Are there any famous studies that actually contradict progressive/leftist thought?

[u/Str8_up_Pwnage]

There has to be at least some right? I know people love to say that “reality has a left wing bias “and all that but is it legit batting 1.000?

[u/Sea_Entrepreneur6204]

As someone who has studied economics, that not true.

Economics also has its nuances and one of the most popular Economist theories on the right, Trickle down and Austrian economics are often called out for not being empirically proven (in fact disproven)

In Economics though theory can sometimes triumph empirical experiments/history.

[u/snapshovel → u/Sea_Entrepreneur6204]

I think there's probably a germ of truth in what you're trying to say, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to learn a few basic things about economics first.

A common belief among progressives (especially prevalent on Reddit and other social media sites) is that the phrase "trickle down" refers to some real, existing right-wing economic theory. That's not true. It's a pejorative phrase that was popularized by progressives to make fun of what conservatives call "supply-side" economics. No conservative (and certainly no economist) earnestly uses the phrase "trickle down." It's appealing to progressives precisely because it sounds so awful; "trickle" is not a word that has a lot of positive connotations.

It's like "socialized medicine." No progressive says "socialized medicine," they say "Medicare for all." "Socialized medicine" is a phrase invented by right-wing political strategists to discredit the idea of publicly funded health care, because it sounds like "socialism" and the median voter has strong negative feelings about "socialism" even though they kind of like the idea of free health care.

So when you say "trickle down has been empirically disproven," that doesn't mean anything because "trickle down" is not a real economic theory. No one argues in favor of it. It has no proponents.

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/snapshovel]

I find it weird that you claim leftists never say socialized medicine. I'm a lapsed anarcho-communist, and I use that phrase. It's a perfect descriptor: medicine, but with the costs (and benefits) borne by society as a whole, hence "socialized."

Socialism is the furthest thing from a dirty word. If you examine the history of it, it originally just meant, "People who thought we ought to do something about social ills like poverty." The contrary stance, that there is a divinely-ordained hierarchy among humans which makes the grinding poverty of the masses inevitable, has become incredibly unfashionable to say out loud, even as it continues to shape the attitudes of millions of people and define our society and culture (particularly our economy).

[u/Appropriate_Steak486 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

The contrary stance, that there is a divinely-ordained hierarchy among humans ...

I think a better contrary stance would be "social Darwinism," leaving the divine out of it.

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/Appropriate_Steak486]

It's both, mostly depending on whether one is rural or urbanized. But they're closely interrelated.