🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeffrey Salzberg wrote:
> In article <eHWhe.1682$Lc1.1459@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, 
> worpylorpkins@mindspring.com says...
>  
> 
>>A valid point about the "proof" offered. However, it is true that academia 
>>suffers near-total domination by liberals. This is documented.
> 
> 
> Even if so, isn't it interesting that academics and journalists -- the 
> two groups with the greatest access to information -- are considered to 
> be liberal -- in other words, the more people know, the more likely they 
> are to believe that the liberal approach is the corect way.
> 

Jeffrey, this would be an interesting argument except for two 
significant points. First, I cannot agree that academics and journalists 
are the two groups with the greatest access to information, especially 
in the days of the internet. The information is now available to almost 
anyone.

Second, you mistakenly jump from the conclusion that access to 
information equals knowledge. Especially with journalists, it is very 
easy to show that they are very selective in the knowledge they access, 
and only get the information they want. This has also been show to be a 
common problem in academic research (trying to prove a point of view 
instead of trying to find a point of view from information available).

Please note that the hard sciences are the most likely to believe in the 
scientific method and hedge their wording to say that there are 
correlations instead of causal effect links and so on. The academics 
most famous as liberals are all from the soft sciences and arts areas, 
which do not hold to the same strict standards of research and information.

It would be just as easy to conclude that the two groups which most 
significantly ignore information (in other words, the two stupidest 
groups) are liberal. Neither conclusion would be true.

Steve Rothstein