Why is it logical to think that logical, learned people would be interested in a sharing, co-operative society? In the Anglo world there is no shortage of learned libertarians. Probably most libertarians are logical to a fault and could stand to be more empirical. Libertarians are opposed to any sharing or co-operation unless it emerges out of an explicit contract between atomic individuals. (Libertarianism is based on a bad model for social primates.)

There is no shortage of well educated, excessively logical religious fundamentalists around the World. Religious fundamentalism is very logical. You assume that your traditions and text are perfect and literal, and you deduce everything else from the axiom of perfection and literal exegesis. Religious fundamentalism is a disease of logic, and a deficit of empiricism.

In the US we have a lot of Christian Fundamentalists. Many are learned, about all kinds of things (though too few of them are educated in the humanities or social sciences). They are opposed to cooperation and sharing, in the main, except by voluntary charitable donation and organization, limited, small government functions, capitalist business, and government security functions.

As for leftism in the social sciences, I almost got a PhD in Anthropology in the 1990's. Social science in academia has a pronounced leftist bias. I suspect that is because a lot of conservative college students go into professions and business instead.

"Why is it logical to think that logical, learned people would be interested in a sharing, co-operative society?"

Because co-operation and altruism is a beneficial trait of society, and advances the human species, and logical, learned people recognise the benefits.

"Christian Fundamentalists ... are opposed to cooperation and sharing"

Even christian fundamentalists advocate co-operation and sharing. Take Mormons, Amish etc. Most charities had christian beginnings.

"Religious fundamentalism is very logical."
NO its NOT. I can't believe anyone could say that.

And you still haven't defined what you think is Leftism.

Actually no. Unless it is rhetorically convenient at the moment.

I don't believe that all policy can be science driven, science is too expensive, too hard, often too slow, and frequently too narrow. In business school I was taught to value "data driven management". The basic idea is that when possible it is desirable to base policy on data/fact/science.

Nor is science something you can unequivocally base policy on. Unless you the policy in question can be based on a stable paradigm in a stable side-branch of a field, the science--even in hard science--will be in dispute. Policy will also be based on probability, disagreement, and judgement.

My money is based on someone else's faith??? Now you got me worried.

@El-loco You should be. Our banknotes say " I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of.. " in the US "In god we trust ". There is a great Goon show joke " Here is a photograph of a £5 note "." Here is a drawing of 17s 6d change ". All currency is faith based with the possible exception of a krugerrand. As faith increases its value goes up or as after brexit faith declines, it goes down. It gets even crazier when you look at the banking system. For every £100 deposited the bank lends out £1,000, that is if it is conservative. The banking crisis of 2008 was partially caused by banks lending at 30 times its deposits. Oh and when you borrow £1000 to buy something like a car and it goes into a bank, it counts as a new $1,000 so they can lend £10,000.

"Faith based Finance" is one of the oldest furphies in the world, spread by people who know little about the nuts and bolts workings of the financial system.

Except for forgeries, EVERY note is covered by SECURED Debt.

Here is how it works.

The Government issues Bonds (the Borrower)- which are purchased by people who have accrued an excess of Government Promissory Notes (Money).

The BONDS are secured with the ability and power of the Government to Income from Taxes and Legislated Earnings (Fines, Statutory Charges, Royalties etc).

The Power and the ability of the Government to garner Income is enforced by the Legal System, then the Judicial Systems, then the Police, then the Army.

The power of the owner of the Bonds (the Lender) to enforce the Government to honour its promissory notes (money) is enforced by .... The Legal System, the Judicial System, the Police and the Army.

So, both parties are forced to honour their respective agreements by really, really powerful forces. That is damn secure.

Consider how much value your hoard of Gold would be without - you guessed it, ... the Legal System, the Judicial System, the Police and the Army.

@BanjoTango Okay so lets see if I have this right. All banknotes are secured by debt. Including presumably those issued by the Royal bank of Scotland which had to be bailed out. So theyre like a poker players markers. The govt gives a load of them out to be used as currency but backs them up with bigger ones that they hand out to high rollers at a small rate of interest. Now these high rollers have to buy some them because they are banks and they tenfold any deposit in loans, so they are mandated to spread the risk. Some are insurance and pension funds who also spread bet. Where does this money come from? Well some are the small markers that govts issue but most is from the financial services ie. digital money that comes from banks which lend out at 10/1. Dont worry though because the govts back all their debts even though most run on a deficit (the news tonight said that the US would fall short by 1 trillion this year and thats just the budget not its debt). Now lets just suppose that some of the players want to cash out. Thats fine so long as there are players to replace them but not if a significant number do. If everyone wants their pound flesh or any others assets available then you get Zimbabwe or Wehrmacht republic. The preferred govt is elected and a currency is worth more if not it drops. This is because investors lose FAITH in the govt to pay its way.

Yes, I get the analogy, and there have/are many countries that defaulted on their liabilities.

While Faith ( or confidence being a better word ) affects currencies value - it is not the BASIS of currency, as you stated.

@BanjoTango Okay maybe not so much the banknotes but certainly the vast majority in the economy ie. money in the bank is faith based.

"money in the bank is faith based."
Well ... NO

As someone who has programmed corporate ledger systems, and has audited State Treasury expenditure, I can tell you that it is NOT so.

The rigour on matching assets ( investments, loans, cash reserves, government instruments, property) is matched only by my attention to my pay advice slip each fortnight.

@BanjoTango" Please lend me £100 ". "Sorry I only have £10 " . " That`s okay You can keep hold of the tenner just write a cheque for the £100 and people have faith that you have money so they will cash it for me" . Tell me that the banking system does not work this way

It does NOT work this way.
I told you, I have worked for banking systems, and finance companies.

If banks write cheques, they are covered either by their own savings, or borrowings from other people or organisations - to the cent.

Don't confuse that with people who lend or deposit money to banks thinking that the assets "owned" by the bank are worth less than they claim, and find they don't get repaid in full.

I do acknowledge that the value of the assets owned by the bank can change very quickly. This is the reason that governments and banks left the "gold standard" in the first place, because any kind of commodity can be manipulated.

The film "The Big Short" is a great explanation of how the process is very transparent, to those who do the research.

I think it's not quite that simple, at least outside the physical sciences. Praxis plays a big role in social science. Point of view determines what questions you ask, and how you interpret your results. The humanities and social sciences are overwhelmingly liberal (probably largely by self-selection). They problems are approached from a leftist perspective, and not surprisingly research tends to produce results friendly to leftist points of view. Now for a 50 year old White guy, I'm pretty liberal, so I'm fine with that, but it does bother me that social science facts have a bias rooted in who becomes a social scientist.

Beyond that, there is the cultural and ideological divide between American conservative and liberals that goes beyond what is desirable, and goes to what is real, what constitutes a fact, and when facts and reality matter. For example, I take the evidence as overwhelming that gun control saves lives. However, gun control is unconstitutional, and unAmerican. Thus, the fact that effective gun control measures in fact surely saves lives is irrelevant in America.

Facts are inherently divisive. Nature has "facts", but for humans, until there is social consensus on what qualifies as an undisputed fact, proposed facts just roots of divisiveness.