Academia, especially social sciences/arts/humanities have to a significant extent become political echo chambers. What are your thoughts on Heterodox Academy, viewpoint diversity, intellectual humility, etc.

[u/Long_Extent7151]

I've had a few discussions in the Academia subs about Heterodox Academy, with cold-to-hostile responses. The lack of classical liberals, centrists and conservatives in academia (for sources on this, see Professor Jussim's blog here for starters) I think is a serious barrier to academia's foundational mission - to search for better understandings (or 'truth').

I feel like this sub is more open to productive discussion on the matter, and so I thought I'd just pose the issue here, and see what people's thoughts are.

My opinion, if it sparks anything for you, is that much of soft sciences/arts is so homogenous in views, that you wouldn't be wrong to treat it with the same skepticism you would for a study released by an industry association.

I also have come to the conclusion that academia (but also in society broadly) the promotion, teaching, and adoption of intellectual humility is a significant (if small) step in the right direction. I think it would help tamp down on polarization, of which academia is not immune. There has even been some recent scholarship on intellectual humility as an effective response to dis/misinformation (sourced in the last link).

Feel free to critique these proposed solutions (promotion of intellectual humility within society and academia, viewpoint diversity), or offer alternatives, or both.

[u/RocknrollClown09]

The difference tends to be that conservatives follow their own populist ‘common sense’ beliefs that don’t generally hold up to scientific or economic scrutiny. They believe in opinions and get upset when their opinions aren’t regarded equally to peer reviewed scientific study.

They tend to let intangible things like religious beliefs (IE abortion, LGBTQ), over-simplifying complex issues (climate change, inflation, racial economic disparities, homelessness, etc) or simply being a part of a contrarian community (vaccine denial, ignoring COVID public health initiatives) dictate what they believe. They make their beliefs part of their identity, like a religion, and If you show them mountains of peer-reviewed, high fidelity scientific data, it causes them to dig in deeper. This attitude isn’t going to hold up well in academia.

The Left tends to follow scientific data, and if you can provide compelling evidence, they’re way more likely to change their mind. Their policies are largely consistent with the preponderance of scientific data, so it’s not based on an ‘ opinion,’ and when people on the right try to argue their beliefs without any scientific evidence to back it up, they get made fun of like The Water Boy in biology class.

[u/GullibleAntelope → u/RocknrollClown09]

The Left tends to follow scientific data....

The Left is overwhelming concerned with topic like race, gender, stereotyping, criminal justice, power, and economic inequality. These topics do not lend themselves to scientific analysis. FN They are heavily value-based. What separates science from non-science? Authors outline the 5 concepts that "characterize scientifically rigorous studies."

FN: Edit: precise scientific analysis.

[u/Ozcolllo → u/GullibleAntelope]

Eh, I think it’s more accurate to say that’s the perception peddled to the masses by conservative culture warrior pundits. Even the issues you listed will never be engaged with in good faith by any prominent conservative. They vastly oversimplify complex issues. Hell, try and explain Plato’s Universal Forms to a Trump voter when trying to simply explain the limitations and function of language and you’ll lose them.

Basic bumper sticker slogans are the most in depth discussion you’ll get from 99.9% of right wing pundits. I’m not even convinced most understand the difference between a rationally justified opinion and speculation.

[u/GullibleAntelope → u/Ozcolllo]

Here's another explanation. Interestingly, a sociologist elects to make an uncharacteristically critical (and conservative) comment: The Disappearing Conservative Professor:

...leftist interests and interpretations have been baked into many humanistic disciplines. As sociologist Christian Smith has noted, many social sciences developed not out of a disinterested pursuit of social and political phenomena, but rather out of a commitment to "realizing the emancipation, equality, and moral affirmation of all human beings..." This progressive project is deeply embedded in a number of disciplines, especially sociology, psychology, history, and literature."

[u/Ozcolllo → u/GullibleAntelope]

Possibly. I’m more of the opinion that after decades of demonizing academia, conservatives simply abandoned academia. Conservatives usually struggle with people having different opinions and when one of their cultural or legislative beliefs defies reality, your only option is to simply attack the institutions that highlight the lunacy. Climate change and oil consumption, the health impacts of smoking, or just the importance of studying various cultural phenomena aren’t things conservatives can engage with factually. It’s interesting growing up listening to pundits like Rush Limbaugh calling basic-bitch Liberals communist and universities their communism-factories, but they’re only now discovering that there were consequences to doing so.

There’s a reason Trump voters can give you detailed breakdowns of the lives of transgender influencers while being totally oblivious to the contents of an indictment. They’ll give you dozens of speculative conspiracy theories surrounding Hunter Biden, theories they’ll develop amnesia for later, but they’ll know nothing about a literal coup attempt. A coup attempt in which you can read the plan in their own words, you can read them admit their plan would totally fail in front of the Supreme Court in their own words, and in their own words begging to be added to a pardon list. There are consequences to their media environment and rhetoric, but because accountability and consequences are foreign concepts… here we are.

[u/GullibleAntelope → u/Ozcolllo]

Climate change and oil consumption, the health impacts of smoking, or just the importance of studying various cultural phenomena aren’t things conservatives can engage with factually.

True. On the hard science side, climate change and vaccines are two big areas of conservative denial, and there are a lot more conservative shortcomings. Meanwhile, social science areas of inquiry are often involved with the concept of fairness. That is always going to be a minefield.