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 doesn't care about your ideology at all, actually.
That being said, we all know how religious forces took over the Republican Party since the 1970s, and you have a lot of these religious folks who call themselves conservatives. Is this news? The key phrase here is "self-identified conservatives."
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
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
To be fair, it tends to be more like "University professors and researchers tend to be more liberal since 1974, likely due to social and cultural changes on campuses that started in the 60's. This has led to others conflating scientific progress with liberalism. That has caused conservatives to view the pronouncements of people in those fields with more skepticism than they would have in the past when practitioners of the scientific method tended to take a more neutral, or even conservative view."
In short, all this says is that a bunch of academics are liberals now, and the conservatives are unhappy with science being turned against them as a tool. The result has been that science itself ends up becoming an issue when it shouldn't. Of course, having read some opinions here and hearing some otherwise intelligent people talk, its clear that blame is definitely a two-way street here.
You have just demonstrated the most dangerous attitude possible. It's what gets people and America (and other countries) into more problems than anything else. It's the "I'm one of the good guys, so what I believe in must be true."
Reality has, repeat after me, zero bias.
Liberal and conservative are arbitrary viewpoints on a multitude of subjects that change constantly. Reality doesn't give a damn what you, I, or anyone else thinks. The belief that one's viewpoint is inextricably linked to reality is magical thinking.
It's fine to think you are a good person. But it becomes dangerous when you start believing that your beliefs are correct because you think you are good. The corollary is that those who disagree with you are bad (or ignorant, or stupid). To be disregarded. That leads to some extremely stupid decisions.
Classic examples:
"But think of the children!"
"The science of communism will solve all economic problems!"
"Saddam has nukes!"
These were sentiments expressed by a lot of people who ingnore(d) contradictions because they believed they were on the side of right, so the beliefs must be true.
If liberals continue to say "Reality (or truth) has a liberal bias," they are going to end up believing it and doing some really stupid things some day. Time to stop holding that gun to our heads.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Which is why the fiscal conservatives should join the democratic party, and make an effort to get more fiscally conservative social liberals winning elections. It's the only path to sanity.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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
Pollster: Do you believe that the government should fund a $500 million grant to a group study whether noise pollution from road work crews affects bird mating behaviors?
Conservative: Um, I don't really think that's a pressing issue. And $500 million seems like an auful lot of money.
Pollster: So, you're against the spending of that money that way?
Conservatve: That's right.
Pollster tallies one more conservative who doesn't believe in science
Free unix account: freeshell.org
What was that Republican President's name again? Hmm...it's on the tip of my tongue.
That's because it wasn't always the case that Liberal -> Democrat. Yes, Lincoln was a Republican. He was also liberal. Deal with it.
He was a Republican in his time. The parties have warped so much in the intervening centuries that I truly believe Lincoln would be considered a fringe-Liberal today and unelectable (the dude was ugly).
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Explain then how the conservative rejection of evolution has anything to do with regulations. Or their rejection of sex education. See, it's not that conservatives are against regulations. They're against regulations that don't promote their fairy tales.
It's the antiscience that comes first, otherwise they'd have to ask themselves whether there was a scientific basis to reject regulation. The idea that regulation in itself is bad is itself a fairy tale. The same people who argue for tough on crime legislation for individuals argue against any sort of restraint on the part of the most powerful, and therefore most dangerous institutions. These people have no grip on reality whatsoever.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The other side of that argument is that science is telling folks that no, you can't use more than we've got forever, and yes, what you do is impacting other people. And some folks want any excuse to say, "So what. I only live once, screw the next generation, I want it all. Now!"
Check your premises.
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.
This is exactly the kind of idiocy I was talking about. Of the items listed, only 1 and 5 have any sort of factual content, and what factual content is there is entirely irrelevant to the point. Let's look at the quality of thought that goes into these typical conservative positions.
1) This is the same as saying "Lightning can cause fires naturally, so I can never be convinced of arson"
2) "A biphasic curve exists, therefore we are always on the right hand side of the curve"
3) Somehow single payer health care wouldn't reduce tort costs and eliminate money wasted on insurance company profits?
4) "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
5) If you're not properly educated about it, it's not really a choice. If you want to reduce abortions, you have to provide and encourage, cheap (preferably free), stigma free contraceptives to everyone. Being both anti-abortion and anti-sex ed is exactly the kind of stupidity that characterizes the conservative.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Science merely reports. Scientists can make suggestions. What do you want scientists to do, just say "Sludge kills people", but not offer any solutions like "Get rid of sludge."
What strikes me about this is that commercial interests, who basically use Conservatives as their bitches, want to keep producing sludge and spend as few resources as possible mitigating sludge effects, so you get commercial-backed "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, which talk a conservative talk, advocating for sludge, casting dispersions on any scientist who dares condemn sludge production or state that health problems arise from sludge.
You don't want scientists, you want ideologues who will suppress or ignore any data that in any way impinges on your world view. No bad news for me, thank you very much, I want to do what I've always done and if you tell me the universe is going to stomp on me eventually, well fuck you, I'm an American, and in America the laws of physics mean only what we want them to mean.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I cannot speak for other liberals, but I do not believe that there is finite wealth to be had. But, I do believe that wealth disparities decrease the amount of wealth that can be created. The way I see it, wealth is like growing food. You can get much better performance out of a small garden for a family (on a food produced per acre measure) than you can out of a large farm. But, it would take more man-hours per unit of produce. The difference is, though, that most people have enough extra free time at home so that the man-hours are essentially free (especially since gardening can be a stress-reducer and so actually be a value-add activity regardless of whether it produces vegetables). Or, at the very least a man-hour on a farm costs society more than a man-hour in a home garden. And, I feel that wealth is similar. Millionaires and Billionaires do produce more wealth with their wealth, but 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. Now, don't get me wrong, that person will probably invest $250,000 of the $10,000,000 in local ventures as well (or maybe $500,000), but not as much will be invested personally as if 40 people did it.
I am not an advocate of communism, either. I think that there needs to be a monetary incentive to work hard to get the maximum productivity out of society. And, I think that someone who earns their money is much more likely to use and invest it wisely. But, income disparity is getting worse. Our current society is redistributing wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class. I think that we need to adjust our economic and government systems to stop the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, because that is decreasing our potential for creating wealth. The easiest solution I see is to raise taxes on the upper class while reducing taxes on the lower and middle classes, so that the people that benefit the most from our current system pay more towards maintaining that system. (but I only care about reducing the the rate at which income inequality is growing. As far as I care it can be income-neutral to the government, or even income-negative) But, if there is a better solution to my stated problem (that doesn't involve "redistributing wealth" as you would probably name my solution) then I am all ears.
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.
It is definitely a problem with mixing science and politics.
No one is against science that tells you how to build an airplane so it stays in the air.
The problem is then several fold.
1. Flaky science is given the credibility of 'real science'. This is especially true in areas such as economics or the social sciences. This is especially true at the university level...
2. A religion of science has developed. At the core of science is the scientific method. A very good process to get to the 'reality'. But science can never tell you what to do about anything. Nuclear science can be used to provide clean power or slaughter a million people.
At the core of this problem is a problem with the scientific community. For example, science might tell you that too much C02 is resulting in global warming. But that is where it should stop. Science doesn't infer that you should therefore have a carbon tax or even even if you should do anything at all.
The problem with scientism as a religion is mixing science and policy and assuming that disagreeing with policy means you're disagreeing with the science.
This of course has led to a reaction on those who disagree with policies to then distance themselves from the scientific community.
3. Similar to 2, but it is the use of science with implied goals. For example, a scientist might come to the conclusion that wearing bicycle helmets saves lives. That might be very good science. They then become an advocate for a policy of mandatory bicycle helmets. Disagreeing with them on that policy means you are against science or ignorant.
But much like 2, this is not science. Science is goalless and valueless. What the scientific community generally refuses to acknowledge is that they have values and ideologies. They don't want to lower themselves to that level of discussion... but it is ignorance not to.
In this simple case of the bicycle helmet. This scientist values the health of an individual over the freedom of the individual. You can disagree or agree with that all you want, but you must acknowledge your value judgment. That is all it is. It is no most based in science and no more valid than anyone else's belief.
And most often, it is not as simple as that. When you really get down to values, they often conflict and feed on each other.
Do you value more healthcare and paying more taxes and working harder to support it? Or would you rather have less healthcare and more leisure time? These are real ideological questions.
The problem is that scientist in charge of healthcare only sees healthcare and thinks if you disagree with his policy you are disagreeing with science.
Of course if we had a scientist in charge of leisure, he'd be pushing his field to have us work less.
Should the scientist of leisure ever encounter the scientist in healthcare and the scientist in economics... they'd be disagreeing on ideological lines just like regular Joe Six Pack.
It is unfortunate, but people who think science in government is empowering science are mistaken. It will corrupt science as politicians pick and choose their experts to write a report on what they want. Scientists will advocate policies in the name of science and those disagreeing with those policies will then be against those scientists.