March 29, 2012
How Conservatives Lost their Faith in Science
Alan Boyle in MSNBC's Cosmic Log:
Gauchat cross-referenced attitudes toward the scientific community with various demographic categories, and found that two categories showed a significant erosion of trust in science: conservatives and frequent churchgoers. People who identified themselves as conservatives voiced more confidence in science than moderates or liberals in 1974, but by 2010, that level had fallen by more than 25 percent.
This graph shows the unadjusted mean values for public trust in science, classified by self-reported political ideology between 1974 and 2010. The figures are derived from the General Social Survey.
Why the drop? Gauchat suggested that the character of the conservative movement has changed over the past three and a half decades — and so has the character of the scientific establishment.
"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," he said. "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.'"
Meanwhile, the perception of science's role in society has shifted as well.
"In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race," Gauchat said. "Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide."
Posted by Robin Varghese at 09:15 AM | Permalink
Comments
It is not Science that conservatives mistrust. It is "science" - i.e., the politicized use of science by groups to support their utopian economic, social and environmental goals. Since these groups find homes in the universities, the distrust rubs off.
Posted by: Harmon | Mar 29, 2012 10:11:40 AM
I would conjecture that the loss of confidence in science is related to the increasing conflict (or apparent conflict) between scientific results and conservative positions. It is a matter of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Michael Perkins | Mar 29, 2012 11:10:05 AM
Of course they hate science. Science seeks truth; conservatives avoid truth at all costs to preserve their privileges.
Posted by: e4 | Mar 29, 2012 11:25:47 AM
Question - did the study look at particular scientific theories or discoveries, or was the question more broadly based, to reflect a distrust of institutions?
Moderates look to have had a similar falling off of trust, which to me points to an increasing lack of faith in the instutions, not things like gravity.
And studies like this, which use broad-based, non-specific graphical data to "prove" something about a huge swath of the public, could only contribute to that mistrust, imo.
Posted by: BAW | Mar 29, 2012 11:37:51 AM
@BAW
Actually, from the initial drop in the late 1970s/1980s, faith in science among moderates have slightly increased and have under any reading remain very stable, as have liberal attitudes.
As for specific theories, it's pretty easy to look up the faith in the scientific consensus on evolution or man made climate change.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 29, 2012 11:54:17 AM
"science" - i.e., the politicized use of science by groups to support their utopian economic, social and environmental goals.
lol. especially when those goals are supported by science. conservatives hate that. plus jesus.
Posted by: ray Butlers | Mar 29, 2012 1:57:37 PM
How can conservatives have faith in Science when being against Science is what makes them a conservative.
Posted by: Raza | Mar 29, 2012 2:07:47 PM
The key, I think, is a growing identification of sociopolitical conservatives with religion. Religion has always been anti-scientific, since science demonstrates the falsity of their scriptures.
Posted by: Erasmus | Mar 29, 2012 4:07:53 PM
I can't read the actual paywalled study, but its title is fairly instructive: "Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010."
Something I've mentioned before was also covered in the Dawkins/Krauss discussion Raza posted on a prior thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8
Along the lines of the old cartoon "It's not enough that dogs succeed, cats must also fail," it seems to me that some of the fall-off in "belief" in science is directly tied to people like Dawkins, who actively agitate, not just for science, but tied to that (cats must fail) a posture that science demonstrates that religion is false. My humble opinion is that that polarizes the issue, and forces them to choose.
In short. I blame atheists for broad sectors of the US pulling away from science. The same thing has happened in England, with the numbers of people rejecting evolution increasing following Dawkins' Delusion and survey questions requiring people to choose between evolution and faith.
One thing struck me in the video. Dawkins, asked about how he felt about peoples lives (some 90% of us, according to the video) being actively enhanced by faith by living a life touched by faith in a higher power, something which is supported by numerous surveys (happier, live longer, recover from illness faster, are more charitable and generous...I think they even have better sex!), said they should do without because science is "true." That struck me as something only a true zealot would say, but certainly not a humanitarian.
As if those benefits, as if happiness, isn't true.
Posted by: Carlos | Mar 29, 2012 4:35:51 PM
Now on the other hand, Science has given us Round-Up Ready patented, copy-protected crops, Estrogen laced Beef, AntiBiotic laced milk, Trans-Fats, Global Warming, Nuclear Angst...ever increasing type ll diabetes, increasing food allergies, rising autism rates, drugged schoolchildren...
I dunno. I loves me some science, but it's not as if there is no dark side.
Posted by: Carlos | Mar 29, 2012 5:17:12 PM
I couldn't agree with you more Carlos. Very well said.
I would also echo that the increasing fundamentalism we are seeing in the evangelical churches has led to a mistrust of higher education and universities, with people rallying around the notion that the bible is the literal "word of god" (a new notion for protestants, something borrowed from the Muslim faith, in which the Quran is the literal words of god and cannot be translated or questioned). As a seminary graduate who is leaning towards agnosticism, I find this troubling.
Posted by: jeff | Mar 29, 2012 8:27:58 PM
Now on the other hand, Science has...
Fed billions, eliminated most infectious disease, doubled the average lifespan, brought death in childhood for billions of people from around 25% to more like 1%, brought us unimaginable wealth (to the extent we cannot handle it), democratized the totality of human knowledge, brought us a true and factual view of the universe and our place in it.
Now, even *if* you were to take every item in Carlos list as true (autism rates? really?), we are still far, far ahead. In particular the burden of disease is much lower, compared to the actual vs mythic past.
The "only" danger of science / technology is that we are ever closer to effectively being gods, but foolish ones. A five year old handed the keys to a superbike.
Posted by: Bruce of Canookistan | Mar 30, 2012 1:43:22 AM
brought [the rate of] death in childhood
Posted by: Bruce of Canookistan | Mar 30, 2012 1:44:35 AM
What I really want to understand is how 'science' in the US cultural scene came to be framed (by liberals and conservatives alike) in terms of issues where the left is much more comfortable with the politics of the scientific conclusion than the right. It's not at all obvious that if you rewound the tape from the 60s you'd typically end up here - if you look at the politics of that era the counterculture was doing plenty to demonstrate discomfort with the culture of science in its own right, often lapsing into evil-big-science-military-corporation-mother-nature stuff. To be even more glib, the scientists were the suited types sending people to the moon, not going to Woodstock.
Somehow, an entire cluster of issues (nuclear power, vaccination, genetic modification of crops, Norman Borlaug type green revolution, alternative medicine, strongly nurture-ist arguments of the anti E.O. Wilson type) isn't seen by the center of gravity - either of the left or of the right - to A) have anything to do with the imprimatur of science B) be worth taking very seriously, period. Bill Maher can talk nonsense about vaccines and nukes, and Hollywood has a pretty significant scientology fetish, but somehow that doesn't ramify much in terms of who gets to wear the science-brand.
When everyone, liberal or conservative, thinks about Science, it's evolution and global warming. It's clear why the left would want this. It's also clear why a Karl Rove type Republican evil genius is stuck with global warming denial. But why would a smart republican strategist not contest the rest of the terrain?
Posted by: prasad | Mar 30, 2012 3:39:50 AM
To take a concrete example, I suspect a poll of biologists or economists or what have you would demonstrate pretty marginal support for 'organic' or 'locavore'. How did that take off with essentially no fire from the right, considering that culturally they'd incur basically no cost with their base? Does the right want a politics where a reasonably hard-nosed kid in a college finds nothing science-y in the red team?
Posted by: prasad | Mar 30, 2012 3:50:21 AM
Inthink the simple reason is that the coalition that makes up the conservative base (unsurprisingly, entrenched powers) are threatened by science. Science in general is questioning existing beliefs, and most Conservative power bases (religion, existing industries) suffer from this
Posted by: addicted | Mar 30, 2012 9:15:46 AM
@prasad -You are drawing a false equivalency between the left's distrust of science and the right's. There are kooks on both sides. However, the right has elevated them to positions of power while the right generally completely mistrusts them.
For example, you are unlikely to find any anti-vaccers in Congress. Furthermore, the people fighting the anti-vaccer side are also predominantly from the left. In all the examples you have given, the vast majority of the left is on the side of the scientific consensus (barring possibly nuclear power, but that is largely a NIMBY phenomenon, and after Japan last year I am not sure you can call that necessarily an anti-science position).
OTOH, the right elevates believers of the anti-science consensus to their most prominent positions, and are by and their majorities are anti-science.
Posted by: addicted | Mar 30, 2012 9:22:07 AM
"But why would a smart republican strategist not contest the rest of the terrain?"
There may be something more symbolic. In the past few decade science has presented itself to be part of a secular humanist outlook, even a new kind of internationalism that eschews local sentiments and attachments. Science may be a kind of new "rootless cosmopolitanism,"and as Jonathan Haidt keep harping, high levels of ingroup solidarity (a sort of modernized tribalism) is a defining aspect of conservatism.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 30, 2012 11:48:49 AM
Tribalism: the sure sign of a narrow mind.
Posted by: e4 | Mar 30, 2012 12:06:45 PM
* in a a sort of modernized tribalism...
meaning not tribalism per se but attachment to national or other "co-residing" set of people.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 30, 2012 12:12:46 PM
"high levels of ingroup solidarity (a sort of modernized tribalism) is a defining aspect of conservatism."
Don't the shared core tenets, hot topics and shibboleths of Liberalism exhibit the same ingroup solidarity? Doesn't Progressives' othering of people outside their group make them guilty of tribalism?
Posted by: Carlos | Mar 30, 2012 1:08:21 PM
Robin's got it, I think. "Science" is not sufficiently patriotic.
Posted by: Bruce of Canoockistan | Mar 30, 2012 1:10:29 PM
"Don't the shared core tenets, hot topics and shibboleths of Liberalism exhibit the same ingroup solidarity? Doesn't Progressives' othering of people outside their group make them guilty of tribalism?"
Haidt's research suggests no.
You of course are free to reconceptualize ingroupness, but these categories are designed to help explain (differences in) behavior. I don't see how your widening of the concept to make either (i) beliefs as part of ascriptive traits or (ii) disagreements an act of othering reification helps explain anything really. (Frankly, it seems more intended to be an "everybody's guilty so no one is guilty" response.)
Your alternative explains that Richard Dawkins is the reason conservatives are running away from science I don't think is convincing since significant drops seems to have taken place well before the "new atheism"... unless of course conservatives and the religious can see the future, allowing effect to precede cause--which may be one benefit of religion you forgot to mention above. If conservatives are going to reject evidence based scientific claims such as the age of the earth because a small number of people are arguing that science is better than religion then conservatives would seem to be rather infantile and knee-jerk in the way they respond.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 30, 2012 1:55:46 PM
"@prasad -You are drawing a false equivalency between the left's distrust of science and the right's. There are kooks on both sides. However, the right has elevated them to positions of power while the right generally completely mistrusts them. "
I agree completely there's no equivalency, should have made that clearer. Indeed, on pretty much all the issues I mentioned, I think the science-y push-back also comes mostly from the left. Which IS what I don't get - many of these things would cost the right absolutely nothing to push at and preen over. I don't think it's the base, since their particular populisms (God stuff, minority bashing, patriotism, abortion and guns) don't obviously stop them from strategically science-boosting where the base doesn't mind. I can't fathom why they don't do it.
Posted by: prasad | Mar 30, 2012 2:58:20 PM
I push back on say Dawkins when he speaks of Science as if it was a religion. "... Science is the only basis for knowledge..." (as if philosophy or literature or history is not). Or "... The universe does not care if people find comfort in religion, the universe cares only about Truth..." (tell that to someone who is suffering and may find comfort in a prayer). Not only is this enough to make conservatives run away from Science, but turn off liberals from Dawkins
.
Science is an impartial method of inquiry and should remain so, even under attack from religion, and may even have a role in explaining why 90% of the people believe in religion other than saying they are "idiots".
Posted by: Raza | Mar 30, 2012 5:46:36 PM
Reza:
When Dawkins speaks of Science, he's speaking of science, not something "like" religion.
"... Science is the only basis for knowledge..." (as if philosophy or literature or history is not): philosophy and literature is not science. Nor is it knowledge. Discuss.
The universe does not care if people find comfort in religion, the universe cares only about Truth..." (tell that to someone who is suffering and may find comfort in a prayer).
I'll be happy to. The two things are unrelated. Plus, no one should take comfort in fantasies about imaginary gods. Just sayin'
Conservatives run away from anything that doesn't support thier post hoc perspective. Liberals love science and are simply not running away from anyone. We are brave. We are strong. We are invincible.
Posted by: ray Butlers | Mar 30, 2012 7:46:59 PM
Ray: The quotes in my previous comment are not my views, they are Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9UvnrARf8
"Conservatives run away from anything that doesn't support their post hoc perspective. Liberals love science and are simply not running away from anyone."
I agree. But when scientists become dogmatic about their views, they are no different then religious people and equally condemnable.
"Plus, no one should take comfort in fantasies about imaginary gods".
Personally agree about gods being imaginary, but have no problem if someone else finds comfort in fantasizing about them. Who am I or anyone to just say what others should do.
Posted by: Raza | Mar 30, 2012 8:36:05 PM
The study DOES NOT say conservatives are losing faith in science, 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 an in-depth 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.
Posted by: Ted Dawes | Apr 8, 2012 12:27:17 AM
Post a comment