PDA

View Full Version : Most conservatives place little trust in science



DiabloViejo
04-06-2012, 11:18 AM
‎"The study says data indicate that the public’s trust in science is largely unchanged since 1974 except among people identifying themselves as conservatives." Everybody who is surprised, raise your hand... I know, I can't see you, but that doesn't matter... 'cause nobody's raising their freakin' hand!

Survey: Most conservatives place little trust in science
March 31st, 2012, 11:15 AM ET
CNN- Global Public Square (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/31/survey-most-conservatives-place-little-trust-in-science/)

Only a small minority of conservatives now say they place a “great deal” of trust in science, according to a survey published yesterday.

The new result represents a drop of almost 30 percent since the 1970s, according to the study (http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf) published in the American Sociological Review.

The study says data indicate that the public’s trust in science is largely unchanged since 1974 except among people identifying themselves as conservatives.

Whereas in 1974, 48 percent of conservatives trusted science — about the same share as liberals — the number is now down to 35 percent, a decline of nearly a third in 38 years.

“Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest,” Gordon Gauchat, the study’s author, wrote in an abstract. In discussing the survey’s results, he adds: “These results are quite profound, because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives.”

In an interview with US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/29/study-conservatives-trust-of-science-hits-all-time-low-?s_cid=rss:study-conservatives-trust-of-science-hits-all) , Gauchat traced the decline to the 1964 presidential election.

"It kind of began with the loss of Barry Goldwater and the construction of Fox News and all these [conservative] think tanks. The perception among conservatives is that they're at a disadvantage, a minority," Gauchat was quoted as saying. "It's not surprising that the conservative subculture would challenge what's viewed as the dominant knowledge production groups in society—science and the media."

In a poll released today (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx) , Gallup found that self-identified Republicans were the most likely to believe that news of global warming was “exaggerated.”

Nearly 70 percent of Republicans held this view while only 20 percent of Democrats and 42 perecent of independents felt this way.

eg8r
04-06-2012, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whereas in 1974, 48 percent of conservatives trusted science — about the same share as liberals — the number is now down to 35 percent, a decline of nearly a third in 38 years.
</div></div>Looks like the scientists haven't faired very well in a long time.

The link does not appear to be working for me so I was wondering if this study gives their definition of "science" as used by this study? Is it general science, or some specific area?

eg8r

cushioncrawler
04-06-2012, 03:10 PM
Yes what do they meen by science.
Do they meen scientists working for drug companys or big tobacco.
I hav zero trust in thems.
mac.

DiabloViejo
04-06-2012, 11:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whereas in 1974, 48 percent of conservatives trusted science — about the same share as liberals — the number is now down to 35 percent, a decline of nearly a third in 38 years.
</div></div>Looks like the scientists haven't faired very well in a long time.

The link does not appear to be working for me so I was wondering if this study gives their definition of "science" as used by this study? Is it general science, or some specific area?

eg8r </div></div>

Here, try this: http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

DiabloViejo
04-07-2012, 08:36 AM
BTW, the short answer is: science in general.

Soflasnapper
04-07-2012, 10:24 AM
People would be correct to question SOME science, because large financial interests are out there buying hired gun scientists to spin things falsely.

That was true back in the Big Tobacco heyday, when they financed think tanks who came out with the 'explanation' as to why there was no real proof that tobacco caused health problems, and certainly not cancer, because, as has now become a famous line, 'the science was not settled,' and 'there is no unanimity,' the latter mainly only true because of purchased contrary opinions, and the first pretty much untrue.

We have it today with supposedly plucky contrarians like John Stossel, weighty science experts like political hatchet girl Ann Coulter, explaining on behalf of industrial concerns why their produced poisonous deadly products and effluents are not harmful at all, may be healthful, and again, the science is not settled. Coulter stooped to the bat guano level to 'explain' how RADIATION WAS GOOD FOR YOU! (So shut up about being irradiated already! Good for you, I say!)

The AGW situation is similar, and from the same playbooks, except supercharged on steroids with their newer propaganda methods.

They were SUPPOSED to just say, as before, there is doubt, the science isn't settled, there is no unanimity. And the big oil players bought and paid for their own institutes, just as big tobacco did in their day, to say just this.

In this case, however, their pushback is so great as to go right to denial, to where many people have turned 'there is doubt about the AGW theory' to 'that AGW theory was a hoax, which has been disproven.'

One must admire their propaganda abilities, even as we must mourn the ability of our society to ever make decisions on facts, given such immense money of private sources put to the service of fooling a substantial percentage of the public.

llotter
04-07-2012, 12:08 PM
Are scientists funded by tax dollars any less corrupt than those funded by private sources?

eg8r
04-07-2012, 02:31 PM
It is interesting to me that since the 70s less than half Conservatives and Liberals trusted science.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
04-07-2012, 03:31 PM
Diedticians.
Psychiatrysts.
Priests.
But the winner iz Krappynomicysts.
mac.

Soflasnapper
04-07-2012, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are scientists funded by tax dollars any less corrupt than those funded by private sources? </div></div>

I'm not sure how one could tell, as a general rule. Sometimes charitable foundations without an ax to grind may fund some kinds of research without a selfish motive, I suppose.

However, if the private sources funding scientists are huge financial actors with huge direct financial stakes in the area of scientific inquiry, it goes without saying that the kind of research they buy is indeed and exactly 'bought' science, and unlikely to be uncorrupted by the financial purposes of those buying them.

In a funny Karl Rove-ian way, the detractors of AGW make this exact point, claiming that these are bad actors in the science field, only coming up with their allegedly false and fraudulent research conclusions out of their own financial interests (getting the grant moneys, which run into the 6- and even 7-figures). Which rather reverses the scales on what financial interest side are being served by corrupt scientists, by ignoring the 10- to 12- to 13-figure sums that are the prize on the other side.