives' self-reported trust in scientists has steadily decreased since 1974. In Cofnas et al. (<i>The American Sociologist</i>, 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 (<i>The American Sociologist</i>, 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. (<i>The American Sociologist</i>, 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":515284,"journal":{"name":"The American Sociologist","volume":"49 2","pages":"328-335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Sociologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9372-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.

Larregue对Cofnas等人(2017)的批判。
综合社会调查(General Social Survey)的数据显示,自1974年以来,保守派自我报告的对科学家的信任一直在稳步下降。在Cofnas等人(《美国社会学家》,2017)中,我们认为这种趋势可能部分是由科学机构和这些机构的代表为自由主义激进主义而扭曲社会科学的日益增长的趋势所驱动的。Larregue(《美国社会学家》,2017)提出了三个相反的论点:(1)建立偏见的指控“非常困难”,特别是因为我们“没有说明我们所说的‘偏见’是什么意思”。(2)我们没有在科学家(所谓的)自由行动主义和保守派对科学的不信任之间建立因果关系,我们忽略了保守派科学家的行动主义。(3)我们在学术界为保守派倡导“平权行动”是错误的。我们依次讨论这些论点:(1)Larregue没有参与我们的主要论点,即社会科学中存在自由偏见。(2)近年来,著名的科学组织高调介入政策辩论,无一例外地支持自由派。假设这将削弱保守派对这些组织的信任并不是不合理的。Contra Larregue在Cofnas等人(《美国社会学家》,2017)中明确承认,保守的科学家也可能有偏见。(3)我们从未为保守派主张过“平权行动”,事实上我们反对这样的提议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书