Educated conservatives don't believe in science

[JEDIYoda]

I know this is shocking, but the OP doesn't know which forum to post in.

Actually the OP decided to banish himself from P&N...he thought you peeps might be easier to deal with....he was probably correct!!

 

[monovillage]

Actual Study

In case you're interested in reading more on this topic Dr. Pielke Jr. discusses it here.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/loss-of-trust-in-institutions-of.html

These conclusions mirror more broadly the dynamics that I discuss in The Climate Fix that have occurred in the case of climate change -- the perspectives of Democrats and Republicans have diverged dramatically on the issue as it has become more politicized. And just as in the case of climate change, the paper's conclusions are not about science per se, but about public views of the legitimacy of science institutions in politics:

...conservatives’ unfavorable attitudes are most acute in relation to government funding of science and the use of scientific knowledge to influence social policy (see Gauchat 2010). Conservatives thus appear especially averse to regulatory science, defined here as the mutual dependence of organized science and government policy. . .

The paper provides a nice set of empirical evidence to support the arguments that have been made by Dan Sarewitz (and others) about the consequences of the politicization of the scientific community. Writing in Slate last year, Sarewitz explained the basic dynamics at play here using the case of climate change:

Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.
During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name. Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs. The climate debacle is only the most conspicuous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

Sarewitz suggested as remedy that scientific institutions need more Republican scientists. That point is worth debating, but what is not debatable is that "the issue here is legitimacy."

An interesting read.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your author offers that Dems & scientists are ontological, monovillage, merely by assertion that Dems' position wrt climate change came first, and that science followed. That's hardly the case at all. Dems' position has evolved over time, generally following the conclusions of science. Which is not to say that some jumping to conclusions hasn't occurred.

Sarewitz' observations that what is needed are more Republican scientists is a variant on the old saw of "all positions need to be heard" and his observation about legitimacy is deeply flawed. Legitimacy isn't the issue, but rather the perception of it, and the use of denial by many Repubs as a method to maintain their beliefs.

Only when science confirms their beliefs will they grant it legitimacy, and that's not science at all.

 

[cybrsage]

3-29-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...educated-conservatives-plunges-133908205.html

Study: Trust in science among educated conservatives plunges


Conservatives, particularly those with college educations, have become dramatically more skeptical of science over the past four decades, according to a study published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups — conservatives and people who frequently attend church.

Your thread title is a joke.

But other than that, if you simply use the IPCC as an example, you will see that anyone of average intelligence or higher should be skeptical of what they call science these days.

 

[thraashman]

In case you're interested in reading more on this topic Dr. Pielke Jr. discusses it here.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/loss-of-trust-in-institutions-of.html






An interesting read.

That's something that bothers me quite a bit. The conservative view that science being used when determining political policy is bad, but using religion to do it is a-ok. It's one of the main reasons I think I should be allowed to pelt Rick Santorum with a bag of dildos

 

[Matt1970]

That's something that bothers me quite a bit. The conservative view that science being used when determining political policy is bad, but using religion to do it is a-ok. It's one of the main reasons I think I should be allowed to pelt Rick Santorum with a bag of dildos

I tend to question science and religion equally. The problem with Science being used to determin political policy and law is that 9 times out of 10 it just ends up being a new tax and the only ones who benefit are the people in Government.

 

[monovillage]

That's something that bothers me quite a bit. The conservative view that science being used when determining political policy is bad, but using religion to do it is a-ok. It's one of the main reasons I think I should be allowed to pelt Rick Santorum with a bag of dildos

He's a self described liberal Democrat college professor at the university in Boulder. I don't agree with much of what he says, but he's pretty honest in his views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.

 

[cybrsage]

That's something that bothers me quite a bit. The conservative view that science being used when determining political policy is bad, but using religion to do it is a-ok.

A person's ethical view should color their creation of laws...anything less would be bad. One of the reasons you vote for someone is you think they align with you ethically.

However, no one has a problem with science being used to determine political policy...it is when political policy is used to color the results of science, which are then used to determine the very political policy which was used to color science in the first place that we cry foul.

Simply look at the "scientific" studies of the IPCC to see one of the most egregious examples of our times.

 

[thraashman]

A person's ethical view should color their creation of laws...anything less would be bad. One of the reasons you vote for someone is you think they align with you ethically.

However, no one has a problem with science being used to determine political policy...it is when political policy is used to color the results of science, which are then used to determine the very political policy which was used to color science in the first place that we cry foul.

Simply look at the "scientific" studies of the IPCC to see one of the most egregious examples of our times.

Ethics is one thing, religion is another. There are some very ethical views that have no basis in religion and there are also many unethical views that exist almost solely because of religion. Science and ethics don't always work perfectly together. I'm sure you could use science to show that those born with physical deformities are too much a drain on the system and therefore they should be killed at birth to improve the system. That doesn't by any means make doing such ethical. Science cannot be discounted, ethics cannot be discounted. Religion should not be used to discount science when there is nothing ethically wrong with the science that makes the policy.

 

[Atreus21]

Leftist! Leftist! Leftist! Label & dismiss, a la the great Rushbo. Which leads us to the inevitable questions- Left of whom or what? How far left?

We need to realize, after all, that egalitarian democracy is a Leftist concept, particularly within a Constitutional framework.

Moonbeam is right- facts have a Liberal bias. When Righties encounter facts contrary to their beliefs, they reject the facts, cling to belief. Part of the way that's accomplished is to attack the source of facts, science, particularly social science of any kind.

What facts have a liberal bias?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It does if you're trying to justify global warming as resulting from man's activities on the planet.

It's evidence based, the conclusions are based on the evidence as it is, to disbelieve scientific evidence is not very intelligent.

It doesn't matter if it's the followers of Behe and the IC argument for the Creationists who don't want to accept (while at the same time have no evidence for anything else but do their best to disprove evolution and fail continously) evolution or it's the "sceptics" of man made global climate change (i call it that because all in all, the temperature will get warmer in some places while it gets colder in some because of transference of energy (physical law, don't fuck with the law) and some idiots will say "hurr durr, colder than ever right here in this spot, disproves global warming like bananas disprove evolution") do their best to poke small holes into something that is infinitely larger on a trend than what they choose to focus on to convince themselves they are right.

That isn't an insult, i'm just saying that you're stupid.

Wait... that probably is an insult...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

A person's ethical view should color their creation of laws...anything less would be bad. One of the reasons you vote for someone is you think they align with you ethically.

However, no one has a problem with science being used to determine political policy...it is when political policy is used to color the results of science, which are then used to determine the very political policy which was used to color science in the first place that we cry foul.

Simply look at the "scientific" studies of the IPCC to see one of the most egregious examples of our times.

I sure as hell hope that you want us to form our laws based on empathy and the golden rule rather than the bible, because otherwise i shall smite you with my mightiest fart and your death shall be to the glory of the king of kings.

Basically, i can kill you in his name and i'm doing the right thing.

 

[Atreus21]

Ethics is one thing, religion is another. There are some very ethical views that have no basis in religion and there are also many unethical views that exist almost solely because of religion. Science and ethics don't always work perfectly together. I'm sure you could use science to show that those born with physical deformities are too much a drain on the system and therefore they should be killed at birth to improve the system. That doesn't by any means make doing such ethical. Science cannot be discounted, ethics cannot be discounted. Religion should not be used to discount science when there is nothing ethically wrong with the science that makes the policy.

I'd like someone to point out how anyone arrives at the belief that human lives are precious, and not any more expendable than that of a dog or cat, without some sort of faith or religious belief.

 

[Paul98]

Ethics is one thing, religion is another. There are some very ethical views that have no basis in religion and there are also many unethical views that exist almost solely because of religion. Science and ethics don't always work perfectly together. I'm sure you could use science to show that those born with physical deformities are too much a drain on the system and therefore they should be killed at birth to improve the system. That doesn't by any means make doing such ethical. Science cannot be discounted, ethics cannot be discounted. Religion should not be used to discount science when there is nothing ethically wrong with the science that makes the policy.

The choice to if someone should be killed or not here is not science. The science is the one that tells them how much they will cost, or what is and why they are deformed, along with in the future how to fix that. Even if you had some science that said if someone was going to kill a bunch of people for no good reason that wouldn't mean that science says that they should be killed at birth.

 

[Paul98]

To continue on what I just posted, I think peoples understanding is part of the problem. The science will say one thing, then someone will twist what it says to fit what they want to believe. Or jump to a conclusion that has nothing to do with what the science says.

Now it's interesting and good to think about what could be or what some of this might mean. Plus you can come to good conclusions, it just depends on the information available.

Also just because you think something doesn't mean it's right, especially if you never learned about something in depth. Much of the lack of understanding or not believing in evolution, relativity, and science in general is just lack of basic understanding. Along with their preconceived notions of what they think people are saying, or how things should work, where they could be totally wrong.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Is this McOwen's latest style? Post an article in the wrong forum, take it completely out of context, misrepresent what it says with an incendiary thread title and then abandon the thread completely?

Stop, drop and BURN baby!

 

[cyclohexane]

in other words, they aren't really educated.

 

[monovillage]

in other words, they aren't really educated.

In other words you probably didn't read the article and have no clue about what it concerned. That's a fucking stupid position to take.

 

[dank69]

I'd like someone to point out how anyone arrives at the belief that human lives are precious, and not any more expendable than that of a dog or cat, without some sort of faith or religious belief.

I'd like to know what kind of psycopathic individual needs the fear of punishment by a higher power to convince him that killing other people is wrong.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Odin shall set your lusts and Freya lead you into lust.

I don't know what the fuck you're going to do but get out of my an freyas way, she's a wild one, so puck up and take a hoof in the arse for your bad choice, brathar....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd like to know what kind of psycopathic individual needs the fear of punishment by a higher power to convince him that killing other people is wrong.

This isn't an attempt to trick you into a religious consideration. That's said so you know this isn't a contrived question, but in the objective universe what exists that makes killing other people wrong?

 

[dank69]

This isn't an attempt to trick you into a religious consideration. That's said so you know this isn't a contrived question, but in the objective universe what exists that makes killing other people wrong?

empathy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

empathy

That is a fair response. We are social animals and unless we are pathological we identify with the loss others feel. It's arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it's wrong in the least.

See, I didn't bait you did I?

 

[dank69]

That is a fair response. We are social animals and unless we are pathological we identify with the loss others feel. It's arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it's wrong in the least.

See, I didn't bait you did I?

No. I have wasted too much of my life pondering religion as it is. I know everything I need to know about it.

 

[cybrsage]

Ethics is one thing, religion is another. There are some very ethical views that have no basis in religion and there are also many unethical views that exist almost solely because of religion. Science and ethics don't always work perfectly together. I'm sure you could use science to show that those born with physical deformities are too much a drain on the system and therefore they should be killed at birth to improve the system. That doesn't by any means make doing such ethical. Science cannot be discounted, ethics cannot be discounted. Religion should not be used to discount science when there is nothing ethically wrong with the science that makes the policy.

When you do science the way the IPCC does it, it not only can be discounted, it SHOULD be discounted.

But wrt ethics, you are saying that if someone's ethics are based on their religion they are wrong, but if those same ethics are not based on religion they are fine? Just trying to understand.