Sure, but follow it where? There may have been a time when scientists were objective thinking machines, like Dr. Spock. No biases, just rationality: follow the facts wherever they lead. If there was ever such a golden age, it is long gone. Now, scientists are participants in the battle for control over American culture, just like the rest of us. Likely more so.
Thus: “Scientists’ political views change how they interpret identical data.” Consider me unsurprised.
Scientists often insist that they follow the data wherever it leads. A study has suggested, however, that their politics may often also guide them.
It found that different teams of social science researchers who were asked to analyse identical data ended up with wildly different results. In the experiment, those differences were closely linked to the researchers’ views on immigration.
The study recruited 158 social scientists, who were organised into 71 teams. They were all given the same large collection of data and asked to answer the same question: do levels of immigration affect public support for welfare programmes?
I am pretty sure that high levels of immigration weaken support for welfare programs. But, hey, I’m a conservative. Apparently, the answer depends on where you sit:
No two teams produced exactly the same answer. Some concluded that higher levels of immigration weakened support for state-funded welfare schemes. Others found precisely the opposite. Many found little effect at all.
The differences were not random. Before beginning, each researcher was asked about their own views on immigration policy — whether laws should be relaxed or tightened.
Teams with pro-immigration views were consistently more likely to conclude that immigration increased public support for welfare spending. Teams with anti-immigration views tended to find the reverse. Teams with immigration views in the middle found next to no effect.
So, there you have it. Social “scientists” given exactly the same data sets came to opposite conclusions, and–amazingly!–those conclusions were predictable based on the “scientists’” pre-existing political views.
Results like these don’t invalidate science, of course. But the “social sciences” are not really scientific. Data are data, but when it comes to social science, we are never going to have Newton’s laws of motion, or Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Social “science” inherently resides in the zone of controversy, and should always be taken with 50 or 60 grains of salt.
