A Case Study of Influential Conservative Commentators

Influential conservative commentators, such as Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Tucker Carlson, are widely recognized for their emphasis on logic and facts in their debates. Their approach has garnered significant attention, particularly among young conservatives, positioning their arguments as seemingly irrefutable. However, a closer examination reveals that these commentators often twist science and logic to support their ideological viewpoints. This essay explores how these rhetorical strategies misappropriate scientific principles and logical frameworks, undermining the integrity of both.

The Appeal of Logical Positivism in Conservative Rhetoric

Logical positivism, a philosophical approach emphasizing empirical evidence and logical analysis, is central to the rhetorical styles of Shapiro, Peterson, and Carlson. The assertion, “Facts don’t care about your feelings,” encapsulates this philosophy. These commentators often present their arguments as based purely on objective facts, dismissing opposing viewpoints as emotionally driven or irrational. This dichotomy between facts and emotions is a persuasive strategy that appeals to audiences seeking clear, definitive answers in a complex world.

The Selective Use of Scientific Evidence

A notable tactic among these commentators is the selective use of scientific evidence. This involves cherry-picking data that supports their arguments while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. For instance, these commentators frequently cite studies on gender differences to argue against policies promoting gender equality, referencing research on biological differences between men and women to support claims that gender disparities in various fields are natural and immutable.

This selective citation overlooks the broader consensus in the scientific community regarding gender. Numerous studies have shown that social and environmental factors significantly influence gender differences, and that many observed disparities are not purely biological. By ignoring these studies, commentators like Peterson construct a skewed narrative that aligns with their ideological stance while presenting it as scientifically validated.

Misinterpreting Statistical Data

Another common strategy is the misinterpretation of statistical data. Commentators like Shapiro, Peterson, and Carlson often employ statistics in their arguments, but their interpretation of these statistics can be misleading. For example, in discussions on police violence and racial disparities, they often argue that because white individuals constitute the majority of police shooting victims in absolute numbers, there is no systemic racial bias in law enforcement.

This interpretation fails to account for the relative proportions of different racial groups within the population. When adjusted for population size, data shows that Black individuals are disproportionately affected by police violence compared to white individuals. By focusing on absolute numbers without contextualizing them, commentators like Shapiro, Peterson, and Carlson are obscuring the reality of systemic bias and present a distorted view of the issues.

The Illusion of Objectivity

The use of scientific terminology and logical frameworks by these commentators creates an illusion of objectivity. Their arguments often feature formal logical structures, such as syllogisms, to demonstrate their validity. However, these logical structures can be based on flawed premises, leading to invalid conclusions. For instance, Ben Shapiro's arguments against transgender rights often rely on the premise that gender is strictly binary and biologically determined.

This premise is increasingly challenged by contemporary science, which recognizes the complexity and fluidity of gender. Research in biology and psychology indicates that gender is not solely determined by chromosomes or anatomy, but also by a range of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. By adhering to an outdated and overly simplistic view of gender, Shapiro’s logical arguments are built on shaky foundations, undermining their purported objectivity.

The Role of Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias plays a significant role in the rhetorical strategies of these commentators. This cognitive bias involves favouring information that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs while disregarding information that contradicts them. Their audiences, largely composed of individuals with conservative leanings, are likely to share these biases and therefore find their arguments persuasive.

Research in psychology shows that confirmation bias can reinforce ideological polarization, making it difficult for individuals to engage with opposing viewpoints or revise their beliefs in light of new evidence. The rhetorical approaches of these commentators exploit this bias, reinforcing their audience’s existing beliefs and fostering a sense of intellectual superiority based on their alignment with “facts and logic.”

The Impact on Public Discourse

The misappropriation of science and logic in conservative rhetoric has broader implications for public discourse. By presenting ideological arguments as scientifically and logically irrefutable, commentators like Shapiro, Peterson, and Carlson contribute to a polarized and adversarial political climate. This polarization is exacerbated by the erosion of trust in scientific and academic institutions, which are increasingly viewed as partisan or biased.

Moreover, the misuse of scientific principles can hinder constructive dialogue on important social issues. When scientific evidence is selectively cited or misinterpreted to support ideological positions, it becomes difficult to reach consensus or develop policies based on a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. This undermines the potential for evidence-based policy-making and perpetuates divisive and unproductive debates.

Simply Put

The rhetorical styles of influential conservative commentators, characterized by the selective use of scientific evidence, misinterpretation of statistics, and logical formalism, exemplify how science and logic can be manipulated to support conservative views. While their emphasis on facts and logic appeals to audiences seeking clear and objective answers, the reality is that their arguments often rest on selective or flawed interpretations of evidence. This misappropriation of science and logic not only distorts public understanding of critical issues but also contributes to ideological polarization and undermines constructive dialogue. To foster a more informed and productive public discourse, it is essential to critically examine the use of scientific and logical principles in political rhetoric and strive for a more nuanced and comprehensive engagement with complex social issues.

References

1. Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. W.W. Norton & Company. https://amzn.to/4cAlLiH

2. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592. The gender similarities hypothesis. (apa.org)

3. Shapiro, B. (2020). How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps. Broadside Books. https://amzn.to/4eG5zyg

4. Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. H. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16793-16798. Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex - PMC (nih.gov)

5. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. Routledge. https://amzn.to/4eFS5Cp

6. Diamond, M., & A. Y. (2000). Sex and Gender: Same or Different?. Feminism & Psychology, 14(3), 369-387. (PDF) IV. Sex and Gender: Same or Different? (researchgate.net)

7. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. (apa.org)