Study: Conservatives' Trust In Science At Record Low
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:49:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Study: Conservatives' Trust In Science At Record Low
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Study: Conservatives' Trust In Science At Record Low  (Read 2565 times)
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 29, 2012, 03:20:38 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more at http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/29/149615398/study-conservatives-trust-in-science-at-record-low

The study: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2012, 03:27:40 PM »

I think cable TV brings a lot more hackish "science" to the public's attention, and thus you get the results you have here.

also, is the Space Shuttle the cause of the early 80's increase?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2012, 04:15:27 PM »

Moderates trusted science less than the extremes by a considerable margin until about 1996, when the conservatives joined them in the celebration of no-nothingism. OK - makes sense to me,  not.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2012, 04:43:59 PM »

Moderates trusted science less than the extremes by a considerable margin until about 1996, when the conservatives joined them in the celebration of no-nothingism. OK - makes sense to me,  not.

Agreed. The report's possible explanation (pg. 18):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2012, 08:12:13 PM »

is the Space Shuttle the cause of the early 80's increase?

It was more likely due to Voyager.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2012, 09:34:32 PM »

I get the impression the feeling is mutal. How do think Nobel Prize winners feel about Rick Santorum?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2012, 01:04:16 AM »

Moderates trusted science less than the extremes by a considerable margin until about 1996, when the conservatives joined them in the celebration of no-nothingism. OK - makes sense to me,  not.

Conservatives were big supporters of science throughout the Cold War. They were seen as the engine that kept the US ahead of the Soviets on the technical front. When the Soviets took a lead in space in 1957, conservatives were willing to go all in for science to retake the lead.

After the end of the Cold War the special status of science to maintain a military edge diminished. Conservatives' view of science joined the bulk of the population.
Logged
Rooney
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2012, 02:32:06 PM »

I for one do not trust science. It always seems to be out to kill me!
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,621
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2012, 09:08:22 PM »

People that don't trust science = idiots.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2012, 10:18:45 PM »

"Not trusting science" is like saying "I don't trust fact or reality". I think this is just social conservatives being mad that modern science has proven many of their beliefs to be factually incorrect (*cough* Christianity *cough*).
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2012, 11:44:01 PM »

Has it?  I love science and am not a fan of most Christians, but I'm pretty sure "science" hasn't proven Christianity as incorrect....and I'd certainly question the credentials of any "scientist" that claimed that it has.  The universe can be 14 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  The Earth can be 4 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  Evolution can be real and Christianity can still be correct.

It probably isn't, but science can't really prove that it isn't.  At least not yet.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2012, 06:36:25 AM »

Has it?  I love science and am not a fan of most Christians, but I'm pretty sure "science" hasn't proven Christianity as incorrect....and I'd certainly question the credentials of any "scientist" that claimed that it has.  The universe can be 14 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  The Earth can be 4 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  Evolution can be real and Christianity can still be correct.

It probably isn't, but science can't really prove that it isn't.  At least not yet.

If more fundamentalists accepted this, America would be a much more tolerable place. I suppose if they did, though, they wouldn't be fundamentalists. Growing up surrounded by fervent evangelicals who plug their ears and scream "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" while being one of the few people to tell them they could easily relax if they just relented on their literalism when appropriate is so, so maddening. If only they would stop fapping away at Genesis...
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2012, 08:57:04 AM »

Are we here talking about science or "SCIENCE" here?

A little bit of scepticism about received authority is not a bad thing, regardless of the source. To say otherwise is effectively to argue for an authority because it is an authority that you believe in.

Which isn't to say that you should be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2012, 09:26:55 AM »

Has it?  I love science and am not a fan of most Christians, but I'm pretty sure "science" hasn't proven Christianity as incorrect....and I'd certainly question the credentials of any "scientist" that claimed that it has.  The universe can be 14 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  The Earth can be 4 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  Evolution can be real and Christianity can still be correct.

It probably isn't, but science can't really prove that it isn't.  At least not yet.

A man did not die to rise from the dead three days later. That is scientifically impossible and thulsy Christianity is a lie.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2012, 09:28:13 AM »

Are we here talking about science or "SCIENCE" here?

A little bit of scepticism about received authority is not a bad thing, regardless of the source. To say otherwise is effectively to argue for an authority because it is an authority that you believe in.

Which isn't to say that you should be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Yeah. People too often forget that science is basically just what we haven't disproven yet. Plenty of science turns out to be wrong with time and since scientists are human beings all science isn't always entirely objective.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2012, 11:38:59 AM »

Has it?  I love science and am not a fan of most Christians, but I'm pretty sure "science" hasn't proven Christianity as incorrect....and I'd certainly question the credentials of any "scientist" that claimed that it has.  The universe can be 14 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  The Earth can be 4 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  Evolution can be real and Christianity can still be correct.

It probably isn't, but science can't really prove that it isn't.  At least not yet.

A man did not die to rise from the dead three days later. That is scientifically impossible and thulsy Christianity is a lie.
Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago?  I'm pretty sure it can't.  I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it.  Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2012, 02:36:54 PM »

Has it?  I love science and am not a fan of most Christians, but I'm pretty sure "science" hasn't proven Christianity as incorrect....and I'd certainly question the credentials of any "scientist" that claimed that it has.  The universe can be 14 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  The Earth can be 4 billion years old and Christianity can still be correct.  Evolution can be real and Christianity can still be correct.

It probably isn't, but science can't really prove that it isn't.  At least not yet.

A man did not die to rise from the dead three days later. That is scientifically impossible and thulsy Christianity is a lie.
Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago?  I'm pretty sure it can't.  I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it.  Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).
Science can't prove that I am not a dragon.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2012, 03:40:33 PM »

Well, they can prove you are a human...I guess you could be both, but not if you define "dragon" as some sort of fire breathing, flying lizard like thing.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2012, 04:18:13 PM »

Ah! But that's where you are wrong! You see, dead0man, I believe myself to be a dragon.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2012, 10:27:34 PM »

Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago?  I'm pretty sure it can't.  I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it.  Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).

I am God. By your logic that can't be proven wrong. Keep in mind that you conveniently can't test me because you shalt not test thy lord.

I'm just sick and tired of smart people believing stupid things.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2012, 11:55:54 PM »

Ah! But that's where you are wrong! You see, dead0man, I believe myself to be a dragon.
Ok, they can't prove to you that you are not a dragon, but it can prove to itself (and everybody else) that you're not (again, with the caveat that a dragon is a very specific thing).
Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago?  I'm pretty sure it can't.  I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it.  Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).

I am God. By your logic that can't be proven wrong. Keep in mind that you conveniently can't test me because you shalt not test thy lord.

I'm just sick and tired of smart people believing stupid things.
Get used to it.  Not all smart people believe the exact same list of things ya know.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2012, 02:35:25 AM »

Get used to it.  Not all smart people believe the exact same list of things ya know.

Yeah I know.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2012, 12:52:16 PM »

Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago?  I'm pretty sure it can't.  I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it.  Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).

I am God. By your logic that can't be proven wrong. Keep in mind that you conveniently can't test me because you shalt not test thy lord.

I'm just sick and tired of smart people believing stupid things.

Not all propositions can be proven one way or the other. In fact there must be statements that cannot be verified. Science can only apply itself in the realm of knowledge that can be verified. It is meaningless to ask science to act where no measurable answer exists.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2012, 02:06:47 PM »

Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago?  I'm pretty sure it can't.  I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it.  Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).

I am God. By your logic that can't be proven wrong. Keep in mind that you conveniently can't test me because you shalt not test thy lord.

I'm just sick and tired of smart people believing stupid things.

Not all propositions can be proven one way or the other. In fact there must be statements that cannot be verified. Science can only apply itself in the realm of knowledge that can be verified. It is meaningless to ask science to act where no measurable answer exists.

Yes, but it is not all or nothing. One can come up with plausible hypotheses, maybe more than one being possible, and exclude others as less likely, consistent with the data.  It is where there is no data at all that is available or discoverable, that science is useless. So far, science has been useless when it comes to the origins of life. Maybe someday it will be useful, but not now. I guess what I am saying, is that words like "verified" or "answers" close off a bit too much territory, where science has value. At least that is my first cut at it, until someone sets me straight.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2012, 05:40:41 PM »

The anti-science crowd aren't skeptics, they're blindly anti-science. A skeptic would want strong evidence before believing a claim. The anti-science people reject claims that have strong evidence and believe everything that Rush spouts off. Meanwhile many member of the anti-science crowd have no problem believing in crazy things like young earth creationism or the rapture.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.