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."'"
1974 was the year that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders removed homosexuality as a category of mental disorder.
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."
They DO declare their belief in science by asking to be treated by a modern medical facility. If they really didn't believe it would work, they wouldn't bother.
They're not stupid, they're hypocritical, and lying to themselves about what they believe as much as to anyone else.
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
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
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.
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
That's false. I am a fiscal conservative. It simply means that we want ppl to handle a checkbook responsibly. Sadly, the neo-cons scream fiscal conservative, but they account for most of the debt. In addition, other than FDR handling GD and WWII and O handling the current mess, dems have shown far more fiscal conservationism than has the republicans ever since the neo-cons took over the republican party.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
Between 1974 and 2010 the demand for immediate practicality in order to obtain funds for scientific research has dramatically increased in all government and private sector funding agencies.
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'd say it was Regan who invited the social conservative Christians into the Repblican party, creating the rise of the "religious right". This group as a whole seems to demand that they be "right" and everyone else be wrong, so it's natural for them to seek consensus on what a "true conservative" means, and they're quite willing to morph their beliefs to gain consensus. It's not that they trust science less, it's just that these people, who blindly believe in Genesis rather than any science, now identify themselves as "conservative", not that they've warped the meaning to their liking.
The term "conservative" had a very different meaning in the '70s. Those conservatives would have cringed at the phrase "true conservative". Here's a decent definition of the term. They blindly believe not just in the common ground between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and military hawks, but they believe in the super-set of all three, creating the strangest set of widely held blind beliefs I've ever heard of.
So, it's now Christian to promote war, fiscal conservatives abandon rational though when it comes to science, and the desperately poor rally to causes to help the rich. It's "I'll believe what you want me to believe if you believe what I want you to believe." Scary. Understanding science is simply one of those things they brokered away. I love how the definition above claims true conservatives don't believe in various science issues like Evolution, because "they do the research themselves."
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
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
It really is; I for one have already done that. The "social conservatives" are causing the Republican Party to eat itself, exactly as Goldwater predicted.
The meaning of "reality has a liberal bias" is only that conservatives like to call very solid facts and well-established science biased, rejecting reality. Agree or not, that's the meaning. See: Conservapedia.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"fiscally conservative social liberals" is an oxymoron.
Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton ALL come to mind. Every one of them decreased our debt relative to GDP. And all but Carter decreased the total debt .
It was under ALL 8 years of reagan, 3 years of Poppa Bush, and 7.5 years of W that massive increases in deficits/debt came about.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Science is not a reliogion. It is the difference between trusting and believing - as in some people believe what is written in a 1600 year old book, but doesn't trust their contemporaries distilling the truth of our physical realm. Really, a sad state.
I hate to disagree, but from what I've seen people treat science like a religion too. I'm referring to the average man on the street. How many people outside of /. know how their computer works on a fundamental level? How many know the intricacies of quantum theory, but have read a Brian Greene book? The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of non-scientific people have to take science on faith. It's similar in the IT realm, I honestly believe that if I started cutting the heads off of live chickens every time I did work in the datacenter, but made a decent enough Star Trek-esque technobabble explanation, my department head would simply shrug and requisition more poultry.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
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
You missed the biggest liberal idea. Prohibition of alcohol.
That was certainly NOT a liberal idea. It was pushed by the evangelical Protestant churches. It was accomplished with help of the "drys" - The Prohibition Party. You should educate yourself on what "liberal" means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
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.
Reality doesn't care about your ideology at all, actually.
Don't anthropomorphize reality; It hates that.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
fiscal conservative social liberals are employing a non-optimal strategy.
I think that's at least in part because your Republican party is winning a propaganda war. They're spending gobs and gobs of cash trying to convince people that they're the fiscally responsible ones, and that the Democrats are the ones pissing away money. (irony, much?). When you look at the numbers, it's actually been the inverse: the deficit has consistently increased year over year under Republican presidents, and decreased under Democrats.
Unfortunately, however, they are spending more money trying to propagate the myth that they're the ones saving money, and people are buying into it. Personally, I don't see how the idea of fiscal responsibility is incompatible with progressive social ideals.
In fact, if I were to tell you where I stood on social matters, most Americans would probably call me a communist.... I believe that the justice system should be focused on mending recidivism rates, and that this means spending money on education and apprenticeship programs for offenders to equip them with the skills they need to find a productive job upon their release. I also think that this means that education on the whole should be a main target for money. I believe in publicly accessible health care, because I know that early detection of health problems means that they're *far* cheaper to treat in the long run. I believe in social welfare programs in general, because while there's some people who abuse them, society as a whole benefits from not letting people fall through the cracks. I believe that we should be taxing bad behaviours (environmental practices), and rewarding good behaviours (subsidizing solar installations, for example). I believe that these sorts of environmental rules should extend in to other areas of industry as well... make it too expensive to run your business badly, and business will stop doing things badly (regulated but mostly free market). And I believe that the tax rates on the wealthy and corporations should be set at a level they can bear... there's no excuse for a corporation to be able to post a $1bn profit for a year when they've used tax loopholes to not pay a dime in corporate income taxes (again, sustainable market growth, but make sure that the corporations contribute their fair share to the economy). All of these ideas are very socialist... enough that McCarthy would have called me a communist sympathizer, but I also believe, quite firmly, that the government should never be allowed to run deficit spending, unless it's extenuating circumstances (such as an economic crash), and that for such circumstances, it should require a 2/3 majority in all levels of government to pass.
If I were in the US, I'd probably be trying to make a difference in the Democrat party.... as it is, I actually belong to the Green party in this country, and have been quite active in trying to get certain policies set.... the Greens are, in most of the world, socially liberal while being fiscally conservative... a very good compromise, IMO. :)
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!
The conservative Christopher Buckley, son of William Buckley, traces the problem to a misplaced war on intellectualism by the right. His thoughts on this is that for the last half decade or so, conservative intellectuals had a tendency to go to Wall Street after college while liberal intellectuals had a tendency to go into higher education. Over time, colleges and universities had a more liberal personnel influencing future generations of students. Many conservative intellectuals like his father warned about this liberal intellectualism influence. The problem was the less intelligent members of the right would ignore the "liberal" part of the warning and the right grew to distrust all intellectuals regardless of their ideological views. People like Sarah Palin almost revel in their lack of knowledge portraying intellectuals as "elitists.". This is a very dangerous stance according to Buckley as it hinders progress and science.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Some did, some didn't. Dixie Democrats were definitely one the driving forces in maintenance of the status quo on slavery, no doubt. It is more than a little disingenuous to think that party politics from the early to late 18th century haven't changed at all. One of the big reasons Southern Democrats didn't want slavery to end was that their constituencies were almost entirely white southern men who felt that keeping blacks down was key to their ongoing power and success.
Remarkably that is the exact same demographic so widely courted by Republicans today. I think you'd be amazed at the parallels between a Dixie Democrat platform of the 1850s and modern Republican platform in any Southern state. Replace "Black Slave" with "Illegal immigrant" as the focus of hatred and ire and they're basically the same.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good people in the south. There are plenty of good people who are southern conservatives. I lived in the South most of my life. As a statistical class though Republican voters in the south are poor white men who lack an education and are easily led by fear. To fair, they're easily led by fear because they exist at the edges of society that was designed to keep them there. Those are the exact same people with the exact same statistical properties that elected pro-slavery Dixie Democrats 150 years ago.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
Really? Says you. But if I'm going to believe in something that berates and impugns, and is a tool used by people looking to control others, I think I'll go with science over what the religionists are pushing. At least science requires reproducible results for proof.
Science says: "This sludge is toxic because it contains these toxins. We determined this by following this procedure. Our colleagues have reviewed our procedure, and have found it to be sound and accurate. Using the procedure as described, these colleagues have found identical results. We invite you to examine our procedure for error, and follow it on your sample of sludge and report your findings.
Also, we know these toxins are harmful, because we tested them on living creatures. So did our colleagues, using the exact same procedures we did. Their living creatures were also harmed."
Conservatives say: "We can't afford to make sure the sludge is either not produced, or is less toxic. If we do that, we won't make as much money as we possibly can. Also, that would make our workers safer, and, well, you know our policy towards workers: pay them as little as we can get away with, and if they get injured on the job, fire them for being less productive.
Besides, I prayed on it, and Jesus says the sludge is harmless, and it only harms those who are in cahoots with Satan. I can't prove any of this, you just have to have faith. Jesus wouldn't lie to you, and since I speak for Jesus, you know I'm not lying to you. Anyone who doesn't believe what Jesus says is a America-hating-commie-fag who lacks faith. And let's pray that that person who doesn't believe the truth of Jesus spoken through me dies from the Satan sludge."