If it seems as if, with increasing frequency and intensity, American conservatives are hostile towards science -- climate change, evolution, medical research, etc. -- it's not your imagination.
This chart, as part of a study from Gordon Gauchat, made the rounds yesterday, and with good reason. It shows the trend over the last four decades of Americans' trust in science, as broken down by political ideology. The results are hard to miss: conservatives' trust in science is in sharp decline.
Gordon Gauchat
It seemed plausible to me that education levels may account for some of this, but that's not the case -- Gauchat's research found the same trend among conservatives regardless of their last completed degree. Indeed, it's counterintuitive, but when it comes to valuing science, conservatives with college degrees "decline more quickly than those with only a high school degree."
Kevin Drum had a good take on this.
In other words, this decline in trust in science has been led by the most educated, most engaged segment of conservatism. Conservative elites have led the anti-science charge and the rank-and-file has followed.
This is presumably part of the wider conservative turn against knowledge-disseminating institutions whose output is perceived as too liberal (academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood) in favor of institutions that produce more reliably conservative narratives (churches, business-oriented think tanks, Fox News). More and more, liberals and conservatives are almost literally living in different worlds with different versions of consensus reality.
With no shared reality, even conversations between left and right become unnervingly difficult.
Kevin also noted the latest piece from my friend Chris Mooney, "Diagnosing the Republican Brain," which is well worth your time.
Leave a Comment:
From the perspective of the theocratic wing of the repuknican party, science would not be devisive if others did not insist that science and fact are more important than beliefs!
From the perspective of the 1/10 of 1%ers, science would not be devisive if others were not attempting to point to it and use it in manners that impact their portfolios and wealth. Or, as the Koch brothers might say "I am not going to let science interfere with my multibillions becoming more and more multibillions."
I would say 'more reliable' rather than more important. Marx was right about several things, one of which was that religion was 'the opium of the masses'. I became an atheist after my mother tried to persuade me that Jews were the 'agents of Satan' when I was 8 in 1950.
It doesn't help one's argument to refer to Republicans as repuknicans! That just shows that you are as intolerant as they are. Civil arguments are the only ones that persuade.
I find the distrust by "moderates" very interesting. For many years it was higher than the distrust level of conservatives. This reinforces my belief that "independent" or "moderate" voters are synonyms for "low information" voters.
Regarding distrust.
That statement leads the reader to think that the distrust levels have changed. So are you saying that distrust levels are higher now for conservatives?
If this "reinforces" your belief that independant or "moderate" voters are synonyms for "low information" voters.
Where does that put you? A NO information voter?
I don't understand your point or your insult.
Yes, the chart shows that distrust levels have changed, particularly for conservatives. From 1974 until 2002, "moderates" had a higher level of distrust of science than conservatives. Moderates' distrust level has been high since 1980.
My point was made in regards to the fact that the inside-the-beltway Very Serious People (see Krugman) believe that "moderate" voters are to be taken seriously and the country would be much better off if the liberals would only abandon their extreme policies and adopt those of the "moderates" - a group that this study shows has a high level of distrust for reality.
The chart shows a drastic drop in confidence by the "moderates" back in the 70's. Then it pretty much stayed level up to the present. Can anyone suggest a reason for the original drop?
During and after the Viet Nam war, The Nixon Years, there was a total mistrust for anyone who was in authority. That included The Science Department. I believe Nixon was the first President who brought about the current disrespect for the Presidency. A great shift in consciousness occurred. We started not to believe everything we read or heard. I don't think it is a particularly bad thing to question Science. The committee is still out on the theory that I used to be an ape. Especially because there are still apes running around today. I wonder if a faith in God has grown. That shouldn't excuse us from taking care of what he gave us. People would rather ignore the facts than worry about impeding doom and do something positive to try and correct ths situation. In a nutshell Americans are numb we've gotten pretty beaten up over the years and what do you do to dull the pain? We anesthesize ourselves in various ways. Burying our head in the sand is one of them.
Real Arkie: If I must explain the comment, I doubt you will ever understand it. Don't take it personal and try to keep an open mind.
dkm.
The 70's ushered in the end of the Vietnam War (as Shumuwada stated) but the heavy spending didn't stop for another decade or more. Just like what is happening with Iraq today.
In 73', OPEC stopped exports to the U.S creating the "Oil Crisis" which resulted in gas prices quadrupling in roughly 90 days.
In 1974 Nixon resigns from office. Trust across the board declined. Trust in our government, trust in authority, trust in the media, trust in faith, and trust in science. People became numb and started doubting everything they read or heard.
In the 70's we also witnessed an increased interest in politics by organized fundamentalists in the U.S.. The Christian Right poured resources into getting fundamentalists elected to public office. Two key leaders in the movement were Robert Grant and Jerry Falwell. Grant's "American Christian Cause" and Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" were instrumental in influencing elections and changing the direction of our country. Pat Robertson reared his head shortly after.
The rest is??????
Eye opener. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the "gravity" of the results of this study.
I trust the results are accurate because I have seen the trend myself.
Where does it take us?
It's all downhill from here!
The lack of a shared universe is really a problem. Back in the days when being a conservative didn't mean being a complete whackjob (cerca Goldwater days), you could argue about philosophy, but you went into the argument with the same facts - number of people without medical insurance, amount of pollution in the air and water, structure of DNA, number of soldiers killed in Viet Nam, etc. Now when you argue with a conservative, you have them pulling "facts" out of the thin air - reducing taxes increases government income, God won't let the earth be destroyed, the Constitution is based on religion, hedge fund managers are job creators, etc. You can't achieve anything under circumstances like that.
Do we just give up on saving the country from the depredations of these people and all of us die in the mess they're making? Do we keep on carrying them as they do everything they can to impede progress? What do we do?
I think what I find even more amazing is that it's not just conservative "facts"-- rather, it is an effort to specifically confront what science has concluded through extended periods of observation, data collection, and rational conclusions. But it's not only a rejection of scientific observation and evidence-- they go further in ways that have devastating impacts.
Science has shown that being gay/lesbian is not a mental illness; that sexual orientation varies and is natural. But not only do many conservatives reject that idea; they specifically suggest that their belief in the Bible trumps the Constitution's promises of equal treatment under the laws.
Science has shown that average temperatures worldwide are rising. Not only do Biblical literalists feel that this is an invasion in their right to personal religious belief; they also suggest that this should mean that it is improper to regulate things like gas mileage in cars or drilling for oil or seeking out new technologies in heating... so the problem continues.
Pick your battles. I've had a fair amount of discussions where the correct rhetorical strategy is to just stop. Move on. There are enough people out there to seek those who are not convinced. When viewed through the lens of a "fight", one tends to seek out those who disagree, and it becomes difficult to differentiate those who disagree from those who are just not convinced. It's the latter who need to hear information in *just* the right way to understand it.
Hoosier, There are two things that always get me going when anyone (particularly conservatives) use their "beliefs in the Bible" as argument:
First, cherry-picking their scripture and using it out of context.
The second is even more important as far as all those "Christians" are concerned. That is that the Christianity part of the Bible is exclusive to the New Testament. Jesus actually was very specific about this, saying that He was the "New Covenent". The old covenent was gone away. So all that Old Testament stuff, everything from sexuality to slaves to having multiple wives/sex with your slaves, stonings, etc is out the door. The Old Testament actually pertains more to Jewish doctrine than Christianity. And yet these "Christians" persist in using Old Testament stuff to justify themselves. They don't even know their own teachings!!
Which leads to an important point. Steve raises the question of whether right-distrust in science is linked to educational levels, but brings in the apparently contradictory fact that educational level does not appear to be a factor. I have a quibble with that.
We must always bear in mind that the religious right has created a parallel educational system, one designed to produce outcomes different from the mainstream system. A person who starts in public school and finishes up completing a degree or degrees at any mainstream public or private college or university is going to have received a very different education than someone who has spent at least part of their education in the parallel system set up by the religious right. A PhD from Yale or SUNY is going to be a very different thing than a PhD from Liberty. An educated winger is not necessarily equivalent to any other educated person.
Recall the quote from Karl Rove:
Kudos Victor.
And then some other actor will come along and change what you did so that people can study the new past. Never forget,
I can't beleive what I just read. This guy is on some plain far, far, below us. He thinks he' is above us all, but, in reality he is digging his own grave and He is committing suicide by allowing his own ego to devour him.
"Conservative elites have led the anti-science charge and the rank-and-file has followed."
That's been the plan - if the "educated" people disbelieve, then the rubes will follow! Isn't it strikingly similar to how "religion" came into power? Just think about it, people followed "the Christ", Constantine started believing, then there came a point where "false G-ds" were denounced, and there was always the sword!
The dumbing down of the rubes is complete, its just that those of US not willing to follow them over the cliff is the problem......
In the Middle Ages, literacy was reserved for the priesthood. And thus they maintained control of the populace.
The damage the conservatives are doing to this country with their lack of regard for the sciences is breathtaking. They are so caught up in the 18th century ideology they can't see the harm they are doing to our future in technologies, innovations, and education (in our state, they've built a creation "museum" with displays showing dinosaurs co-mingling with man. Next to break ground is an Ark park. This is what is passing for "education" in our state - complete with tax breaks!!).
Nope. The eighteenth was, after all, the heir of the Enlightenment. They're somewhere around the fifteenth or sixteenth.
D.C.
The fifteenth or sixteenth centuries are too modern. Those centuries is when the Renaissance happened. I think more Medieval like, elventh century. The time of the Crusades!
I picked the fifteenth and sixteenth for the Inquisition and the various religious wars in Europe. I considered including the seventeenth for the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, but decided that Sir Isaac was enough to rescue it.
The 11th century is a good choice. It was the 12th that saw the birth of first universities. That's when everything started to go 'wrong'.
Seems to me that science can not only threaten one's religious beliefs, but in the last 40 years or so has come to challenge free-market capitalism by pointing out the need for regulation.
I'd be interested in how much of the decline in regard for science among conservatives with higher levels of education has to do with the fact that sometimes science (think EPA) calls attention to the fact that allowing markets to do as they please can be self-destructive. Just a thought...
15 years ago, I was a Republican. That was because I was, and still am, fiscally conservative. And, while I don't believe in big government, per se, government is necessary to support areas that benefit all, such as infrastructure, health, welfare, etc. Therefore, I don't believe Republican conservatism of today means the same thing as it used to.
And none of those conflict with the Republican I used to be but seemingly don't jive with the Republican they'd want me to be today. And, I just can't be that person.
Thank you Cathy. That was beautifully put.
Cathy,
Well said!
With the new GOP playing ostrich, they will maintain that any destruction that ensues is either GOD"S will or an MSNBC hoax. However, having your head in the sand leaves your arse exposed. Could this explain their homophobia?
No, really?
Someone I know very well recently told me how evolution is bad science because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. And this is a person with a BSEE, MSEE, and MBA.
I diagnose an overdose of Fox grape Kool-Aid.
I had to look:
This explains why rechargeable batteries don't recharge at the same level the more you charge them. :)
I guess we are in a closed, isolated system, and we live in chaos from time to time. This supports evolution, though..not refutes it. (imo)
The point is that the Second Law only applies to closed systems. At last look, the Earth's biosphere is not a closed system.
The business of the 2nd law of thermodynamics irritates me beyond belief. The first time I heard it was from an engineer, and I had no idea what he was going on about. It is obvious to anyone with scientific training that it doesn't apply to open systems that constantly receive energy from the outside.
I've come up with the strategy of asking those people if their peak of complexity was when they were a fertilized zygote. If entropy always runs down, then they must have been losing complexity since the very beginning. And if they become more complex after eating a bag of French fries, what does that say about what they were before?
dkm:
The answer to your question is yes: If the zygote remains a closed system and never implants into the uterus (to get energy from the mother), it will die and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true.
When you eat a bag of French Fries, you never can utilize all the energy from the French Fries - some of it is wasted as in heat equilization between you and the fries, so again the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds: E(you) + E(fries) > E(you +fries). It really has NOTHING to do with the complexity of being human.
One could probably plot parallel charts for trusting the humanities, political science and economics. Movement conservatives have managed to call into question every aspect of education, starting with the supposed "indoctrination" of kindgergardener's that actually just encourages children to ask questions.
We are surrounded by devout doctrinaires who are unhappy the world ever went through the Age of Englightenment.
It's amazing to realize that guys who I thought of as Imps of Satan (at best!) 40 years ago now qualify as decent, intelligent, engaged politicians. I refer to the Republicans I knew back when I was engaged in professional politics (waaaay back in the early Jurassic, when government in California actually worked). I used to think they were idiots, and they were, but they were idiots you could sit down and have a drink with at Frank Fat's and over a few hours with the god Morpheus, you could come up with a way to get most of what was wanted, that you could live with that they could live with, you could write it on a damp cocktail napkin and take it to your boss the next morning, secure in the knowledge that a deal had been made and would be honored. Both sides actually referred to a similar set of agreed-upon facts (with differing interpretations), and believed that the other party was also an American who cared enough about the country to be politically involved, and respected that.
I now think that must have been some alternate reality on a different Earth, revolving around a different Sun, in a galaxy far far far far far far away, long long long long long long ago.
The amazing thing is these separate realities are not just political. And I know it wasn't me who changed - if anything, I am probably as a result of age and experience more likely to be able to effectively listen to a differing viewpoint and focus on what the serious stuff is there - it's just that nowadays there is no "serious stuff" presented by the other side.
Coming up with a single definition of “Science” would help in participating in a more precise discussion. Research is part of Science. There is good and bad research, for example, cigarette companies that paid for research that said cigarettes were safe. Some of that research was done by scientists though I cannot give you the specific name of one or more of those scientists.
It seems that some are setting up sides, where we do not have to choose up sides with the oil companies. Some of us (not this writer) who are a part of the Scientific Community who are “professional” grant seekers, may go to these companies and imply that there are matching agendas. When a known agenda is not disclosed in a published research paper, the research could be tainted. Yes, research can be tainted in other ways. For those of us who are independently working on coal liquification and gasification, I can tell you, it is not easy to find the head coal person and talk to them about the current experiments that are ongoing that they could disclose to the rest of us so there is less duplication. With trillions of BTU's of Coal, properly done, this is part of the answer as an all of the above.
The Sciences, the Researchers; these are not anyone’s enemy. Done correctly and fairly, among other things, we are fact finders, theoretical predictors, and those who try to make sure that when the airplane reaches a certain speed at a given weight with a particular aerodynamic configuration, it rises not bangs into the concrete at the end of the runway.
How do we help people to understand better that Science is many things, the study of “Global Warming” is a miniscule fraction of all the Science and Research occurring in the world, and if we in the United States vilify Science when other Countries do not, our children will run away from becoming involved in Science which ultimately may not be good for the United States, or any other Country that also has a large segment that vilifies their Science community.
Galileo frightened establishments in the middle ages. He was looked at as a heretic. From my vantage point Science and its Research have made civilization “countless” advancements, as have those who help in so many other ways, which includes heartfelt religious leaders and adherents, and including those who help bring all people together and help our collective moral compass of kindness toward everyone.
How do we write definitions and define the specific subjects in a way that give a starting point to any meaningful debate between pure science and pure research and the reasearchers or another’s personal or business agenda?
Better safe than sorry.
The changes in attitudes can be charted with the political shift in the country. The Southern states and Bible Belt Middle West which are much more religious and exhibit distrust toward the educated moved to the Republican party while the Northeast and Middle West which have better educational systems have moved to the Dems.
It is a little hard to gloat about this graph when liberal trust in science hovers around just 50%. Yikes.
Maybe as Clarinet1 says it is a matter of definitions. But this is really dangerous, and it isn't just about what undermining the teaching of evolution does to our future biologists, or what undermining global warming does to imperil future generations, or how denial of the science of sex and genetics harms the rights of gays and lesbians -- there are literally scores of issues, from major to minor, near-term to long-term that are directly or indirectly impacted (to add just one more example that hasn't been mentioned in comments yet, our disregard of climate science also leads to a political hostility on the right to all things "green," while China invests in wind, solar, and battery technologies that will be huge in the future and all the US does is scream "Solyndra!" and run away.)
We're an odd country.
I see four reasons why science has become a partisan issue:
1. Faith is easy - it doesn't take any special education or intellect. The understanding of scientific issues requires hard work and an ability to understand abstract subjects such as mathematics.
2. Science depends on FACTS. Scientists may disagree on what the facts mean, but the facts (or data) has to be verified and accepted by all. Today, the amount of unverified "facts" that are out there could prove anything to be true or false. There is no standard of veracity that needs to be met before someone can publish even in a scientific journal any more, so a lot of what one used to be able to safely believe now has to be looked on with scepticism.
2. Science funding has changed dramatically. Before the 50's, science was typically done in universities and funding usually came through private sources, but the choice of projects to fund usually was usually made by a university funding committee. Today, almost everyone has to go "find" their own money, even if they work at universities, and typically the easiest place to get this money is from corporations. However, that means the researcher has to work on what is important to the corporation. Government research funding has been dropping but even that money has strings meaning the researcher has to make his research "fit" a certain preconceived project. There is EXTREMELY LITTLE basic research going on in this country these days, meaning that new theories that changed the face of science probably WON'T be coming from the United States any more. I sincerely doubt that Einstein or Bohr or Maxwell, or even the Curies could have been able to get funding for their ideas in this "new word of science".
3. How people learned about science has changed in this country. Typically in the past, once a scientific theory was fought over and defended in the scientific community and finally accepted, the public learned about it through textbooks or journals, or in science classes. The main point here is that the research was VETTED first and generally accepted by the scientific community before it was passed on to the public. Now, every WILD theory is put into the public domain BEFORE it is vetted, and so much of what is on the "news" today about science is wrong because the media aren't scientists. If you listen to what the media has to say about cancer, you would believe that every day there is a new "cause" of cancer and we are all going to die unless we change our diet every single day! What is "hot" today will probably be disproven tomorrow. It is NO WONDER that so few people believe in the "science" they hear today.
As long as half the stuff called "science" out there is junk and as long as it is easier to just believe than to prove, any group, including religious and political groups can just "choose" what they want to believe and we are stuck with "partisan science".
Faith is actually hard. It is the exercise of the will to trust in circumstances that might otherwise be expected to result in distrust, but with full recognition of those circumstances. It's like when we trust other people even though we can never really be certain about anyone's motives or intentions. That's never easy.
The religious right does take an easy path, and they call it faith, but it isn't. It's a stubborn, willfully misplaced confidence in their own self-referential certainty that they have. If there's a word for that, I don't know what it is. If one doesn't exist, it should be coined.
Faith is knowing.
The English word 'faith' comes from the Latin word 'fides' which connotes things like trust, confidence, assurance and reliance; but never knowledge.
Lack of trust in science?! Maybe this is part of the reason why!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BM7go92EU98
It shows a scientist involved with post-BP disaster explaining why they couldn't do the study they wanted to. For those who distrust links, it's because "the responsible party [BP] wasn't comfortable with it"! As the video says, WTF?!?
This is all nonsense. The study doesn't say conservatives are losing faith inscience, it says conservatives are losing faith in the scientific community. And why shouldn't they when you have someone like Gauchat who is willing to confuse the two just to make a political point?
Don't believe it? Here's the study: http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/03/28/document_cw_01.pdf.
And then Gauchat roams WAY beyond the boundaries of the study to speculate on why conservatives are losing faith in "science." Incredible.
For a more complete debunking, see reason.com: http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/30/why-dont-conservatives-trust-scientists.
Meanwhile, in the news:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former researcher at Amgen Inc has found that many basic studies on cancer -- a high proportion of them from university labs -- are unreliable, with grim consequences for producing new medicines in the future.