&gt; there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there is systematic biases in social sciences.<p>But Aaronson makes a far more specific assertion than &quot;there is evidence for systematic bias in social sciences&quot;.<p>I agree that there is political bias in social science departments. It is painfully clear to anyone who ever sets foot in one, especially as an outsider (much like the sexism in SV). I think that overall it harms research, perhaps significantly, and it must be addressed. But outsiders sometimes view this (rather obvious) criticism as a complete refutation of the field(s), which it is most certainly not. To their credit, social researchers actively study this bias without need for external pressure, and even acknowledge it&#x27;s a problem, something which cannot be said for other disciplines (one could argue that it is social researchers&#x27; <i>job</i> to study precisely such things, but at least you can see that they&#x27;re not intellectually dishonest enough to avoid the issue or to dismiss it as inconsequential).<p>BTW, in general, I think that outsiders usually tend to overestimate internal criticisms (in any discipline). When (internal) critics say &quot;our estimate of the variable x to be 10 is far too low!&quot; they really mean &quot;x is more likely to be 12&quot;, while outsiders interpret it as &quot;x is probably 1000&quot;.<p>&gt; political leaning likely has a much smaller influence on one&#x27;s research in physics and chemistry, compared to one&#x27;s research in sociology<p>True, but the correlation between political leaning and social research may very well be a reverse causal relationship: that one&#x27;s research in sociology is far more likely to affect one&#x27;s politics than research in physics. If there is an over-representation of a particular ideology in the social sciences (although it&#x27;s hard for me to put all the social sciences in one category, because they are quite different from one another -- more different than, say, physics and chemistry), it may serve as evidence that some common and politically pertinent ideas arise from the research itself[1] as much as evidence of anything else.<p>BTW, I&#x27;ve read the interview with Haidt that you linked to -- thank you for that -- it is truly horrifying. But I get the sense that this is a rather American phenomenon. I certainly didn&#x27;t experience anything close to it in magnitude at my university.<p>[1]: And I don&#x27;t mean necessarily from the results, but possibly from the process.