Topics: Sandra Scar, Bill Clinton, effect of mothers working outside the home, etc.
Dr. of Marriage and Family Studies Jason Carroll told me about something called “heterodox academy” http://heterodoxacademy.org which shows that the social sciences are increasingly bias toward liberal views… not publishing conservative stuff, etc. It was 1/3 in the field were conservative, now much less. The uphill battle in that field is becoming a vertical wall we can’t pass over.
One example: he said the APA said there’s no diff between homo parented children and bio hetero parented children, but the samples they used were ALL from hetero divorced parents! They thought this would be fair since most homo parent kids went through a parents’ divorce… But no one dares compare bio hetero parented kids vs homo parented kids, the benefits are so massive toward the bio hetero parenting.
The new thing they are saying is “oh that’s just because of stigma. If we get rid of stigma against homo parenting, all will be the same.” Well that’s scientific! (not!)
Another example: When it became politically popular for women to work outside of the home, scholarly journals pushed back any research articles which showed that children develop better when a parent is at home with them.
What is the situation? Babylon vs Zion. Science is always trying to catch up with the prophets. And corruption in politics slows down the progress of science even further.
I would also point out this narrative of sister Sandra Scarr – for 6 years she had the final say on what would get put in the scholarly journals of human development. It had to go through her first. One of her main views of hers is the value of having child care, that child care is necessary for modern life. She allowed a few articles against this to be published, but those who were against her view in this had to go through much more scrutiny before they got published. Much more scrutiny than those who believed what she believed. Another one of her views was that women who trust in men are unwise, and that the only way to ensure your happenings is the ensure it yourself, and that women must have a professional career. Editors decide what will be assumed true, and what needs substantially more evidence! For example, 97% of articles submitted to the Journal of Science are rejected from publication. The articles must pass the BORE analysis which says, “ah this is interesting!” it doesn’t deal with quality just popularity; then it must pass more revisions, then those remaining 7% get published.
I would point out the voted “innocence” of Bill Clinton, which also is tied into this topic of real truth vs. debated truth: Was president Clinton guilty of violating his oath of office? Charged with obstruction of justice and perjury, but not convicted because although 50 voted on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted on the perjury charge, a 2/3 vote (67 senators) was required to remove him from office. So, he was guilty, but according to votes he was not guilty… Yikes! Of course, later he admits to the whole sex scandal after point-blank denial…