Slashdot Mirror
Conservatives' Trust In Science Has Fallen Dramatically Since Mid-1970s
An anonymous reader writes "While trust in science remained stable among people who self-identified as moderates and liberals in the United States between 1974 and 2010, trust in science fell among self-identified conservatives by more than 25 percent during the same period, according to a study by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 'Over the last several decades, there's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative,' said the study's lead author. 'For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities and what is perceived as the "liberal culture." So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes "us" conservatives is that we don't agree with "them."'"
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Of course conservatives are going to distrust science. This is going to be the case anywhere and everywhere conservativism is popular.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Or in other words, around the time that science started suggesting reasons why economic progress can be bad, instead of just helping it along?
So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes "us" conservatives is that we don't agree with "them."
Right! Thank Allah that enlightened liberals like use who care about people and are proven smart by being liberal don't agree with the bitter clingers in Jesusland watching NASCAR.
Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
Scientists trust in Conservatism has declined since the mid-1970's.
Slash Dot bashing conservatives? Really, hard to believe.
First off - scienceblog - light grey on white is NOT a good colour scheme for text.
Have you been to Reality lately? It's dog eat dog. Literally.
I don't think Reality has a "liberal bias". More like "liberals" are more willing to use science as a means of "validating" their positions.
While "conservatives" are more willing to use religion to "validate" their positions.
Even science can't yet fix stupid.
The jokes just kinda write themselves for this post...
Perhaps before anyone should be treated by a modern medical facility (I am looking at you cheney with your new heart) you must pledge you believe in science. Is this any different than requiring you to affirm your faith in god before taking comunion? I have never understood had these science naysayers can declare pi should be simplified to 3 or some other such drivel and in the same moment broadcast it on their web blog. People are just stupid.
Is "science" a thing to be "trusted in"? What does that even mean? Sounds an awful lot like the headline should read "liberals' use of science as a religion has increased dramatically since mid-1970s".
It's this sneering trope -- "reality has a well known liberal bias", a quote of Stephen Colbert, whose work I generally admire -- that gets hauled out every single time this subject comes up. And its point, so far as I can tell, is actually to stifle debate on legitimate politicization that the left has done, particularly with anthropogenic global warming, especially within the scope of the IGCC. When "scientists" start playing politically-minded games with data, engage in semantic and legalistic games to prevent its dissemination, and then complain that they are being treated unfairly or for political reasons -- well, they only have themselves to blame.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I'm sure they are wondering why they should trust in something that seems to always be telling them that they are wrong or that their beliefs don't make sense. It is just like people I know who don't trust the "liberal media", because said media reports things to be contrary to their beliefs.
Link to full summary. Good thing this bias and falsification of data only exists in the biomedical sciences. Whew! Quick question: you're a researcher and you've just found, by empirical research, something that confirms what conservatives have been saying for decades. The effect of your research will be profound, and likely change the course of public policy. Do you publish, or quietly bury your story? Or, do you falsify data to support what you desire to be true? It happens. For real. Real scientists do this, people just like you.
This article is about conservatives trying to brand themselves.
They want to find out what liberals support, and be the opposite. Since liberals seem to like science, and it seems to conflict with religion to some people(*), conservatives are rebelling against that.
What "science" actually is has nothing to do with the conservative view, or the liberal one(+).
The real problem that conservatives face here is that their strategy is silly. Defining yourself by what your enemies do will not work. It leaves you open to manipulation and getting backed into a corner. I think that's what is happening here.
----------
* - I don't think this is true at all. Religion is metaphysical poetry, science is its physical counterpart.
+ - I don't believe that "reality has a liberal bias." Reality has a reality bias. It's pointlessly combative to claim that all conservatives are detached from reality (or all liberals)
Really, "trust in science" - turn that around in your head a few times.
sic transit gloria mundi
There is no "trust" in science - there is nothing to "believe." Science is just the application of logic and reason to help explain the world around us. So what this article is really saying is that "Conservatives view of the world has dramatically departed reality since 1970." Which sounds pretty plausible to me.
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” -Neil DeGrasse Tyson
giggity
This is proof that for conservatives ignorance truly is bliss.
Slashdot is going downhill if it continues to post stories like this. Just because a particular idea is in the scientific realm doesn't make it true. When scientific studies start to become funded by organizations without an agenda, I will trust science a little bit more. Maybe. Nah that's never gonna happen. There has been so much bad science over the past 40-50 years, everyone, conservatives and liberals alike should always have a healthy distrust in science. This is how science advances.
Or in other words, around the same time that people started using science to justify their political cause. Science used to be about progress, but now it's about power. It's not that conservatives don't trust science, it's that we don't trust the scientists: their motives, their interpretations, or their solutions.
No matter the problem, the solution is always to transfer money or power.
Look around and see what science has done to the place and then try to say they (conservatives) don't have a point with a straight face.
but the neo-conseravatives. There are many conservatives that do not subscribe to the following of reagan and W. Basically, it is these 2 and their followers that fight against science, logic and facts. You will find that nearly all support the concept of creationism, fight against the idea that Global Climate Change is cause by man.
They will argue that Russia is enemy #1 and claim support for private enterprise, but then push for the Space Launch System (in which CONgress, mostly neo-cons designate WHICH companies will provide WHICH parts for a shuttle derivative and costing us 60 billion), push for us to be reliant on Russia for another decade of rocket launches and works to destroy private space.
Likewise, they will argue that Corporations should be ONLY for making profits and have absolutely no conscience, but then want them to be able to lobby, influence congress, and some have said that they want to give them a vote. Yet, at the same time, they scream that society is broken morally.
This lack of logic continues over and over and over. It has become a broken record with the no-cons.
OTOH, many conservatives and real republicans fully support science, logic, etc. and what can be learned from it. Sadly, they are now a minority of the republican party. Many of them are driven out with the neo-cons screaming that those ppl are RINOs and are actually liberals. Sad that America has sunk this low.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As a self-identified conservative I would like to clarify that the increased lack of trust is in the scientists, not science itself. To trust a man means to expect him to always try to do the right thing, and since the 70s or so higher education has been almost exclusively the domain of liberalism, a philosophy whose definition of "right" is diametrically opposed to the conservative one. Is it any surprize that there can be no trust between us?
More specifically, the lack of trust in the scientists directly results in the lack of trust in any data or conclusions produced by these scientists. We all know that a biased experimenter often produces the results he is looking for; that is why we usually insist on double blind experiments in areas where bias is a factor. A liberal scientist will thus have a significantly higher burden of proof, which, in my experience with politically charged subjects such as AGW, has not yet been met.
Without trust in the scientists the only way to really believe their results is to reproduce their experiments and see for ourselves. Unfortunately, most of us are not qualified to do so, hence today's political standoff.
âoeThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.â
Isaac Asimov
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."
Will Rogers
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Stephen Colbert
I have a little something I call the parable of the investment opportunity. Dick has the option of investing in this exciting new product that promises to double his money in twelve months. Jane is skeptical. The two can jawbone back and forth all day long.
Jane explains that it looks like a bad idea, resembles many other bad ideas, the person presenting the opportunity has a history of failed schemes, and the whole thing looks too risky.
Dick feels she's being too negative. She's not embracing opportunity. He has a prospectus printed in full color on expensive paper and the pitchman has such a nice haircut, really looks like someone you could do business with.
It's impossible to know how the investment will turn out until it's made, even if anyone watching the two of them argue will more than likely have a strong opinion before long.
Dick makes the investment. Twelve months later, he's lost all his money. Not only that but he's lost it in exactly the way Jane predicted, for the reasons she listed.
Now for most people, this would be some pretty compelling evidence. Not so for Dick! Perhaps it wasn't a bad idea, he just didn't apply it with enough vigor. Perhaps there was an external factor that sabotaged what was otherwise a sound idea. Does he reevaluate? Does he reexamine? No, he'll double-down. And Jane is still an ignorant slut.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
There may be some religious folks who self-identify as conservative who do not trust science, although I would like to see exactly what questions were asked in this survey. But there are plenty of liberals who deny the realities of evidence too. People of every political stripe tend to see what they want to see. Moreover, let's apply scientific analysis to the study in the American Sociological Review. How does one reasonably define "science?" Does "science" include doctors, medicine, biology, or was the study in the surely-unbiased American Sociological Review slanted toward the hot-button issues of climate change, etc.? How does one reasonably define "trust"? If I question the scientific rigor of this study, does that make me some kind of a Conservative? Maybe people who tend to be Conservative are also the same types of people who have a healthy degree of skepticism.
Science has this annoying tendency to reveal facts, and when these facts clash with one's ideology, it makes them uncomfortable.
Repeat that enough times and science becomes something to be feared. Can't have science go and ruin one's world view.
I'd identify myself as conservative, and at least in my case my trust in science has not decreased. That said, my trust in the scientific community has certainly decreased in the last decade or two. Of course, I could say the same about humanity as a whole. I wasn't even born by the 1970s, so most of my decreasing trust could probably be attributed to simply growing up and realizing that the world is filled with people on all sides who have agendas.
'conservative' means different things to different people, but checking the dictionary gives this definition: "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
I think most people agree science is a driving force for change, whether through application of new knowledge or development of new technology. So, at least based on the definition above, science directly opposes conservative goals. It's not surprising for people to distrust something that actively threatens their ideology.
Conservatism in the classical "don't change shit with good intentions to make it better because actually you'll make things worse" - right or wrong - is nowhere near the sort of conservatism we have today. Today's conservatism, which in the UK was traditionall called "Thatcherism" and is a feature of both the Tory and New Labour parties, has a few clear tenets, based on the first enumerated below:
1) An understanding that man needs only finite riches to survive his finite life;
2) So, instead of aiming for long-term profitability, you aim for a few short years of sufficient bonus that you can retire in the lap of luxury;
3) Instead of allowing people to develop a stable and secure career in whatever intellectual or vocational pursuit suits them, you plough them through mind-numbing high school and college, moulding them into a particular pliant, servile thought pattern while milking them or their parents for cash and keeping them out of the unemployment statistics;
4) Instead of thinking of disability as something to be supported to help people be productive, apply propaganda to regard the disabled - who won't give you the short term bursts of menial labour you're hoping for - as merely lazy and dishonest ("disability denial");
5) Plunder foreign nations under the guise of "liberating". Never mind that you're going to make things worse in the long term, or that it's very rare for a particular long-term oppressed culture to become better through being conquered (a second time) - what you want is to extract a decade or two of meat and materials;
6) Science is only useful to the extent that it has already provided low risk, high return technologies. Anything concerning long-term developments or consequences is to be ignored. See 3) for the importance of instilling this belief in others.
7) Big government is essential to tailor laws in your favour. When you want to deregulate, say it's because "the market works"; when you want to regulate, list one of the usual bogeymen: terrorists, paedophiles, etc.
Assuming these are American conservatives, I find that odd, as they claim to be big on defence and military, and the American military has always used it's technological prowess as a force multiplier.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
So strange given that the truth of science hasn't changed much since the 70's.
This has been gradually leading up for a century and more. Conservatives have always been doubtful of science, preferring to believe what they had been told in their youth. For them, it is easier to believe in the mad ramblings of an old book than a system of thought that has borne the fruit of progress for four centuries. There is no fundamental difference between the Catholic Church's assaults on Giordano Bruno and Galileo and the Evangelical assault on Evolution in schools. (For people who condemn Popery so strongly, this is especially amusing.) That there was ever an embrace of science on the conservative side only reflects the reality of the world as was discovered in the Second World War. That is to say, even the most stupid of Evangelicals must acknowledge we are better off with atomic bombs and ICMBs than without. Of course, it might be acknowledged that this is only an extension of the conservative love of spreading doctrine through violence rather than rhetoric and scientific persuasion.
Yes, the ones who call themselves liberals have their own problems with science. The stupid stupid lies of postmodernist thought destroyed a generation and a half of potential scientists, but the important thing is that science is pulling away from that abhorrent clap trap.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Changing title to: "The dumb get dumberer since the 1970's"
I think it is due in large part to the easy access to vast amounts of information due to electronic distribution (faster, easier, cheaper). While this allows smart people to become more informed than ever before, it also allows dumb people to collect more dumb and incorrect "information" and become dumber while at the same time thinking they are in fact smarter. And that's a dangerous combination.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
Obligatory xkcd - http://xkcd.com/154/
There was a conservative book not too long ago decrying modern approaches to Humanities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind#Summary
TFA says it is the more educated conservatives who distrust science. Perhaps the trip to oxymoronic for the term "educated conservative" is nearly complete.
Reality has a liberal bias and evolution has a religious bias.
Wait a minute. Hasn't this been going on at least since Galileo?
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Part of the problem is, things calling themselves "science" that are actually just rhetoric or agenda, cloaked in the mantle of science in order to sound more persuasive.
http://reprog.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-scandal-of-academic-publishing/
There is a scandal, not with a single publisher, but with the entire industry of academic publishing. I am not going to try to say this is only a problem with science, or even "they're both bad, so vote Republican" but ... to look at this issue as if it is entirely a "problem" with conservatives is to escalate and worsen some of the underlying root causes.
As a self-identified moderate atheist, I certainly trust the ideal of science. I trust the scientific method.
However, as an institution, the scientific community is very political in itself and influenced by interests outside science. Obviously, a desire for further funding also influences scientists.
So, while I trust science as an ideal, I don't fully trust science as an institution because science is people and I don't trust people.
Conservatives fear change. They want the world to remain eternally as it is now. The new is a forbidding unknown. Science, curiosity, the quest for knowledge necessitates change. New understanding necessitates the toppling of sacred cows. No surprises here.
We all know the "reason" for this... Religion. Lets just call it like it is. The Judaeo-Christian worldview is by-and-large anti-science. I don't think it set out to be that way though, but more as a reflection of 1st millennium B.C. thinking. Nothing unusual in the stories from the Old Testament, when taken in the context of their times. However, Mankind(and Man) has learned and experienced quite a lot since 1000 B.C. The interesting thing, in a terrifying way(Al Qaida, Iran, Evangelical Christians, etc;) is that even with the benefits of science staring them in the face, people still take these Iron Age myths as The Truth.
Your typical liberal has more of a "critical thinking" worldview, maybe not much more, but enough to tip the balance away from "Doctrines and Covenants" that require a suspension of dis-belief, require blind faith.
So the question is, why are conservatives NOW so anti-science, when even a generation or two ago it wasn't like that? Well, we all know the answer to that as well, which is a combination of Right-Wing Media, the ease of dis-information via The Internet, and a Republican party that has poly morphed into something very different from the Republican party of even the 1980's.
Another key ingredient is that conservatives in general have a "good old days" mentality. They seek to attempt to go back to how things used to be, when things "appeared" simpler, when there was "order" in the world, etc;. We all know that is utter bullshit, and there is no "going home" as it were. Liberals are more apt to embrace change and understand we had to adapt to the changing world, not get the world to adapt to us.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Stupid A believes in the biblical story of Genesis, identifies himself as conservative, and is anti-science. Stupid person B believes in Astrology, identifies herself as a liberal, and is anti-math.
Whether anti-science people brand themselves as "conservatives" does correlate to how other people choose to define themselves. Person B and Person A can argue all day long, proving the other stupid does not make Genesis or Astrology more correct. Run an SPSS on this. How stupid people define themselves is a fairly random data point, historically, but believing people in robes (white priests or purple astrologers) doesn't make what they eat, drink, pray, or profess to be anything other than a correlation.
Gently reply
... stupid and ignorant people increasingly justify their stupidity and ignorance by cloaking it in a political identity.
There is objective truth in science. But in politics, there is no "right and wrong" -- only opposing points of view with equal legitimacy.
I can be as ignorant, stupid and nasty as I want. All I have to do is say "I'm a conservative", and it's all right then.
For most of our species' history, the only use of our ideas was as badges of allegiance, since there was no way we knew of to use them on the outside world. "Conservatives" are just stuck in pre-history in the sense that they're refusing to use ideas as anything more than an indicator of allegiance.
I think this grew from the surge in grass-roots political activism from the conservative side. Well, not just the surge, but also the comparative ineffectiveness of that surge vs those on the liberal side. Take creationists for example, there has been an effort from the bottom up to put dressed-up religiosity back into schools. So when they get shot down by the coalition of atheists and those who are religious-but-also-adamantly-adherent-to-the-constitution, they start to grow that victim mentality where it feels like there's a conspiracy behind every corner.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Lack of trust fed and driven by powers that want their subjects to remain uneducated, and thus more easily controllable.
When you shortchange the rigor of science for the expediency of a political goal.
Science looses, even if the goal is correct and the science eventually proves out.
Or course if the science doesn't prove out, then it's much worse.
It doesn't matter if it's a demo pushing climate change or a repub pushing creation.
Science still looses.
Which is unfortunate because science is actually needed to satisfy many of these goals.
TFA says conservatives had the highest trust in science back in 1974. Ike liked science.
It's not that conservatives have lost faith in science, they've lost faith in scientists. Not quite the same thing.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
I was going to do the obvious thing. You know. Take the easy shot that TFA so beautifully sets up, but there's just no sport in it...
Ahhh, what the hell...
As WillyWanker so aptly puts it, "Even science can't fix stupid." And that's the sad and scary reality here. These people have chosen to disregard science, a discipline that has led to staggering leaps in our understanding of the world and the way it works. They have chosen to be stupid.
There, that's better.
Now, would someone kindly explain this phenomenon to me? Why would anyone, with anything approaching a normal capacity for reason, do such a thing?
"Conservatives" sure do seem to trust science when they get cancer, or need an operation. Then all of a sudden, there aren't enough medical advances to suit them. They'll shell out tons of cash to extend their lives just a wee bit more.
Dick Cheney just had a heart transplant, and the donor was probably some guy he shot in the face. Tell me Dick Cheney doesn't "trust science" when it comes to keeping him alive.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If conservatives really distrust science so much, they should stop using computers, phones, air conditioning, refrigerators, electric stoves and ovens, cars, and modern medicine, to name just a few things. I don't think the Amish population has grown that much so even though the conservatives might SAY they don't trust science, the fact is they do. They might just be too stupid to realize it.
Right, because all those guys who pointed out that burning coal releases mercury that shows up in your can of tuna, or the Day the River Burned Down was due to water pollution, were heavily invested in windpower companies and alternative methods of manufacture. Actually, turns out they were like the 'agenda-driven climate alarmists' of today: mostly university professors.
Believing that science has an agenda is to believe that thousands of independently-working and independently-paid researchers are all part of a vast conspiracy. That's practically the DEFINITION of 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics', which is actually not inherently right-wing at all (think most Kennedy theories), and goes back for centuries (the original essay traced it back to Illuminati fears in the 1700s).
But the paranoid style has steadily taken over the right wing in recent decades, until fact-based, or at least fact-conceding, old conservatives can hardly be heard (or found) any more. It's the paranoids among them that are anti-science, not the whole group.
I wonder if its more about "Popular" science (not the magazine) vs. actual science. How many wonderful things have we been told over the past few decades about so many things that you hear a few years later 'oops'. I remember the oat bran craze as the newest health food. Omega 3 fish oil the all saving health supplement. Grapefruit health craze. Car radiators treated with catalytic coating to help neutralize pollution. "If everyone in the U.S. replaced just one lightbulb with a CFL it would be like taking 60,000,000 cars off the road!" Cold Fusion (at least so far). Pluto is a planet! Pluto is no longer a planet! Stem cell research will lead to miraculous cures (which may happen, but the subsequent massive effort to cover over the difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research and results, which finally reached a certain level of public awareness).
So how much is due not to the science, or the scientists, but the repeated 'popular press' coverage that touts some new theory as fact, new wonderfulness that will save lives or do other great things, only to have it peter out in a year or three or (covered much more quietly if at all by the media) as either new facts come out, the economics don't work out, later experimentation proves the early was wrong.
In that case a certain skepticism about what you hear from the talking heads and popular shows could be completely understandable, and in fact healthy. Perhaps it is being somewhat misdirected at 'science' in general when it really belongs with the self-serving press, but still to me the source for it is reasonable.
And in fact the lack of some level of discrimination in the other two groups might be seen as somewhat like 'rose colored glasses'.
As opposed to politicians and Super PACs motives, their interpretations, or their solutions....
The key is "self identified conservatives"...
I suspect there's a an awful lot of people like me - conservatives who no longer use that label to identify themselves because too few people know what "conservative" means, and far too many who use "conservative" when they mean "Neocon" or "religious Right".
- Posted Anon because it won't get upmodded anyhow, and because (based on the comments upmodded so far) "conservatives" are an acceptable target for flames and attacks here on Slashdot. The latter is especially worrisome... Substitute "Jew" or "Black" for conservative, and most of those upmodded comments would be moderated "troll".
Social liberals only want to support people who think like they do, and fiscal liberals only want to fund people who think like they do.
Still reads as true, doesn't it? I see the republican party as swinging more extremist at the moment, but let's face it: both sides want their policies passed.
And on the OP, I see a lot of anti-science and distrust on the liberal side as well. Homeopathy isn't restricted by political bias, but I have a distinct impression that those who resist vaccines and insist on buying organic tend to be more on the liberal side. All the 'food X' is good/bad for you based on the science of the week, etc...
Still, you have evolution, global warming, and support for junk(in my opinion) social science on the conservative side. I can accept the evolution as a number of loud religious nuts who have to have a literal reading of their holy book be true. Global warming, I'd have more respect if their disputes were more along the nature of the economic damage from controlling CO2 being higher than just accepting the sea level rise. A vaccine to prevent a cancer causing STD will encourage promiscuity? Really?
I don't read AC A human right
This study laments that conservatives reject liberal culture and turn it into an "us" vs "them" mentality. However, this is exactly what this study is saying on the liberal side, e.g. Those conservatives don't believe in science. This conveniently lumps them all into a science-hating group and furthers the "us" vs "them" rhetoric. The comments so far on this page show a circle-jerk consisting of "Only stupid people don't believe in science!" in which they lap this study up as further proof that all conservatives are religiously extreme and don't believe in science. It's sad that the very article which points out the vitriolic conservative rhetoric against science (a truly lamentable thing) only furthers the rhetoric from the other side.
"Science" is not black and white. It is a matter of discovery and interpretation of the meaning of that discovery. "Believing" science is not the same as believing scientists. It is normal and healthy to maintain a certain degree of skepticism about ALL discoveries until orthogonal experiments and/or data can document results that appear to indicate a similar conclusion.
Such behavior should never be limited to a liberal or a conservative. Nevertheless, the liberal will tend to run with a discovery a bit sooner than a conservative will. These are judgement calls and definitions, not political postures.
There is also a tendency among both liberal and conservative to selectively view the facts that appear to support your thinking. Those with liberal views look just as crazy to the conservative as those with conservative views look to the liberal.
Thus the study confirms that people's definitions of themselves tend to correlate with their other beliefs. Imagine that...
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
A self described conservative walks into a science bar... ...
I got nothin'
I dislike tobacco. I don't like the smoke, I don't like the spitting, I don't like the spent butts littering the roadway.
All of that is personal opinion, no different from disliking the appearance of people chewing gum or getting it stuck on my shoe.
Neither is enough to permit me to get my dander up and start banning this and that. I could ask someone not to smoke upwind of me and that's just a question of common courtesy.
That's all anyone could say about tobacco for a number of years. Doctors suspected health effects but it took time to properly substantiate those suspicions.
Of course, the people making money from tobacco had a great interest in keeping the controversy alive. It's not good for business to admit that your product, when used as directed, will kill people. The only way a smoker won't die of smoking-related causes is if he dies of something else first.
As someone who tobacco to begin with, now science is on my side. How far can I push with regards to tobacco? If we consider that a person has a right to do what they want to their own body, up to and including suicide, then who are we to argue as to how they do it?
At the same time, we know that advertising works. Billions of dollars don't get spent on marketing if it doesn't influence decision-making in the human animal. So are these people really making a choice for themselves?
I'm not a supporter of the way the temperance movement operated back in the day. I like having my wine and beer. Temperance crusaders can point to the dangers of alcohol consumption. I could argue that you can drink in moderation with no ill effects whereas there's no safe level of tobacco consumption but that could sound like rationalization.
I think as far as my own opinion goes, the tobacco companies deliberately prevented their customers from making an informed choice. They did their best to cloud the discussion with bad science, bad data, and deliberate lies and bullshit. They prevented a rational discussion from ever occurring because it would be bad for business.
Look at the current scientific "controversies" and you will see the same thing happening, parties interested in the status quo doing their best to create uncertainty where there is actually a great deal of scientific certainty.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
You all vote the same, so no matter how much you deny it, there is no real difference between the social and fiscal conservatives, only excuses.
Scientists check and recheck and recheck their results. They are very conservative and guard against over interpreting their data. And then, the results get reviewed by other conservative scientists. The problem is not the scientists. The problem is the political conservatives not liking the results. It is a matter of wishful thinking on their part.
So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes "us" conservatives is that we don't agree with "them."'"
With liberals it's completely different; with liberals, it's the other way around.
(Personally, I'm convinced the areas where conservatives and liberals agree are more numerous and far more frightening than the issues on which they don't.)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I thought cannibalism in dogs was kind of rare.
I'm a liberal and I distrust science because it has become so political. Look at string theory, for example. If you are a scientist and don't believe that string theory is valid, you'll have a hard time getting a job, getting grants, getting anything. Science has always had a political flavor but it seems worse now than in the Middle Ages. Science has never been pure science and maybe will never be. But does it have to be so political?
Of course, global warming is the poster child of political science. The science of global warming is so bad it shouldn't be called science. The people doing the "research" start with their conclusion and then do only the research that supports that conclusion. The glaciers are melting in Norway: Global warming caused by humans. But then they're revealing ancient farms which means it was a lot warmer there in the past when there were a lot fewer humans. Oh, let's just brush that away and ignore it. Global warming is caused by humans!
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
As a conservative, I would say that this study itself is an example of what conservatives object to, because the word "science" isn't clarified at all. What do they mean by "science?" Do they mean the scientific method? If so, I'm betting conservatives have as much trust in science as anybody else. Do they mean practical science, that results in things like technology, new inventions, and space travel? Again, conservatives would confidently place their trust here.
The issue here is the defining of "science" as the majority scientific establishment, rather than science as a discipline. The lack of trust comes with regard to the scientific establishment, which, like every other group in existence, is made up of flawed human beings who have their own agendas. This is where you have a majority that produces ad hominem arguments to bully the minority, rather than responding honestly to the minority's objections.
One example is global warming. Regardless of what you believe about global warming, I get uncomfortable when I see a group of people with much to gain politically and financially responding to global warming objections by seeking to discredit the scientists, i.e., the people on the other side of the argument, rather than responding to the argument itself. That smacks to me of corruption in the same way our politics are corrupt. The same argument applies to Intelligent Design, whether a fetus is just tissue or life, or any number of other issues.
So when you see a study like this, I think it would be better to say that conservatives have a lack of trust in the scientific establishment, because it's a group of people with their own agenda just like any other. Conservatives don't have a lack of trust in science itself. Science is a method for determining facts. That method is applied by people. And people--even scientists--, once they get power and influence, seek to hold on to it. When you see responses in the form of personal attacks and censorship, rather than dealing with arguments, then yes, that tends to reduce trust.
Because science has become more and more politicized, conservatives' trust in what is called "science" has fallen dramatically. This response is logical.
The liberal response is to corrupt "science" still further into a kind of religion. Note well the "how dare you question our doctrine" response to any questioning of certain key tenets of the "science" religion. Note the climate of fear they've created among scientists. Many don't dare question even the most blantant lies of the man-made global warming scam. Jobs, reputations, and careers are threatened when they stray from the party line. Attempts are made to silence opposition and destroy. That is NOT real science!!!
Preventing the extinction of animal species due to over-consumption comes at a price.
Preventing the expansion of the hole in the ozone layer due to CFCs comes at a price.
I wish it didn't cost a penny to protect species diversity and the atmosphere, but unfortunately wishing doesn't make it true.
As Carl Sagan would say "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
"We" have never agreed with "them". "They" are clearly out to get "us".
"What's the point of going abroad, if you're just another tourist..."
I don't think the nature of science itself has changed; it is non-political. What I meant was that the nature of what it tells us tends to be distorted for our own agendas, and we MAKE IT political.
Redneck retards don't like things that go against their views, say their shotguns solve everything.
In other news, the sky is still god damn blue.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
We all know that when matter collapses in on itself, it forms a black hole. So, what happens when an ideology collapses in on itself? You get a bunch of assholes.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Science has become very politicized on both sides, to the point were people have an agenda and it's not about finding truth, it's about furthering your cause or your ideals.
What a fascination (unintentional?) transposition. You say "support" in one part of the sentence and "fund" in the other. I think back to the famous Voltaire quote, where there's one consistent position to fight both for and against an idea, on different fronts.
Today, though, these two fronts are considered the same thing; no modern politician would say what Voltaire said, because it would be considered oxymoronic. You either fund someone or you don't support them; you're doing one xor the other, and you can't do both.
There are good reasons to not treat science as truth which are not based in faith or some other meta-cognitive bias. To blindly say that because it's science, it's trustworthy is as ignorant as saying it's the tool of the devil. Here are a couple very reputable books that give very compelling reasons as to why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
Now I'm not saying that conservatives necessarily understand the points made in these books, but that doesn't change the fact that modern views help on science, especially by the average person who is not a scientist, are ridiculous. There is nothing irrational about not letting people bash you over the head with theories that will be proven wrong and forgotten in a matter of decades.
Now you may personally hold a healthy attitude towards science and not blindly follow it, but be assured there are many people who have no idea what they are talking about running around spouting scientific theory as matter-of-fact certain truth.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
And here is the reason why. Bad science has gained a lot of ground recently. Besides, science itself is based on distrust and scepticism, so this alone would be a good thing, the problem is when distrust is applied selectively.
Reality has a liberal bias because only liberals are interested in pursuing research wherever it leads. Both the US Right and the Soviet Left, for instance, at some point opposed the theory of evolution for dogmatic reasons.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
but the neo-conseravatives. There are many conservatives that do not subscribe to the following of reagan and W.
Honestly, the above is a silly statement. Reagan would not support the W. regime. Not even close. W. and Reagan were almost that opposite ends of the political spectrum. Reagan was, for example, able to compromise when needed. Reagan was also fiscally conservative (though somewhat of a big spender) while W. was no such thing. Not many people increased the Fed the way W. did, a distinctly left-leaning behavior.
Bush Sr. was appalled at the W. policies. Reagan would be rotating in his grave.
One thing that should also be noted here, several of the major players in the neo-conservative movement, particularly the "intellectuals" that formed it, are ex democrats. Not only are they ex democrats, they are people who were well to the left in the democratic party when it came to fiscal policies. It is amusing when current conservatives lump Obama in with ancient communists since neocons traditionally are (fiscally) well to the left of Obama. G. W. Bush was also, fiscally, well to the left of Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Science, like evolution, applies to ideas as much as it does to the rest of the world around us. The ideas of science began hundreds of years before the current twist on conservatism and will be around hundreds of years after today's American conservatism has driven itself to extinction. By definition, science must constantly prove itself and adapt to reality as our understanding of it unfolds. Today's American conservatism, on the other hand, seeks to reject adaptation and new understanding by pretending that nothing changes. It's a dead-end path that will not survive long exposure to reality.
The reason conservatives are more and more opposed to science is because science provides more and more insight into the fact religion is nothing more then a bunch of hocus pocus.
Too many people see science as a sort of magic. You do the incantations, make the invisible bits perform, and you can see an image of Grandma 2000 miles away.
They forget the method behind it all, the structure of thought, and only look at the results.
Add to this the intentional noise added (tobacco companies, food corporations, anti-climate science, etc.), and it becomes easier and easier to view science as some sort of supernatural thing, not to really be trusted, but to be used when it makes life a bit more comfy.
Check your premises.
There *is* trust in science, i.e. that the scientific method is valid. We say that if a experiment is repeatable enough times, that we have a valid test of truth. We assume that nature isn't completely capricious and random. i.e. If Zeus were throwing the lightning bolts around, he might avoid the buildings with lightnings rods just because he wants to, but still occasionally blast one or two just because he was feeling ornery.
We have trust in Occam's razor. "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." Most of the time that works for us, but as H. L. Mencken is quoted: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Recently there was a astrophysist that suggested that billions of years ago some scientific constants like the charge on the electron were subtlely different. If these constants drifted in a consistent fashion, we might be able to develop a theory that properly describes the universe. This is one explaination why there's no detected life far away, it just wasn't possible until now.
If, on the other hand, right after the Big Bang, the various universal constants bounced around, then there's not much hope we could ever properly describe what happened or predict what will happen.
For now, we trust the scientific method because it works better than praying to Zeus. If something comes along that works even better than science, we should switch to it. (But I'm sure some people will stick with science for awhile)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I think the real issue, and some commenters have alluded to it, is that some people (most "conservatives," presently) are skeptical of scientists, especially those who are perceived to have a political agenda that overrides "going where the data take them." I would think any intellectually honest person, conservative, moderate, or liberal, would and should be skeptical of personal or political agendas altering scientific conclusions. Science is, by its nature, supposed to be skeptical, and not take things on faith; that should include not having "faith in scientists to not have agendas that influence results."
A scientist who hides, alters, or spins data to obtain conclusions he/she wants should be held accountable by everyone as intellectual dishonesty, regardless of whether those conclusions agree or disagree with one's personal views (e.g., global warming or lack thereof, intelligent design or lack thereof, etc.).
It couldn't POSSIBLY be because people like Al Gore are going around saying "the science is TOTALLY SETTLED AND AGREED UPON AND SHOULD NOT EVER BE DEBATED"??? Where is THAT in the scientific method? Face it, a lot (not all) of science since the 70's has been about pushing radical agendas with falsified studies. Any scientist worth his salt would not EVER say "I know this for an absolute fact and there is no more debate" and then use as one of the pillars of his theory that a large number of scientists agree. When Einstein was criticized by 200 Nazi scientists in a pamphlet during WWII his reply was "IF I was wrong, ONE scientist would have been enough". Consensus fact
Grow up, it's not one-tooth conservatives babbling about Jesus. It's people who are sick of junk science coming from the left. Remember:
8 glasses of water a day (BS)
Sodium causes high blood pressure (BS)
Eggs are bad for you (BS)
MWP was only in Europe (BS)
need I go on?....
W policies were a FULL repeat of reagan's. Both ran up monster deficits. Both used the military everywhere they could. Both screamed about everything EXCEPT themselves. Nearly all of W's ppl were many of the same corrupt ppl from reagan's admin. And even W stated that he would rather follow reagan than W.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your very correct, there has been an increase in bias and false information over the years that conservatives have a very hard time trusting the scientists, not science.
I always love hearing that scientists are somehow not trustworthy because they have agendas and are getting paid for their opinions. The alternatives are, as you said, politicians, think tanks and joe's on the street who are either only paid to say what someone else thinks, or who don't get paid for their opinion because they don't research their opinion.
In other words, it's the chunk of coal calling a slightly used pot black.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...and I'm alarmed by what passes for scientific research. I see a lot of junk science being spewed forth from both ends of the political spectrum. Dubious correlation models, epidemiological studies hailed as "discoveries", and gross over-reliance on statistical tricks are pervasive.
"Oh, we used matching to 'account' for all those confounding variables". How convenient.
It's not just research--there's an increasing amount of intellectual dishonesty (or at least self-deception) in engineering, as well. A system that passes all the testcases in simulation will have to do, because we don't have enough engineers who know how to do analysis or proofs. Don't get me started on the use of non-deterministic circuits in safety-critical systems.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
So far the bias favors conservatives. Pretty much nothing liberals believe can be properly forecast because it doesn't work and is not true.
That's the biggest clue, the lack of liberals to properly predict how anything (weather, the economy) will work, while unheeded conservative warnings come true time after time.
Of course conservatives are going to distrust science.
That is simply because science is no longer "hard". In that lots of people are claiming to be scientists without sharing data or techniques, without in fact being real scientists. Why should anyone trust someone who claims to be a "scientists" when so many before them really were not and couldn't predict squat?
Science needs to come back to reality, it's not that people need to have more wool pulled over the eyes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
OTOH, many conservatives and real republicans fully support science, logic, etc. and what can be learned from it. Sadly, they are now a minority of the republican party. Many of them are driven out with the neo-cons screaming that those ppl are RINOs and are actually liberals. Sad that America has sunk this low.
This. Technically, I should vote republican every time. I believe in a balanced budget, frugal spending priorities, and a limited government. However, what I get from republican candidates is God, wars on xxx, politically motivated spending projects and the attitude that if you're not with us, you're a terrorist.
No thanks.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Solyndra ?
Now for most people, this would be some pretty compelling evidence. Not so for Dick! Perhaps it wasn't a bad idea, he just didn't apply it with enough vigor. Perhaps there was an external factor that sabotaged what was otherwise a sound idea. Does he reevaluate? Does he reexamine? No, he'll double-down.
There was a recent fMRI study of compulsive gamblers vs. regular people while playing slot machines. In the compulsive gambler an apparent "near miss" lit up the "win" area of the brain. In the normal person, only a real win would light up that same area. (The casinos already knew this from experience and have adjusted their machines to give more "near miss"es.)
The investment advisor can take advantage of this by keeping Dick informed with every bump in the "value" of the investment, and downplaying any losses. When the bottom of the market drops out, the advisor just dumps Dick and gets a new mark.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
It seems clear that this article was a title first, and then they crafted the article around the title. No research or poll was done.
And you reached that conclusions without going to look at the actual study by Gauchat in "American Sociological Review". Admittedly it is a forthcoming publication, but here is the author's bio. I am sure that you can read the article in April if you like, and then take up any issues with the author.
I study the anti-science movement in both conservatives and liberals, and the although they are both equally anti-science in their own way, the conservatives have a powerful anti-science champions in fox, the evangelical movement, Beck, Limbaugh, and pretty much every conservative think-tank that I can think of.
All that propaganda has an effect.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
the increase in religious right evangelical involvement.
While correlation does not imply causation, we need to take this along with other data where the religions have outright denied scientific facts, fave systematically been attacking science, and well as lying to undermine it's credibility.
Yet another reason while people need to treat religion like masturbation. Best done at home and out of the public eye.
We should shame people who deny scientific facts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It should be: Liberals have a Reality bias.
(seeing as how conservatives nowadays seem to be drawn to paranoid, imaginary, wishful-thinking, invisible-man-in-the-sky type ideas)
I have a feeling a deeper analysis would show that they distrust when someone says something is X because of science. Why? Because people often claim "science" about things that just aren't settled. Global warming, for instance. People are told everything is getting warmer and that it's science. But then none of the predictions come to be, and suddenly there are new predictions. And that's fine, because science is about changing hypothesis. The problem is that people hear science and assume anything following that is absolutely true when it is not in fact absolutely true, or even close to proven. So liberals apparently hear the word science and blindly accept whatever they are told, while conservatives have developed a healthy dose of skepticism. Just look at nutrition. The government told us to eat lots of bread and grains and cereal... Because of science! And now, decades later, we are seeing more and more evidence that those very "science-based" guidelines are a primary contributor to the obesity epidemic.
I always told my wife we need to move to one of those super conservative southern states. I'm a well educated reasonnably intelligent person but here on teh west coast there's just too much competition. In Georgia I'd stand out more. Heck, I'm pretty sure I could get one of my kids elected senator or governor. It worked for Bobby Jindal.
That's the great thing about science: you don't have to trust it! It's got all the evidence right there! Sure, you have to believe all the data isn't fabricated, but that's a much smaller chasm than, oh, say, a bigwig in the sky is calling the shots. Maybe that's just me.
...Science believes in You! ;)
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
There is strong counter-evidence to what you said. Do you even know what the counter-evidence is? "The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." Dr. Wayne W. Dyer.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
For several decades, I have been a Libertarian. I am still a registered Libertarian. However, my philosophy is changing as I see what evil our nation has subjected itself to during the 80s and now during the 00's. I am probably leaning more towards the goldwater republican who believes in strong fiscal conservative and social moderate. Sadly, the republican party is not social conservative (or even nut jobs), and fiscal insanity.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As you claim to speak for all conservatives, would you mind providing a reason for not trusting scientists? Sure I can see why you don't trust scientists working at Philip Morris to tell you about the harms from smoking tobacco products, but "scientists" is a large category to mistrust for any single reason. I am a scientist, do you distrust what I post here because I am a scientist? If so why? What are your reasons.
I totally agree that the politicalization of science has been a detriment to both science and society. That we as a nation should remove politics from science. However you cannot remove science from politics. Our nation should not make policy decisions based on gut feelings when a rational understanding is available.
Simply stating that you don't trust scientists without providing a reason is a great analogy for the current problem as I see it: many people FEEL that they KNOW what the answer is and when evidence contradicts that they ignore it, when evidence validates it they claim victory. In reality very little is ever that cut and dry. Science will (in fact must) be wrong at times. There are many reasons for that but the number of times that it has been due to scientific misconduct are minuscule when compared to the number of times it was just a statistical fluke or experimental error. So what evidence do you have to support your distrust of scientists as a group?
1) GOP has had a sharp increase over the years with religious right, and evans. To deny this is stupidity. Many of these people have come right out and said science is wrong if it conflicts with their beliefs.
2) Rush Limbaugh's job is to get sponsors and to anger people for attention. He should be ignored he ads nothing to public discourse. That said, RL praising an engineered apple product isn't the same his science denial.
" I remember the religious zealotry coming out of the scientific community at the time."
That makes no sense. Are you implying the science is a religion? if you are you are provable wrong.
"That's not anti-science, that is foresight."
no, it was pure anti-science. He has no control over the scientific community at large, but he did cut federal grants which put is about 8 years behind in the tech. Undermining, yet again, American scientific advancement in medical science.
" and restricted the harvesting of new embryonic stem cells. "
And that tell my you are fucking clueless about the subject matter and don't know where they get new embryonic stem cells.
HInt, they aren't harvested so much as saved from the trash. The are the left over from ivitro fertilization. THAT is what the are initially harvested for. I couldn't help but notice they didn't come out against invitro fertilization. Why? hypocrasy and ignorance, that's why. SO not the left overs from invitro are thrown away. Man, isn't that smart? And ignorant people like you go right long with it instead ogf bother to learn about something before forming your opinion.
Shame on you.
"Look at the sex slave trade we have going on now. Back during the stem cell debate, science was claiming that conservatives cared nothing for human life. Had they permitted free reign for embryonic stem cells, then sex slave trading would be the "better" outcome if you were a female child and kidnapped.......
What The Fuck? Again, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.
You are beyond stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I haven't really noticed this behaviour to such an extant in Canadians or Mexicans but it seems like the US'ians are full of borderline personality disorders (in the DSM sense not the colloquial).
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Well, they are... except for the 'conspiracy' part. Conspiracies are usually considered to be something hidden and stealthy, while the conspiracy to get funded and advance their careers is about as hidden and stealthy as an aircraft carrier in a wading pool.
Very insightful and informative post, mod up, it's totally true.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Look at the 50 years 1912-1962. Science produced the theory for radio, tubes, transistors, large scale electric systems, plastics, worldwide communications systems, radar, jet aircraft, antibiotics, computers, and nuclear power. Then look at the next 50 years, 1962-2012. It's all improvements on that stuff.
There hasn't been a new energy source in the last 50 years. Solar cells and atomic power are more than 50 years old now. Fusion was a bust. Yes, more volumes of Physical Review come out each year, but they don't contain breakthroughs like fission. There are more scientists than ever, but output has declined, because most of the easy results have been found. Innovation peaked around 1870, during Edison's lifetime. That was when steel, steam, and electricity came together and much of the modern world was developed. Edison's lab had a goal of a minor invention every 3 days, and a major breakthrough every two weeks. That was with a staff of about 30. Nobody has productivity like that today. There's progress in the bio area, but the level of effort required for even small progress is quite high.
Science is a non-renewable resource. The effort required for new discovery increases over time. The easy discoveries have already been made. The cost of new discovery increases steadily, and eventually becomes uneconomic. This is why big company research labs disappeared in the 1980s.
Startups do not help much. Today's "innovations" are things like Twitter. I go to venture capital meetings, and most of the ideas are at that level. (Or much lower; I've heard a pitch for a social network for cats.) It's all about applying too much technology to banal tasks.
You may not trust science, but God's asleep at the wheel. Take your pick
One problem hear is that more and more areas of study call themselves "science" when they are not. There is a long list of "Social Sciences" which are not science at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science#Social_sciences). TFA is a perfect example of such "science" - polling data masquerading as scientific research. Also the article does not distinguish between science and the scientific method.
An instructive quote from the article:
“When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution and talking about how ‘intellectual elites’ and scientists don’t necessarily have the whole truth.”
So believing that scientists do not have the whole truth is "anti-science"? Scientists once believed the earth was flat and the center of the solar system. The scientists then did not have the whole truth and neither to scientists today.
Umm, regarding number 2. Rush gushes over anything that he's paid to gush over. The fact that neither Rush nor Apple will comment on whether or not Rush is getting paid for his gushing should make you question his sincerity.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
logical_failure is a known sock puppet of damn_registrars
Religious/Social Conservatives will likely not believe anything they are told that is contrary to what the bible tells them. Conservatives who are big proponents of big oil are likely to not believe or will discredit what climatologists say, if it hurts THEIR (big oil) interests. Then their are conservatives with the ignorant, biased view that scientists are all a bunch liberal elites who think they are better than everyone else because they have PhDs and grad degrees.
From his bio at
http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/research_programs/mental_health/staff/bio/gauchat.html
"...including a study of what it is about science that alienates ideological conservatives and the political middle (moderates and independents) in the U.S."
So he has already decided his conclusion, and doesn't study liberals. You can scheme a study to make it fit a conclusion that you want.
Hey, he could be correct, and I don't care because I'm not "conservative" in any way discussed. /. really is becoming a crap pool of politics. Nearly ever article devolves into politics for some reason.
Also sad to see how all the comments basically digressed to broad stereotypes of one side calling the other "bad."
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
It is not that Conservatives don't trust Science. It is that many conservatives do not trust the scientific objectivity of most research. Imagine if the scientific community still held to the concept of epicycles of the planets, or that "leeching" and blood letting were still a viable medical treatments. And all research was "squeezed" into fitting that model. This is the primary problem with much of the scientific research of the day. The concern is that research and findings are slanted and confined by a world view that many times is used to propagate ideologies, beliefs, and dogmas that are ideologically opposed to many conservative values. The problem is many, have bought into the sham, but the truth is the emperor wears no cloths. Pointing out the obvious, apparently opens you up for ridicule.
A large number of self-identified conservatives are also self-identified as being "religious" as well.
If you remove questions which threaten the faith of these conservatives (ie, evolution, questions about the existence of God) how is their perception of science then?
How do conservatives who do not profess a religious affiliation or are atheist view science? It would probably surprise most liberals, whose characterizations of all conservatives as ignorant religious racists is as inaccurate as conservatives characterizations of liberals as wooly-headed layabouts on the dole, that there are a number of conservatives, especially of the libertarian bent, who are atheists or whom observe religion as a cultural and social tradition and not as a set of blinders.
Sadly, the republican party is not social conservative (or even nut jobs), and fiscal insanity.
Oops. Meant to say:
Sadly, the republican party is now social conservative (or even nut jobs), and fiscal insanity.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... if you stop believing in Science, it will stop believing in you.
And then who will bring you presents on Christmas? Some guy flying around propelled by reindeers? Science already destroyed that preposterous affront to thermodynamics with a Dark Matter beam.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
If we permanently swapped the word "conservative" for the word "fucktard", politics would make a lot more sense.
It's easy for conservatives to dismiss science. As one nearing the end of my career, I have seen science lose its objectivity and become much more subjective. Scientists and those who trained them have only themselves to blame if they see themselves coming under fire. Few graduate students with whom I work appear to understand the scientific method; we're turning out a generation of technicians rather than scientists.
Furthermore, the late scientist von Karmen was often quoted in saying, "science and engineering have nothing to do with each other." We should never confuse the two.
I'll start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VooaLRqTSPI
You do know that new studies show that mercury in tuna and other fish is non-toxic, as it is bound up into an insoluble salt with selenium, right?
The rivers were polluted because no-one owned them, so there was no-one to prevent them from being polluted. Since governments hold that waterways are for common use, they enforce the tragedy of the commons. The only way to prevent it while maintaining no ownership is to install police apparatus, which is very expensive and intrusive, much more so than simply allowing people to own it, and to defend it from illegal dumping or charge the dumpers the clean up price for their dumping. Instead, we have government boondoggles working to clean them up.
Your appeal to authority is without merit. I know a lot of university professors. While they may be experts within their field, they are among the most heavily politicized people I have ever known (including the people running the local R and D parties!).
And it certainly doesn't take a worldwide conspiracy to present biased data to Congressmen on a junket, or to give a bureaucrat an opportunity to justify their existence.
The difference between establishment, Eisenhower-style conservatism and today's variety, dominated by the South, is that conservatives of the Southern stripe tend to score much lower on openness to experience. This way of thinking tends to feel that it already knows what it needs to know, and that anyone who comes along proclaiming that, say, we need to put a price on carbon actually has some other agenda, like taking away your freedom because of how eeevil and librul they are. Since the fundamental tenet of science is empiricism (i.e. being committed to accepting what experience is telling you about reality, no matter how unintuitive), it's small wonder that science comes to be viewed with suspicion.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
Religious/Social Conservatives will likely not believe anything they are told that is contrary to what the bible tells them. Conservatives who are big proponents of big oil are likely to not believe or will discredit what climatologists say, if it hurts THEIR (big oil) interests. Then their are conservatives with the ignorant, biased view that scientists are all a bunch liberal elites who think they are better than everyone else because they have PhDs and grad degrees.
What we REALLY need to investigate is;
How the Hell did Big Oil get social/religious Conservatives to tie Big Oil interests to their religion?
Why is it the person screaming about "life at ejaculation" is also the same person ranting; "LOL, it was a cool day today" as a proof of some trend?
I think a survey would show that all these people have a hatred for Unions. A disgust for compassion. A mistrust in science.
What would really CLEAR THIS UP, is to recognize that a "Social Conservative" in the US today, mostly fits the following 14 characteristics -- see if you can find Herman Cain, Newt, Romney or Santorum here -- heck, I'd be surprised if they don't nail at least 10 traits;
The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
"You" forgot to put "quotes" around "religion".
Much as I hate Rush Limbaugh; he's been a huge Apple fan since he's been on the air (sorry to have known him that long).
Apple NEVER paid him a dime for decades -- I'm not sure if they are now or not. Having Steve Jobs and Al Gore on the board doesn't make this company a natural ally with Rush. Apple even pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce because they said it was corrupt and not in line with their ethics. They've been really successful by NOT really acting like true capitalists. They don't feed the market the dreck it thinks it wants, but give it things it SHOULD want. When people are buying their stuff -- they don't start cutting corners like Dell and find cheaper components -- they find stronger carbon fiber and Gorilla Glass. They don't buy up the competition or other companies with hundreds of billions of cash -- they sit on it and use it to guarantee the supplies of components. Apple even pushed to raise wages and working standards at FoxConn YEARS before they got all the bad press. So they are huge Capitalists without really intending to be Capitalists. [Crap, that sounds like a PRO Apple Rant -- I'm just trying to find something strange they did that ended up being STUPID] Oh yeah; they sued Samsung for a knock-off tablet that was NEVER GOING TO SELL CRAP just on the principle of it.
>> Maybe the NEW Apple will be a lot more corporate, and put Rush ads on the menu -- hard to say. But Steve Jobs went after Google for betraying him with their phone and his feelings when it made no economic sense.
I think in this one case, someone would have to pay Rush NOT to gush about Apple products because he is, I'm sorry to say, an Apple disciple.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
fail. THIS, folks, is "begging the question."
Anti-science liberals? Do you mean the Amish?
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
Oh wonderful, another thread for all the liberal idiots to post their liberal idiocy and their phony strawmen about conservatives.
A war on intelligence is unsustainable. Let them "dumb" themselves right out of the political spectrum. Pretty soon they won't even be intelligent enough to fill out the necessary forms to run for office or even put a checkmark on a ballot. Yay! Good riddance!
Which is quite odd because a lot of their persecution tirade centers on the idea that you're not allowed to diss someone's faith.
I believe that I will die if I jump off this cliff is a scientific conclusion that couldn't be aired in any other way.
How else would YOU put the scientific idea on acceleration, forces and impulse effects (and the hydrodynamic shockwaves) that would result from slamming into the ground at speed and the medical knowledge of what such impacts can do to a human body that would not be a scientific dissertation 200 pages long with diagrams that DOESN'T use "believe".
The problem with this study is that it's from the US-ian perspective that lumps several separate and unequal groups into one uncomfortable amalgam. "Conservatives" can be one or more of the following: a) fiscal conservatives (e.g., "Chamber of Commerce Republicans"), b) social conservatives (e.g., the "bring back the pre-60s culture" crowd), c) small-government conservatives (i.e., libertarians), or d) religious lunatics bent on theocracy.
Groups like "d" are going to be fundamentally anti-science, for obvious reasons. Others may or may not be anti-science; for example, libertarians are generally against "big science" funded by the government.
Note that "Liberals" also comprise a similar hodge-podge of groups with different beliefs (some of which share a knee-jerk anti-science response), but that's another topic.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
IMO organized religion is to blame for this. Even 35 years ago there was plenty of religion around, but it wasn't an issue because America has no state religion and all the organized religions of the day were highly fractionalized and didn't trust each another. Therefore, the separation of church and state still made sense and almost everyone wanted to send their kids to college.
With preachers like Billy Graham, a new brand of evangelicalism (American evangelism) in the mid 20th century changed all that. Their idea was that, as opposed to many other churches, it was better set a low threshold for entry for anyone who wanted to join: all that was necessary was to "accept Jesus as your personal savior" and the rest would come later. Of course, anyone who once you joined would then be fed all kinds of fundamentalist crap. The result was that religion in the US became much more organized than ever before. This really started to take off in the late 1970s.
For today's "leading lights" in this movement it's really about the money. They live in opulent mansions, have huge incomes and pay no taxes. Of course, their tactics have earned them plenty of criticism and anyone with an ounce of skepticism can see what they're up to. So, to defend themselves and maintain their flock numbers, the preachers have learned to criticize the origins of all of the accusations thrown at them, which includes science itself. It seems this method has worked a little too well.
The solution? Education, education, education, and as much of it as every individual is willing to take. It should be mandatory up to at least 18 years of age (no home schooling), as well as free (or at least affordable) at all levels for everyone.
For any society that aspires to constantly increase the average standard of living of its citizens, education is just as much a basic need as food, clothing, shelter and medical assistance. Better education, and thus more commonly found critical thinking skills, is the reason why evangelicalism never made any serious inroads in Europe, despite many efforts.
There is still time, although it's limited. America has the money to educate its people, but does it have the will?
the problem have with American science is when a Scientist come up with a theory that might disrupt the accepted norm in the scientific community he is immediately shot down no matter the subject. I knew a scientist I wont mention his name that was going to publish a paper that questioned a basic fact of evolution not dismiss it not even question the theory all he said in the paper was that our view on this subject is narrow and we need to be more accepting of diffident ways life mutated.
His boss called a regional science board of some sort and they pretty much said if you publish you'll never find work at another university again.
Science is suppose to allow you to question anything no matter how ridiculous and allow arguments not just silence people the community disagrees with.
When the establish community stops the very basics of the scientific process I look outside the US on scientific issues
Maybe I've gotten cynical as I've gotten older, but it seems to me that a lot science is being politically weaponized these days. Perhaps it was always so, but it's become particularly noticeable to me in recent years. A good case in point is the climate change (nee global warming) debate. I don't get the sense that anyone involved has the attitude of, "Let's see what the evidence really is, what it means, and what we should do about it if anything". The science has become tainted by the money and political power at stake. Science itself is our best source of understanding, but like all human institutions it can be perverted into a form that's less than the ideal. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." The products of scientific inquiry have to be acknowledged as the output of potentially-faulty human beings and should be treated as skeptically as we treat politics, news, and the latest diet fads. "Treated skeptically"' doesn't mean to just discard it, it means to subject it to rigorous and independent verification.
The headline doesn't surprise me at all, but I think some of the conclusions about why stem from speculation on stereotypes rather than a comprehensive understanding of conservatism. As a practicing catholic, I accept the teachings of the church in the Bible; however, I also accept the theory of evolution based on my studies of bioinformatics related subjects. My interpretation of the Bible does not stand in conflict. For instance, the Bible says God created Earth in seven days. Since so much of the Bible's teaching comes in the form of metaphors, I interpret seven days a metaphor for people of ancient times with no access to education so they could easily relate concepts they understood to the formation of a planet. Many of my fellow catholics and conservatives express their beliefs in similar fashion.
In coming to where the distrust of science arises, I consider several data points. First, Left leaning thinkers dominate most of academia. Polls show this overwhelmingly, and I'm pretty sure most reading this don't disagree. Second, causes of environmental extremism frequently only present a partial view of science to justify an agenda. Consider the claims that man made CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm. Much of the research upon which scientists have based these claims is not public. They have taken steps to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, even to the extent that a frustrated whistleblower dumped a series of emails that blew up into the scandal now known as Climategate. For instance, proper simulation analysis undergoes a process called Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V). This involves third parties reproducing results against known outcomes, and anyone wishing to challenge the assertions may openly participate. However; this is not what's happened. Rather than openly engaging skeptics, even those with scientific backgrounds, the proponents tarnish, ridicule, and exclude such people from the process. Given the substantial financial gains some stand to make with the implementation of CO2 emissions policy, conservatives not welcoming such changes will naturally express a high degree of skepticism. Efforts such as capping CO2 emissions, elimination of DDT, etc. span back as early as the 1970s. Third, it's natural for conservatives to distrust anyone with the power of public policy making. There are exceptions, but not many.
On the other side, I think some of my fellow conservatives sometimes fail to look at the whole picture of an issue. For instance, the US energy sector stands to gain a great deal of efficiency with the implementation of SmartGrid technology. However, it has an Orwellian aspect to it in that a central office can manipulate the amount of power applied at the point of consumption. Conservatives, myself included, don't want somebody in a central office controlling what happens within their homes, and this sentiment sometimes overshadows the other benefits of SmartGrid technology, such as synchrophasers. So rather than simply opposing the single invasive aspect of SmartMeters, they oppose the entirely of all SmartGrid technology.
Lastly, I think that scientists naturally tend to drift towards Left leaning ideology because of their problem solver mentality. When an engineer builds something, a car or rocket or software application, he/she aims to develop it in such a manner that it functions in the most optimal way possible, time and money permitting of course. The building blocks are mechanical parts, 0's and 1's, or other types of inanimate objects. They don't have consciousness, feeling, dreams, desires, or rights. When science enters the realm of public policy, however, those building blocks are individual persons. I think it's too easy for scientific based public policy makers to forget that and consequently dehumanize the problems they are trying to solve. That's what I consider the essence of conservative based skepticism of science in today's world.
"There are many conservatives that do not subscribe to the following of reagan and W"
No doubt, but somehow they don't manage to make a difference when it comes to elections. Together with dems it's been just shy of a majority for several decades.
"it is these 2 and their followers"
And their supporters. I mean, you wouldn't call the Koch brother or ALEC "followers", would you?
Yeah, no.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Niigata+Minamata+disease
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
During the 1970s the Evangelical Christian conservative movement was starting its celebrity and television boosted counter strike to the 60s movements. The results are obvious.
Good luck with the whole science pledge thing. I don't know how many times lately on Facebook I see someone thanking the Lord (I assume he has a Facebook page) for miracle that saved cousin Fred-Bob. Of course on further questioning, Fred-Bob had a heart attack and someone used a cell phone to call the ambulance, which arrived quickly because the highly trained paramedics had a laptop GPS and maps on it. They used a portable defibrillator and drugs to keep him alive until they got the the hospital where a high trained surgeon used a heart catheter to fix the problem. Of course, praying to Jesus was what really did the trick, No need to thank the scientists who invented all that stuff or the doctor who used science to do the healing.
May I make a humble suggestion. Those of us who subscribe to science and critical thinking will rely on modern medical science, hospitals, food hygene and regulation, etc. for our health and well-being.
Those who decry science and instead believe in a bearded fairy in the sky listening to their drivel as they prostrate themselves on their knees, expect the sky fairy to favor their football team, their business, their family, over their neighbor's, etc. shall be required by law to rely solely on faith and prayer for their well being.
This has the advantage of removing hypocracy from the system, and letting the "marketplace of reality" naturally select those who survive. If God is Great, they will outlive the skeptics. If instead God is an empty threat or promise, those of us smart enough to live in reality will survive, and those spreading the mental illness that is religion will tend to go away.
Win-win for everyone of sound mind, and win-win for our society. Population pressures may also be relieved (with an added bonus as those who believe every sperm is sacred kick the bucket).
conservatives were and are so big on grants and market/business type thinking being applied to all aspects of life-- they promote corporate and other interests funding science which end up undermining science. ironically they did it to themselves.
You do know that new studies show that mercury in tuna and other fish is non-toxic, as it is bound up into an insoluble salt with selenium, right?
You know that completely depends on the fish, right? Not just the species, but the individual fish Tuna overall have more selenium than mercury, but since mercury is environmental and bioaccumulative, the fish you're actually eating could have out-of-spec levels.
People still get diagnosed with mercury poisoning from fish consumption from time to time. It happens.
The rivers were polluted because no-one owned them, so there was no-one to prevent them from being polluted.
'Cause nobody who owns a river would eeeeeeever pollute it.
but I have zero trust in conservatives.
--Science
That statement does not even make any sense. Science is not trust based beyond agreeing upon how it is communicated through math and physics.
In conversations I've heard, many conservatives express the notion that some thoughts should NOT be questioned.
This is not accepted by people who prefer thoughts that can withstand (survive) questioning.
I would not say my trust in science has dwindled at all. I trust science very much.
The problem is that ACTUAL SCIENCE has decreased significantly since the 1970's. Consensus has become the new Science, but consensus is not science. I do not trust consensus. I trust science.
There has been a proliferation of bad science, and with it a loss of faith. I feel conservatives have no problem with hard science like materials research, but there is a lot of "press release science" that amounts to a collection of statistics, some nonsense discussion that confuses correlation with causation, maybe a slick graph with projections on top, and most of that stuff is just crap. Social science and climate science (liberal favorites) are the biggest offenders.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.alternet.org/environment/154709/the_strange_conservative_brain%3A_3_reasons_republicans_refuse_to_accept_reality_about_global_warming/
Would you trust some stupid egghead who wants to take away your gas guzzler and teach blasphemy in your child's school?
Nice job conflating freshwater fish with open ocean fish. Next you'll be telling us that humans don't need to consume vitamin C because dolphins can synthesize their own.
This is more of an argument about definitions.
What the US calls a socialiberalistacommunofascist party (the Democrats) is what the rest if the world would call a 'conservative' party.
Speaking of circle jerks, that's the same tortured logic that leads to fundies whining that objections to their hatred for gays, Muslims etc is "anti-Christian bigotry".
So lets go ahead and move past that word salad. This stuff is actually quantifiable - like polling to find out that educated conservatives are more likely to believe that AGW is a hoax and that Obama is a Muslim than less-educated conservatives.
No, it does depend on the species. IIRC only like one species of WHALE bioaccumulates toxic species of mercury. http://chriskresser.com/is-eating-fish-safe-a-lot-safer-than-not-eating-fish
And when the pollutants leave their portion of the waterway and enter that of someone else, they will be charged or sued for damages, just like they would be if they piled up garbage on the edge of their land and then shoved it over onto someone else's.
You don't really hear a lot about evil corporations dumping toxic sludge on their own land, anyways. Certainly not when there is a profit motive in keeping it clean. A clean river is more valuable for recreation and fishing than a toxic river is for dumping, especially when you take lawsuits from downstream rights holders into account.
What a complete load of crap. I'm a conservative, and I think science is one of the best tools known to mankind. We have achieved so much through the scientific process, and there is much more to discover. Science is not incompatible with conservative (political or actual definition) principles at all. Sure, there are some people on the fringes of both the left and right that refuse to consider any argument made by the opposite side, but I don't believe either of these groups represent the majority of the population.
The behavior of some scientists, and the inappropriate application of some scientific theories (usually for political purposes) causes concern for many conservatives, but that doesn't mean conservatives distrust science itself. To throw a religious argument in here (I know, that's always dangerous), you can find many conservatives, like me, that consider science and scientific discovery to be one of God's gifts to mankind, where He has endowed and enabled us to discover the nature of the universe through logic, study, reason, and testing.
Science is good, and good science doesn't discount any possibilities. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (or discovered yet through science).
Conservatives in general dismiss almost all subject experts. They believe that "common sense" is sufficiently reliable such that your feelings about something are on par with that of a subject expert.
It's not that they think subject experts are "dumb", but rather that political and personal bias clouds their judgement and overrides their knowledge and skill in the given topic, especially if that topic has political and economic implications.
However, if subject experts are so easy to be self-deceived, then why wouldn't this same "force" apply to themselves?
Part of the answer seems to be religion. They believe that if they are "righteous" (as they interpret it), then God will indirectly speak to them to guide them toward the "truth". Thus, God allegedly grants them the power or feelings to make judgements better than subject experts because they believe they are more righteous than subject experts, who are probably pot-smoking promiscuous communist hippies in their mind.
Table-ized A.I.
....that this started in the '70s. That's about the time that partisans on the left (and then eventually more mainstream Democrats) began politicizing science to support their agenda.
Now it's a tough situation. If you're labeled the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier just for questioning the validity of a theory or a model, when there are folks screaming that skeptics should be denied jobs and/or the opportunity to air their questions, when the contrary evidence or theories are ignored--it's difficult to reach any kind of accommodation or agreement after that.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Believing that science has an agenda is to believe that thousands of independently-working and independently-paid researchers are all part of a vast conspiracy.
Not necessarily. Science has gotten more expensive; this is a natural result of picking the low-hanging fruit first. While there still are thousands of independent researchers, the diversity of funding sources has dropped dramatically. As more money gets involved, those entities become more political..
The problem is not that the scientists have become biased, it's that grants for politically-sensitive research are much tougher to get and risk-averse benefactors hover over the research, and pull the plug if the results aren't what they want. The net result is a selection bias in what research is taking place.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to have emergent behaviors.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because wars cost less than healthcare.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Everyone has agendas. I'd be shocked if a university professor didn't have "get funding for my work" on his list. That doesn't make him evil. However, stop pretending their are angels. It's that sort of shit which drives distrust.
Well, then there is at least one republican in this election cycle whom you could vote fore, at least in the primary, or write him in... Why choose the lesser of two evils?
Paul B.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html Study after study points to the fact that people with more conservative beliefs just don't know what's going on, fear change, fear differences and generally distrust anything. Watch any Youtube conspiracy video about global warming, beast 666, the Illumnati, masonry...the list goes on and on. These people are trying desperately to understand what's going on around them, but they just don't have the CPU upstairs to put the peices together. The scary part is they elect each other into leadership positions, then they're something we all have to reckon with. I'm not dissing democracy (not like we have a real one or anything), but there should probably be some other litmus test than a popularity contest allowing these people to govern our society (government *and* corporate). It all comes down to...the big brains know we're all in this together and want to fashion a society that handles that reality in an orderly manner. Dumb people are absoutely convinced that we're all separate and only responsible for ourselves...yeah, until they show up at the emergency room and we ALL have to pay for them. I get tired of it. I get tired of them.
I think this stems more from the fact that the term "science" is abused a lot. Thus, every time a special interest group claims to have "scientific" evidence that their cause is right, the oppposing side will just roll their eyes. But this goes both ways.
- Liberals use the word "science" to attack the idea that there is a God. Often incorrectly linking the idea that evolutionary process = God did not create anything.
- Conservatives can easily demonstrate homosexual behavior is unatural, by showing the rectal orifice did not "evolve" in a way to be used sexually, and Liberals will be just as dismissive, even though this is hard science.
I identify as conservative and I oppose science as the "always right" idea extreme liberals have about it. (Note the extreme, not a blanket phrase) It's the idea of "It's science, you can't argue with it." that I am opposed to. More often than not science changes all the time.
Don't get me wrong, I love science when it's actually right; however, my opposition to it comes from my opposition to hypocritical choices. Essentially, it bothers me when someone says someone else is wrong for doing something while justifying that by doing it themselves.
My main examples of this are evolution and the big bang. If you notice, they are theories and identified as such in the scientific community. Extreme liberals (and I'm sure some moderate liberals) more often than not call them fact to spite conservative's religious beliefs, which, to me, is hypocritical.. My argument isn't about whether they are fact or not. My argument is whether it's hypocritical to call them fact or not.
Now, I ask, if they call it fact when it is clearly revered as theory (there is a difference), and then say it's wrong for religious people to say God exists when others believe He doesn't, is this not hypocritical? To say you're right because you're right, while saying someone else can't do the same?
Some people see the status quo as such: Science>Religion because Science uses evidence to prove what it says, but it doesn't change the fact that evidence must be interpreted by a person to have meaning and be understood and because of that the meaning of the evidence changes as well. The same way I see light from stars far off and use that as evidence to say that star existed, a religious man may pray and see his prayer answered and believe something greater than he helped him. Or how I might take all the information we have about the big bang and interpret it as theory and another interpret it as fact.
So, for me, Science and Religion are on the same playing field. Equal in how "right" they can be. I am just opposed to science mainly because of the hypocritical approach a large portion of the population takes to it. I might be the same towards Religion if it were as easy to prove hypocrisy in.
the problem runs in the following
1 How X works is difficult to reproduce FOR SOMEBODY IN THAT FIELD
2 measurements are to far away from actual data (the level of tetra-hexathane was at this level so the average temp was...)
3 using noncalibrated instruments (or changing the calibrations mid session)
4 trying to answer WHY not HOW (this is the matter for religion not science ie HOW a bird flies is science WHY a bird exists is religion)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Diving chicken entrails worked just fine fer my granpappy 'n thats good enuf fer me.
Your fears of a central office manipulating electrical supplies already happened, but it was a huge corporation doing the manipulating to jack up rates. Take away the profit motive and it's hard to see why a government entity would be playing those kinds of games. Even still, such an entity should be subject to intense scrutiny, which is fairly common in regards to government institutions. Nobody scrutinized Enron until their racket imploded, largely because they could use their immense wealth to neuter auditors and regulators.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
It would make more sense if you switched Dick and Jane around. Stereotypes exist for a reason.
The article is obviously a troll...
Your healthcare link for #4 is broken, should be this: http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/iatrogenic.pdf No one noticed, though, because they were all going "LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU!" and covering their eyes with their hands.
Reagan was also fiscally conservative (though somewhat of a big spender)
I'm sorry. Wut? Wasn't he also the one with the trickle-down economics and cut taxes for all his rich friends? Didn't he start the trend of borrowing money to pay off his political plan? Regan was the first conservative president to ditch the fiscally conservative part.
Know your history, son.
If too many people start blindly trusting anything scientists say, it will become religion. Science needs people to rigorously challenge and try to disprove it for it to continue being science. Thank a conservative (at least until science is primarily used again by the military industrial instead of the enviro liberals, then thank a liberal)
The liberal anti-science movement is much more pernicious, since they inhabit the academic departments in the social sciences, psychology, feminism, and the humanities. Pick up Sokal's Beyond the Hoax" from the library to see liberal anti-science mania in action. You can also read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", which is full of liberal anti-science fuzzy-thinking nonsense.
Some results of all of this are myths like: rape is about power on not sex, violent media causes violent behaviour, god was once a woman, nuclear power is polluting and unsafe (which is a relative statement), GMOs are inherently bad (a homologue to stem-cell research), there is no biological basis for gendered behaviour,... really the list is quite long, and there are some serious consequences.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
...science also tells us things like "cigarette smoking causes lung disease in some people." So now we get the government telling smokers how to live their lives. Or for instance the flawed marijuana "study" in the 60s where they suffocated monkeys for 5 minutes with clouds of smoke, then said this shows marijuana causes brain damage. For decades we've had the government throwing people in jail and ruining their lives as a direct or indirect result of that study. Even now, after dozens of contrary studies, you still hear ignorant people claiming that marijuana causes brain damage.
Given the above types of situations which surround us everywhere, daily, you can understand why some people would come to mistrust science even if it isnt science itself that's the problem, but those who misuse it.
Reagan presided over the 1981 tax cuts, biggest in US history. For his friends? Hardly. What was the result? 60 (yes, sixty) months of uninterrupted economic growth, the highest since measurements started. In those 60 months, 15 million new jobs were created. Interestingly the tax cuts, and the following economic expansion, gave the government an increase in revenue. During the Reagan years, federal discretionary spending increased just shy of two percent. Under Bush it increased a massive 5.3 percent. The difference is significant.
Also, I have yet to see anyone argue that Reagan expanded entitlement programs to the insane degree that Bush did.
I would recommend the book "Impostor" by Bartlett, for an analysis of where Bush is no conservative at all. Reagan was.
Spot on for a large aspect that is overlooked.
Me I think a large part of the conservative sheep (the majority are sheep) are a result of the birth of the modern corporate think tank around that time period. Big tobacco should come to mind as research was getting attention in that area. Also, Nixon's judge Lewis Powell wrote a letter urging corporations to create think tanks to counter the educated people saying stuff that upset the corporations (at the time people like him were thinking they were all communists-- Marx was a thinker, so anybody who thinks critically about the state of things.... Hey, I know some conservatives and it doesn't take much criticism before they start feeling that way about you.)
Plus you have a generation raised on popular science BS and exaggeration but mostly lots of media HYPE about "the home of the future." We do not have flying cars. We do not work 30-35 hours a week and robots are not making our lives better (instead making work suck more as only desperate people in 3rd world nations can compete with our robots. plus there are less jobs.) They were sold on silly relatively uninformed dreams that never came about. Technology that did happen made life more complex. For every thing that did get easier we had more details and expenses as well... plus modern products BREAK more often and the old "primitive" ones lasted or could be repaired.
Every tiny step science makes forward is another blow against traditional beliefs.
Its not science that failed us.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
W policies were a FULL repeat of reagan's
If they were, why were the results so different? Reagan presided over an economy that added nearly twenty million jobs. He presided over sixty months of growth. Reagan grew discretionary spending 1.9%, which is too much, but Bush increased it a staggering 5.3%, which is insane.
Yes, there are similarities, but there are many similarities between Clinton and Bush too, that doesn't mean they are the same.
Ha.. that sounds like many people in the Tea Party who voted for Bush previously.
It's easy to create a study classifying conservatives (or any other group) as hostile to science, stupid, retrograde, or whatever. You just have to tinker with the survey questions and the sample population until you get what you want.
Those who use this or simiar "studies" to try to promulgate their stupid stereotypes of conservatives (or any other group) are as mindless as the stereotypes they seek to impose.
Regan certainly did have a lot of power in the 80s over US economic policy, and I certainly agree that he pushed the country to the right in the fiscal area. Regan was a classic Wall Street insider, as former CEO of Merrill Lynch and having served as vice chairman of the NYSE. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Regan certainly did have religion in his background, and he did wield a fair amount of power as Chief of Staff. However, I think his primary influence was on the fiscal side rather than as a "social conservative".
On the other hand, I think his boss at the time, Reagan, was a lot more concerned with social conservatism than Regan ever was.
Conservatives do not believe that science has an agenda. However, they have learned that many scientists do have an agenda and are willing to subvert their science in order to promote that agenda.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I believe that if that $250,000 in wealth each for 40 people will produce more wealth for society than $10,000,000 from one person. The reason is that those 40 people are more likely to use that wealth effectively by starting their own businesses, or investing in businesses in their community (both are investments in small businesses) while the one person with $10,000,000 will probably invest with a manager in the stock market
lol
Anyone take this and run with it?
It's not that conservatives don't trust science, it's that we don't trust the scientists: their motives, their interpretations, or their solutions.
As a scientist, I have to say that trust in conservatives is also around zero.
Your group is the one that has a significant number of members that think the world was created in 4004 BCE, and that Saying God did it is a scientific answer. Or at least that we need creationism taught in science class.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Conservatives just don't trust the obvious twisting of science in the hands of communist loving cocksuckers out there trying to pass off evolution and global climate changes as real science.
This. Technically, I should vote republican every time. I believe in a balanced budget, frugal spending priorities, and a limited government.
Just looking at the federal deficit, it has increased steadily since 1973, with the only pauses being under president's Carter and Clinton.
And in general, the Republican administrations have increased the federal deficit. In a very amusing twist, the tendency of Republican administrations to reduce taxes while increasing spending is called "starving the beast". It's up to the individual to determine if deliberately overspending is wise or not.
Unfortunately or not, they have stumbled upon a winning game plan. Reduce taxes while spending, and blame the elusive liberal and demonize the other party. When played correctly, this can allow the other party to pick up the pieces every so often, and in the process be demonized for setting things right.
This is certainly tickling the dragon's tail, and at some time will fail badly.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
See, this is the basic problem with liberals. They do not understand the basic foundations of any other viewpoint. It has been demonstrated in many studies - conservatives can pass a "Turing test" and pretend to be a believable liberal; Liberals cannot pass the same test pretending to be conservatives. (In my opinion, because once you understand the conservative argument it is difficult not to agree with it.)
Without a reliable cite, it's hard to believe the "many studies" are accurate or useful, or even very interesting. If an herbalist can fake being a chemist, but the chemist can't fake being a herbalist, do you really want to believe the herbalist is superior?
The intriguing fact is how easily conservatives agree with, or believe, their own argument. According to When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions (pdf), political people, notably conservatives, are quite susceptible to "motivated reasoning." This states that when confronted with a reality opposed to their views, conservatives become even more convinced of their indoctrination. Which goes some way toward explaining your opinion that "once you understand the conservative argument it is difficult not to agree with it." Conservatives will be inclined to dismiss this study, since it's based on science, which they trust less than their dogma.
Liberals, meanwhile, enjoy the catchy phrase "reality has a liberal bias." Confirmed somewhat by these studies: Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War (2003), and Misinformation and the 2010 Election (pdf).
Though the argument should be made that being conservative or liberal are not the only 2 choices. For example there are people who find that science, facts, evidence, and fairness should largely influence political decisions.
I too am an analytical thinker. I was born and raised in a very devout and loving and sincere family of catholics. My folks still go to Mass every day, they're both highly intelligent, well educated and sane. My pa was the equivalent of the USA's surgeon general, so not a fool and well versed in politics. I follow him and am also not inexperienced in the politics.
But I must address your response.
A belief system is not an excuse for admitting ignorance. Your use of the Christian creation story (it's no longer a myth) as an answer to the big why question is irrelevant.
Left-leaning thinkers do not dominate academia, academia dominates left-leaning thought. Think on this. In the realm of human endeavour recognised and self-avowed as pursuant of wisdom (philosophy, all else follows) practiitoners are _forced_ to continually re-evaluate their thought and their assumptions in the face of evidence and the often harsh criticism of their peers. That's how it works so well. Left-leaning thinkers, those who do not think the old ways are necessarily the best and are willing to embrace new thought and deed to improve the lot of not only themselves but their neighbours, are pretty much required to be influenced by academia.
As part of the scientific process there is a requirment that all points of view be considered when facing the unknown. Sometimes extreme ideas take hold as "correct". Relativity is one such. However it must be admitted that in still new fields such as environmental science there is still a need for outliers of opinion and model generation. This stuff is new. The up-down-side of the benefits of continuing academic development is that we can all share in this great debate, sadly mediated by the extremist tendecies of the media. Hence the silly arguments. I beg you read more on the subject of human-influenced climate change, for the scientific consensus, even in this early stage, is clear, well reasoned, and amply justified by the evidence. It is not utterly incontrovertible, but it is accurate.
Your last paragraph is both beautiful and sad. You speak of scientists as the most unfeeling of engineers and they are not. Every scientist I've ever met, and I've met a few, are deeply sincere, compassionate, context-aware people, humble in their inability to effect the changes.
"I think it's too easy for scientific based public policy makers to forget that and consequently dehumanize the problems they are trying to solve."
I beg you study Science. Please. Don't give up your Catholicism, as you rightly state it is open-minded with regard to the role of Science and is a model of its kind as such. Catholicism offers much more than generosity of thought, a clarity of ethics (sadly unpracticed), a depth of history. Catholicism holds a special place as a theistic belief system of great utility. But stop claiming Science is inhumane, it ain't. Stop claiming caution, skepticism, and efficiency as conservative, they're scientific. Stop seeing Science and scientists and science users as contrary and wasteful and remote. We're quite the reverse. And we're not liberal or conservative, we're honest.
science in government
The solution is simple. Take away their iPhones. If they don't believe in science, how can they expect their iPhones to be real, exist, and actually work?
I mean, you kind of have to believe in flying to hop on a plane, right?
That's got to be one of the most batshit insane posts I've read on slashdot. How on Earth can a bunch of indpendently working scientists who have to beg for scraps to conduct their research be after power? They can barely get enough funding to run their projects!
Seriously, have you even looked into what a post-doc has to do to keep enough money flowing to put bread on the table? Entry level programmers can make more than they do, and for a lot less hassle.
You don't get into science to get rich. You get into science because you love it. If they wanted to be rich and powerful they would have gone into the financial sector.
~X~
Funding always has bias. Once upon a time (prior to WWII) it was principally self funded from individuals who wanted to explore or companies that wanted to explore. I'm sure you can find examples otherwise, but way back when those were the exceptions instead of being institutionalized like it is today. Now it is mostly government funded. When you had diverse funding, you had diverse bias. With government funding comes government bias. Conservatives, at least those who self profess small government, would find a government bias objectionable. This trend is thus, quite logical, regardless of the quality or lack thereof by said scientists.
Perhaps it involves scientists lying to obtain funding or for political, rather than scientific, reasons.
Until science divorces itself from politics, it must remain suspect.
The scientific method used to mean something.
Or, we can look at it the other way: protecting the planet costs nothing, but damaging it is a subsidy to planet-harming businesses.
There's a (smallish) vocal segment of the scientific community--people who are, in fact, published, tenured faculty in science departments at real universities--who have a bias against capitalism and conspicuous consumption. They're also in the position of being able to put together hockey-stick charts and the like.
Take that one bit of data, and the investigator's zeal, and from Rachel Carson telling us that insecticide is evil (nevermind that N years later we've got mosquito-borne illnesses and bed-bugs popping up again) to Jim Hansen telling us that unless we stop using energy, we'll all get flooded out (nevermind that claims of causality from ~100 yrs of data on a timescale of thousands of years require more evidence than can possibly be extracted from known measurements and known physics), and what you've got is a situation where (some) scientists are Challengiing The Establishment, and Speaking Truth To Power.
As a scientist, who do you want to side with? Put it all together and you've got a stirred pot and distrust between people trying to go about their lives, and the scientific establishment (yes, it exists--you can't just go calling yourself a scientist--you have to go through the hoops, get your dissertation approved, get published in peer-reviewed journals, etc, etc) egged on by a small vocal and idealogical core and not really in a position to put the brakes on.
Just like "there's no more reasonable conservatives", there's no more reasonable scientists either. Conceding that you can't make a claim of causality from 100 years of noise is a sign of weakness. Conceding that cloud modeling isn't understood on a timescale of days* let alone weeks or months or years is a treacherous betrayal. Utter one word against a Jim Hansen and you're a Denier (you know, like a Holocaust denier), broach the fact that rooftop solar panels don't make economic sense when compared to centralized (fossil or nuclear) power plants and you may as well be proposing a scorched earth policy against your children in the view of a certain subset with influence over the tone of the national conversation.
Is it any wonder that people who don't drink the kool-aid by virtue of liking your politics have trouble trusting your thinking?
*I know, I work at an optical observatory--cloud forecasts are crap more than 36 hours out for a given area when there's a front anywhere within a few hundred miles.
Technically, I should vote republican every time.
Why? By your own admission they are representative of none of the things you believe, so why would you say that you should vote for them? Why not some other party, or rather, the candidates that espouse the same beliefs as you. I'm still at a loss as to how the Republicans have managed to convince people that their platform is fiscally sound and limiting of government without ever having evidenced this.
Liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true
There very much is a finite amount of wealth (at least, as finite as the accessible part to the universe), and even venerable capitalists like Adam Smith would admit to that. I believe what you mean to say is "zero-sum game", not "finite wealth".
The big point of Wealth of Nations, the big consequential argument for free markets (besides the deontological ones put forth in other works like the Second Treatise on Human Nature), is that everybody trying to provide for their own need just by their own ability is not always the most efficient way of doing things. Smith was examining nations in particular, but the lesson applies to individuals just as much.
Prior to Smith's work, nations were trying to become and remain wealthy by buying as little as possible and selling as much as possible, by producing everything they needed domestically and selling off any surplus. It was seen as a loss to the nation if you had to import something from another nation, and a gain if other nations were importing things from you. That in every such trade, one person lost and another gained equally: and thus, every trade was zero sum, with no net gain or loss between the partners.
What Smith put forward, inventing free market capitalism in the process, was that sometimes, even often, it can be a net gain to trade; that both sides can win from it; and that, if trade was undirected by the state (but well regulated to prevent fraud or coercion), and all trades were thus strictly voluntary, nobody would ever mutually agree to a trade that wasn't a net gain, and so resources would naturally be allocated into the ways that produced the greatest wealth for everyone, one small step forward at a time.
That does not mean that infinite wealth can be had from finite resources. What it means is that wealth is just not the sum of resources; it is the sum of resources and how they are organized. (Nothing is ever just the sum of its parts; rather, all things are the sum of their parts and the relations between them). If I have tons of shit I don't need and am lacking something else, and you have more of that something else than you could ever want but are lacking what I have in surplus, then reorganizing who has what can make us both wealthier, even though no new resources have been gained between us. So I'll gladly trade you some of my surplus for some of yours, and you'll gladly accept, and we'll both win.
But, if we have now reached the best organization of our joint resources, and there is no longer any situation of us each having something worth more to the other than it is to us, then there is no way we can become any wealthier without some outside input.
In other words: resources are finite; but they are not all there is to wealth; organizational optimization also contributes to wealth; but such optimization also has a finite maximum; so, overall, wealth is still finite. Just shuffling tokens representative of wealth around more will never get anybody more of what they actually need.
Incidentally, lets look at those conditions where trades are a net gain again. Instead of each party providing for their own needs by their own ability, each sells what they're best at and buys what they're worse at; they trade whatever resources they have best ability of producing in exchange for whatever resources they have the greatest need of consuming. Thus, resources flowing from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is the quintessentially capitalist model for generating wealth.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
This isn't about conservatives distrusting science, but about conservatives distrusting scientists.
If the interviewer had asked about views on genetically modified foods rather than global warming, they would have discovered that liberals are opposed to science and conservatives support it.
In short, this study is an excellent example why no one should trust self-styled intellectuals. Conservatives don't hate intellectuals, conservatives hate posers.
...what the survey measured was NOT 'trust in science'.
It measured 'trust in people who say that they are scientists so you can't question what they are saying'.
There is a big difference......
If science uncovers something (e.g. global warming - which has been proven to have had the facts stretched) that the public thinks is important, it will perpetuate dumping money into continuing the "science" and the solution to the perceived problem. Science's problem has the same root as 99% of all other problems...greed (power or money or both), the other 1% is laziness.
And every time you start up your car you're testing that the chemistry that makes an internal combustion engine work
That would be physics - it's a heat engine which works according to the princples of thermodynamics. The only chemistry involved is the combustion of the fuel.
Can you tell us a bit more about this? I don't know anything about genetically modified foods. In fact, I don't know much about foods, other than that I don't trust anything at the grocery store that both comes in a box and must be refrigerated.
This hit a nerve for me. I am consistently amazed at how few self-styled intellectuals have any intellectual curiosity. It seems to be all about reading the right books and having the right opinions. How does one become an actual intellectual, like a real thinker, in your view?
I should vote for them, because the main tenets of the official republican platform are exactly that. I don't vote for them, because the reality is that the republican actions are almost the exact opposite of what their platform is. In other words, I'm calling republican politicians pathological liars. Note for any Ron Paul fans: I don't really consider him to be part of the Republican Party. They certainly don't see m to.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Can we take away their smartphones and computers please!
“The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172) Not quite the same thing as not trusting science. I can trust a process without particularly trusting process participants.
Maybe science isn't scientific much these days. If they don't follow the scientific method it isn't science. Period. So much "science" today is really just science for sale either by government grants or private profits. Make the research show xyz and you win the lottery! Science for Sale is not science. I suggest all scientists take a moment and reacquaint themselves with the scientific method.
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect, i. e., falsifiability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So why would you say that You should technically vote republican? They are the biggest spenders.
It's the other way around. Neocons tend to be socially liberal (in terms of human nature, not necessarily supportive of government programs), but have an agressive foreign policy. Many neocons are atheist, Jewish or gay -- IOW not fundamentalists. Reagan managed to unite them with the theocons.
...than a bunch of mis-informed liberals on Slashdot trying to explain conservatives to each other, and rating all of the the back-and-forth pseudo-intelectual analysis posts as "Score:5 Insightful"
First, we are in a presidential election year, so all the usual left-wing outlets are starting to roll-out the standard attacks (Republicans are anti-science, Republicans wanna push grannie off a cliff, Republicans are dumb, pro-war, anti-child, anti-woman, etc. etc.) and this is just part of that.
Second, many posters here seem to have no education in history. Example: The term "Liberal" as used by this nation's founders and indeed most Americans up until the 1960s was the same as in Europe; it meant (simplistic here to save space) favoring the individual over the crown. In the 60s in the US, however, left-wingers called themselves Liberal while burning flags, attacking many societal norms (which were mostly socially "conservative") and so on, so it people who opposed the left and saw themselves trying to preserve the social/cultural norms adopted the label "Conservative". This is why Americans from the founders through Lincoln who were on both the left and the right called themselves "liberal" and why today even Conservatives embrace terms like "liberal democracy" which to the poorly-educated would seem to make conservatives appear conflicted
Third, many posters here equate having religious beliefs with being "anti-science". This is delusional. A great deal of the science we all depend upon was performed by serious Christians and Jews. Serious and sustained scientific effort only really took hold in monotheistic cultures where the underlying principles and philosophies cultured both the possibility that the universe had a design and an order and that man had the ability duty to study and understand it. Newton was a Christian. Copernicus was a Christian. The "Big Bang" was proposed by a Christian and initially opposed by "scientific consensus" because it seemed to support the idea of creationism. Yes, the Catholic church persecuted Gallileo, but one church is not "all religion" (and actually the details are not a simple as most people think... the leaders of the Church at the time agreed that Galileo was right on the science and their fight with Galileo was more complex. reading the documents from the time is quite an education for anybody who was, as I was, taught the simplistic version) The reader is free to study all the famous men of science and see just how many were religious and then come back and re-score many of the posts here as something less than "5 Insightful"
Fourth, opposing pseudo-sciences, various "social-sciences", political policies that pretend to be science etc. is not the same thing as opposing "SCIENCE". There is a huge difference between the hard sciences where objective reality and the scientific method rule, and the soft sciences where subjectivity, statistics, poor analysis of poorly selected "data" from poorly selected sources pre-determined to drive a political narrative and agenda rule.
Real science, which Conservatives trust, put a man on the moon, gave us modern materials, computers, medicine, helps us find oil and coal and uranium, make solar panels, nuclear-powered ships, and cities, gives us cell phones, space shuttles, airliners, lets us predict weather, etc. Real science uses the scientific method. Real science is open, peer-reviewed, testable, repeatable, and completely reproducible. The giants of real science are men like Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Kepler, etc
Junk science, has no data, hides data, blocks or manipulates peer review, pre-selects samples to drive a desired conclusion, uses statistics in place of the scientific method, cannot be repeated, cannot be reproduced, etc. Junk science gave us cold fusion, piltdown man, a universe with no "big bang", anthropogenic global warming, and drunks-outside-bars-prove-conservatives-are-dumb studies. Junk science said the C-17 would never fly because the wing was too complex, t
They "distrust" science?... But they watch TV, use the 'net, own a tablet and or desktop, drive to work, buy clothes made of semi-synthetic materials, eat food threted for health reasons, go to doctors when they're sick.. right.. they better stop all those things.. because they're all only possible because BECAUSE of science.. What a ludicrous, reactionary, and totally pointless article and header..
pst, just so you know, the reason you got flamebait-modded was entirely due equating Apple products with "scientific advancements".
If you take a look at the real, hard numbers, you may find that a balanced budget, frugal spending, and a limited government are all things that the Democrats are better at providing than the Republicans. W. luanched the longest, most expensive war in history, without little to show for it. As a socially liberal Dem who believes in balanced budgets, frugal and effective spending, and limited government as well, you'd be welcome company.
I don't think it was the neo-conservatives, but their, and the general Republican Party's take over by the religious right. New York times article is is copied here: http://www.theocracywatch.org/
This rejection of science conservatives is not surprising. Recent research shows that conservatives as a group have lower than average intelligence and seek to counter this by holding fundamentalist views on most subjects. This to give themselves a sense of stability in a world that is more and more inherently information unstable due to the information explosion which they are entirely ill equipped to cope with. The more information conservatives receive that counters their pre conceived ideas, the more they seek to reject it and pine for a more simpler age where their rigid, but now proven erroneous, ideas held sway. There are always exceptions both ways but overwhelmingly thinkers are liberal, non thinkers are conservative.
It's not that conservatives are against science, although that's a useful strawman - ho ho, look how stupid those bible bangers are! ho ho!
I'd submit that conservatives are becoming more and more suspicious of the conclusions drawn by scientists; specifically, that their results and prescriptions are informed more & more by their political bias than an objective reading of the results. This is PRECISELY what Eisenhower warned about.
You know, in his oft-quoted speech about the military-industrial complex:
This generation since the 1960s has been buffeted by the institutionalization of science in our daily lives; since the 1960s we've been buried by "experts" (usually claiming a scientific basis) asserting one fact or another that's absolutely certain....until it's been controverted by the next expert. Are eggs good or bad for you? Fat? Cholesterol? Red meat? Alcohol? Or the pseudo-sciences of behavioral theorists like Skinner, or Spock, telling us 'scientifically' how to raise our children. Remember the "science" that asserted confidently that there is no possibility that women's milk could ever be as good for infants as synthetic formulas?
Further, to suggest that genuine scientists' prognostications haven't become widely politicized is simply disingenuous; even if (as most of Slashdot) you AGREE with their bias, you have to recognize its presence. Look at Silent Spring - viewed as really the birth of the modern ecological movement, backed by 'scientific studies'. However, the real scientists involved recognized a flaw in their experiments, re-ran the experiments (with sufficient calcium in the birds diets this time) and found no eggshell thinning due to DDT. Did that get promulgated with the same fervor and enthusiasm for 'scientific accuracy' as Silent Springs (erroneous) conclusions?
I would offer two more examples.
- I grew up in the 1980s. I watched the horror and revulsion of the Left as Reagan swept the 1980 and 1984 elections. During that time was formed all sorts of pseudo-'science' organizations motivated purely by th
I don't believe for a second that "science" has an agenda. But I do believe that many people make claims that they state are based on science, when in fact they are based on observations, or worse, on opinion. Or on greed.
My observation, is that observationists (ha ha...) see the world through their lens of perception, colored by the points they wish to prove. Recognition of this several centuries ago gave rise to the "scientific method". The value of the word "theory" and respect for arguments on both sides of a "hypothesis" have been drowned out by the screaming that the Internet and free publication of thought has allowed.
Sadly, most people seem to confuse argument, free publication, and conjecture with science. Those, apparently, most inclined to follow this trend are politicians and the free press. I have to admit that it's difficult to resist the emotional siren of it all, and attempt to remain objective. After all, the economic advantage of convincing a government to follow a public trend can be enticing. So long as you are on the "funded" end of the equation.
The Theory of Relativity is just that. A theory. It is OK to question it. When someone observes neutrinos flying across Europe faster than light-speed, people raise questions and conduct experiments. The theory is tested again and again. Bitter arguments are not inclined to erupt. Why is there name-calling rather than argument in other areas where theories are behind the points? Why, if someone questions the anthropogenic theory of global warming are they quickly labelled as a scientific heretic? And isn't that what this entire discussion is really all about, after all? An attempt to name-call those heretics as "conservatives"? Why is it OK not to believe in string theory but not OK not to believe in the green-house-gas theory?
Another popular area to call people names for disagreeing with a theory is evolution. Question that one and instead of being called "conservative" you get painted as "religious zealot". Isn't it time to stop all the name calling and understand that theories are just that, and the basis of the scientific method is raising doubt and devising and conducting tests?
See http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328
THAT article pretty much gives all the reasons WHY anyone with an education including applied statistics in physical chemistry understands this as part and parcel of political economy and crony capitalism.
Science's existence is due to the trust in the axioms of mathematics and logic scientists have.A person who doesnt trust logic could cite God's will as the reason to any occurrence.Such an explanation invoking God cannot be refuted without using logic.Hence science does need "trust"' .
There seem to be some mistakes in you post. Reagan's "tax cuts" were actually a "tax increase" he lowered the tax on earned income but increased the taxes on capital gains. He actually raised taxes 11 times, I think, over his term. The shifting of tax burden from wages to capital gains gave the government an increase in revenue. One of his legacies was to spawn the political myth that lowering taxes can increase taxes supposedly because the U.S. was on the right side of the Laffer Curve, however, most conservative just can't face the fact that their beloved hero actually raised taxes, not once but many times.
You are correct that Bush the Lesser is no conservative, however, if Reagan were alive and running for the Presidential nomination today, his opponents would deride his as left wing nutcase. The Republicans have veered very far to the right of the party they were in the 80s. Unless he changed all of his policies, Reagan would not pass the current Republican Party purity tests.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I've noticed that and found it funny. I'd bet myself I'd be one away from a jackpot and was always right. "ooh, one more and I'd have won" that may have been true 100 years ago with mechanical slots, but the electronic ones are designed to show you things to excite you, not reflect what would have appeared on an actual machine.
I watch Biggest Loser for the entertainment value, and I always laugh at the scales, having the person stand there long enough to get a reading, then displaying wildly inaccurate numbers to try to elicit the "OMG, he gained weight" emotion followed by "no way he lost 30 lbs in a week" and so on. People suck at ignoring knowingly false information, and instead jump to known false conclusions (like the near miss being a hit).