One of the things that isn't as evident in tech discourse is how much tech is growing closer and closer to the traditional role of science.  For example, it used to require hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect and collate a study of a large group of people.  But the web in combination with databases and processing power has now put much of that power into the hands of anyone with a $499 computer.

That's a good thing but it isn't without it's problems.

Like in many places the addition of amateurs has served to weaken the discipline behind scientific endeavor.  A while back I saw an article on Hacker News entitled "Why People Vote Republican" which tried to assign mental defect as a reason for a political ideology.  This was all based on a supposedly "scientific study". 

I didn't want to address it at the time because it was during the election and everyone was getting a little too political for my taste.  But now that everything's cooled down (at least for the next year and a half or so) I thought I'd take a crack at it.

Quickly Dispatching the Idiocy that Inspired This Post

Let me preface this with the obvious point: If you believe a person's political position, no matter what it is, results from a mental defect you are...to be blunt...a fool.  That said, if I didn't back that up I'd be just as much a fool as he is so let me elaborate.

Basically the problem with Mr Haidt's argument boils down to this quote (kudos to  him for putting it in the opening sentence)...

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress.

His argument is based around his own irrationality in believing that "working class" people who vote Republican are doing so against their own self interest.  That's ridiculous.

Here's the Truth: Since the advent of modern economic theory there have been two differing perspectives on how to create wealth.  One side believes that it's best to give money to corporations who will then hire people which in turn creates more jobs and more wealth.  The other is to give money to individuals who will buy more stuff forcing corporations to hire more people and hence create jobs and more wealth.

These are both logical perspectives and the reason they persist is because neither can be conclusively disproven.

With that fairly simple logical explanation Mr. Haidt's thesis goes down the tubes.  Both of the above stated theories produce wealth for the working class if correct and hence neither is necessarily "against the best interest" of any class of people. 

But That's Not My Point

What the above represents more than anything is the very worst perversion of the scientific method.  Worse it's from an organization that claims to revere science. 

The above article is off a site called Edge.org.  In their about page they describe themselves like this...

The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are.

The problem with this is that there's an inherent contradiction.  Empiricism requires detachment while "rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are. " requires extrapolation from what the data provides which can only be provided through very deep involvement

That's why the above quoted article is so important.  The author has essentially gone into his study with a conclusion and then wrapped his findings around it. That isn't science! 

Which is where the problem is.  People like the author of the above article try to use Science to bolster their claims and in doing so not only corrupt the scientific method but also erode people's trust in science itself.  In truth, Science does not draw conclusions.  Even our most basic scientific beliefs are only proven to the extent that we can see with our limited understanding and a true scientist knows that even the most basic theories can be over turned in an instant. 

So anyone who tells you that science "proves" anything is talking largely out of school.  Science suggests it does not prove and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to prop their own agenda up through manipulation.