E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
msnbc.com
How do liberals and conservatives differ in their attitudes toward science? Statistics indicate that conservatives' confidence in science as an institution has declined dramatically since 1974.
An analysis of 36 years' worth of polling data indicates that confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined among Americans who consider themselves conservatives, while confidence levels have been at steadier levels for other ideological groups.
The study, published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review, provides fresh ammunition for those who complain that conservative views on issues such as climate change are at odds with the scientific consensus.
"You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign," Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Sheps Center for Health Services Research, said in a news release from the American Sociological Association. "When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution, and talking about how 'intellectual elites' and scientists don't necessarily have the whole truth."
It's not clear how much impact Gauchat's study will have on the debate over politics and science: Liberals are likely to see it as confirmation of what they already believe, while conservatives who are skeptical about the scientific elite are likely to greet these scientific claims with skepticism as well.
But the analysis represents a serious effort to flesh out political attitudes toward science with real data. Gauchat bases his findings on a statistical analysis of survey results from the General Social Survey, a long-running project that has weighed public confidence in social institutions since 1974. The GSS has been conducted annually or semiannually by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, or NORC, with an annual average of 1,500 Americans taking part.
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.
Gordon Gauchat / UNC-Chapel Hill / ASR
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."
Gauchat's findings run counter to at least one liberal stereotype about conservatives: that right-wingers are distrustful of scientists because they have less education. The figures do support a link between more education and more trust in science, but they also show that more highly educated conservatives are, if anything, more distrustful.
That trend fits best with the concept that "educated or high-information conservatives will hold hyper-opinions about science, because they have a more sophisticated grasp about what types of knowledge will conform with or contradict their ideological positions, and they will prefer to believe what supports their ideology," Gauchat wrote.
So what does this mean for the role of science in setting national policy? "In a political climate in which all sides do not share a basic trust in science, scientific evidence no longer is viewed as a politically neutral factor in judging whether a public policy is good or bad," Gauchat said. Heightened distrust could turn young people away from careers in science and engineering, and in the long run, that could hurt America's standing in a global economy that is becoming increasingly competitive on the technological front.
Vanderbilt University's Jonathan Metzl and Northwestern University's Jennifer Richeson explain the science behind how the brain weighs decisions and forms political beliefs.
'The Republican Brain'
Gauchat took on this project to assess the claims made by science journalist Chris Mooney in his 2005 book, "The Republican War on Science" — and Mooney, who reviewed the paper before publication, said the findings confirmed those claims.
Wiley
"The Republican Brain" is the latest book from Chris Mooney.
"It's certainly gratifying to see this study come out," Mooney told me. "I appreciate that the author actually undertook to use data. I'm glad I wasn't just whistling in the wind when it came to Republicans and science."
Now Mooney is coming out with another book, titled "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Don't Believe in Science."
"In the book, I'm really careful to say there's what we call 'nature' and what we call 'nurture,' and you can't explain anything in politics without both of them," he said. "Whenever you see change in a group over time, that's probably 'nurture.'"
Mooney said the factors Gauchat mentioned would fit in the nurture category, along with the GOP's "Southern strategy" to bring what were once traditionally Democratic states into the Republican fold. "This is tapping into the power of nurture, but I also say we've ignored nature for too long," he said.
In "The Republican Brain," Mooney weaves his case for "nature" in politics from a variety of studies tracing the brain-based differences between liberal and conservative views of reality. (You'll find some of them by following the links below.)
"You're starting to find things about fixity of belief, desire to have certainty, and you see that these things are also associated with conservatism," he said. "These traits are content-neutral. You could take today's conservatives, stick them in [Soviet] Russia, and they can be very pro-science."
Mooney said people may be born with brains that predispose them either to liberal-leaning traits such as "openness to experience," or conservative-leaning traits such as "conscientiousness."
"The research suggests that people are born with a predisposition, but it's only a predisposition," Mooney said. "'Just born that way' is a phrase that makes me uncomfortable, because it implies some sort of hard wiring. Genes aren't destiny."
If you haven't figured it out by now, Mooney considers himself a liberal, and he's doubtful that any amount of "nurture" could turn him into a conservative. But he said liberals could learn a lot from conservatives, specifically about loyalty to leaders and to their cause. Like conservatives, some liberals may find themselves at odds with the scientific consensus on some issues. Which issues, specifically? Mooney pointed to hard-line stands against hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking), nuclear power, childhood vaccination and genetically modified organisms.
"Liberals have wanted to believe that if the system were just fair, then everybody would agree with us," he said. "That's a liberal fantasy. Actually, it turns out that liberalism is not the only way of being. ... Liberals should realize that not everybody's like them, and liberals' instincts in politics could be exactly what you don't want to do."
I'm imagining there's a lot to disagree with here, whether you're a liberal or a conservative. Good thing there's a comment section below. To paraphrase Monty Python, this is the right room for an argument.
More about politics and science:
- Conservative or liberal? It may be in the genes
- Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene'
- Brain scans show whether you lean left or right
- Study finds that political bias affects brain activity
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
No one should believe in "theories" that change every time they are disproved (about one per month) and then morphs into a new theory that explains the failure of the old theory and reasons why this new theory is better than the old theory.
Far better to search for God and see for yourself then blindly following "science" that cannot even find a cure for the common cold, or that still clings to Darwin's theory that has long been proven impossible due to DNA and the utter death of the simple single cell debacle.
"that still clings to Darwin's theory that has long been proven impossible"
Facts not in evidence, moron.
Theories are not science, they are only guesses based on incomplete scientific knowledge. The same applies to faith, you can have faith in God without having full knowledge about God or his/her plans.
Far better to believe in your imaginary friend Casper? Give me a break. Theories like the theory of gravity? That one changes all the time. Just last week it was reversed.
"that still clings to Darwin's theory that has long been proven impossible"
Tmothy, when you say obviously ignorant things like this, people just laugh.
A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. These are created through the scientific method, which does include a spot for testing these theories. If these theories are proven false, then they are examined and redrawn.
This is often confused with a hypothesis which is a proposed explanation for phenomena, which must be tested and not found false in order to become a theory.
Believing in 'your' version of God over science is just hubris; the sin of pride. You are denying God's real nature, which is revealed to us by science. Our understanding of God constantly grows as science help us to understand the universe we live in. Your understanding of God is locked into books written thousands of years ago, by men, and constantly reinterpreted by men to serve their own purposes. God writes his words in the heavens, in the orbit of the planets, in the spiraling galaxies.
This makes absolutely no sense. If you have faith in God, then you have no choice but to have faith in science. Humans do not make science, they only discover it, God made all the sciences which is why you cant believe in God but then not believe in science. Math, physics, chemistry, at least these three sciences existed LONG before life ever did and humans only discovered them. This applies to all the sciences humans make use of.
But most people's logic does not follow that route. If they think something is wrong, then they believe that God thinks it is wrong too, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The problem with that line of thinking is that science any science, just like a tool, just is. Science is not right or wrong, how humans use science, and the direction humans take it in determines if it is being used for good or bad. Science on its own is completely neutral, there is no wrong or right in it, it just is. For instance nuclear science has two primary paths, one is for nuclear energy, the other is for nuclear weapons. Just because nukes have been invented and used by humans does not make the science evil or wrong, if humans had never discovered and made use of this science neither path would even exist. A hammer can be used to build a building or kill a human being, on its own though it is neither good nor evil, it just is, and that is the nature of all sciences.
If you don't believe in science perhaps you should go live in a cave. That's where you would be without it.
Nope, math, physics, and chemistry exist even inside boring cold caves.:P
When people figured out that it was safer to live in caves than not to live in caves, they were using science.
Oh and just in case you dont know it, the human body is a direct product of math, physics, and chemistry. So there is absolutely no way to run from or ignore the realities of science.
Trying to put in a net box may make liberals feel better. Conservatives (and others) really dont have a problem with "hard science". It's the extrapolations and exaggerations to make science fit into a God-less universe. Of course, the accompanying "better-than-you-because-I-am-educated", regardless of the education of the other party doesnt help.
This might help:
www.libertymind.org
But conservatives (and many liberals as well) accept claims that something is not "hard science" even when it is. Global warming and evolution are good examples of that. Global warming is not yet up to the same level of confidence as evolution, but it is still hard science.
Is
this supposed to be news? Conservatives hate science because it tells them what
they don't want to hear. They don't want to hear that their simple, easy,
fundamentalist interpretation of their religion is bunk. They don't want to
hear that there just aren't enough trees for them to be uneducated loggers like
their Pappy and Grand Pappy. They don't want to hear that underneath, they're
no different than them colored people. And they sure as flaming hell don't want to
hear that those smirking, sex-happy granola-crunching hippies were right about
climate change or anything else all along. Never underestimate the power of people to believe or not believe what they want in the face of any facts.
this article is a crock of political balogna! Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is only when liberals attempt to use science to their advantage that conservatives oppose their ideas. conservatives are great supporters of TRUE science.
But most do not know haw to tell what is true science and what is not (and some liberals are the same). You can't just assume that things you don't want to be true, like global warming or evolution, are not good science. I don't want global warming to be true either, but I don't let that stop me finding out what the science really says.
Spinning 'facts' to accomadate worldviews is nothing new or unusual.
The data appears to show that those with conservative leanings do this more often...even highly educated conservatives.
This also appears to correlate to known trends in American political arenas over the last 40-50 years.
I myself have, through blogging extensively on newsites, have noticed that hard core conservative thinkers have, what I like to call, an Empathy Deficit Disorder.
I think the weakness of this study is statistical data can be manipulated in many arcane and bizare ways to express a bias that is already concluded.
Just some thoughts.
BTW - Most of the 'conservative' posters are slamming the Trayvon articles...fascinating.
Seriously...I cannot believe that conservatives do not have faith in scientific practices. Scientific methods have been being honed and perfected since before Galileo. In fact you can trace the roots of the scientific method back to greats like Aristotle whose inductive methods were applied to his studies in biology and what he called "natural philosophy" (basically what we know as science today). Scientific research is based off of countless experiments, meticulously recorded empirical data, as well as sound and valid hypotheses. Science even allows for alternate hypotheses that challenge established ones so that we may further grow and challenge existing paradigms. Science is about the growth of human knowledge and our enlightenment of the truth of the world that exists outside of our perception. It is something to be valued, cherished, and pursued, not something to be feared and disregarded.
Many conservatives do have faith in scientific practise, but just assume that if the conclusions are something they don't want to be true, then the practice must have been flawed (we all do this to some degree).
But there are definitely some fundamentalists who feel that scientific practice cannot be good if it contradicts their faith.
This article is misleading. In the 60s-70s Conservatives LIKED science because at the time, the LARGEST "science field" that was popular were fields of social science. These two decades saw the largest number of studies done to support conservative efforts to marginalize "brown people". Studies relating to poverty and crime supported many social "engineering" efforts of conservatives. These studies were, of course, subsequently disproved or "repaired" due to bad studies. In a way, "science" turned its back on conservatives. With regard to ANYONE going "all-in" on theories relating to global warming or evolution, AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF, I do not hold any of these theories on pedestals. They are highly flawed and contain a lot of "theories" that can not be proven yet, or dis-proven. I actually fall into the category of Conservatives who arent willing to move forward with conviction. The only sad part is it shows one aspect of conservatives which most "nice" conservatives do not like. THEY enjoyed science when it was putting black people in a box, but DO NOT like science when it asks for US to help EVERYONE via "green" measures. To me, that is the uglier article that no one will write..
I believe what we are witnessing is the extinction of a portion of humanity. Regardless of whether you believe in science or not, we do know that conservatives tend to be religious and they believe in prayer.
As a spiritual person, I believe that our thoughts manifest our reality, just as religious people believe that prayers are answered by God.
In both instances, a denial of evolution means that, in both cases, people are dismissing evolution to themselves, which means when they say "I don't believe in evolution", then they effectively end all possibility of evolving. They do so to themselves, and proclaim it to their God.
If manifestation of thought is, in fact, the actual process by which our "reality" gets generated, then denial of evolution stops the evolutionary process for that line of human beings. People who don't want to believe they have evolved will also not embrace the idea that they can evolve, therefore they effectively remove themselves from the evolutionary process.
Symptoms of such an occurrence would look exactly like what we see right now: society outside of such a circle of denial sees people who appear to be "out of touch" with reality; they don't reason scientifically and their conclusions seem illogical and without connective thought. They seem to be stuck in the past - like in the 50's as I've heard it expressed on many occasions.
Denying evolution for a portion of our human family means that that portion will become extinct, or at the very least will no longer evolve; which means that the rest of mankind accepting of evolution will continue to live comfortably within the environment manifested by "natural selection". It is the path which these people have chosen, and have manifested it with the Creator whom they worship.
If all animals in nature at some point make the decision not to evolve, it explains how species divide. It explains how we descended from apes. It explains how these people in a few thousand years - or for those who survive at least - will be the apes who failed to evolve any further.
Rick,
Quantum mechanics appears to validate this statement...
It is like we are creating reality ( in some way ) ahead of present time.
Quantum mechanics makes my head hurt. Is that manifestation enough?
Agreed, a portion of humanity is setting themselves up for extinction.
God gave us this Universe (maybe even more) and as our own God-given capability for understanding this world evolves, so does our appreciation of His gift. Science makes the creation all the more wonderful as we see more and in little ways understand more of His work.
By not embracing science, conservatives fence themselves off from part of God's creation and part of the potential He buries in each of us. Whatever His purpose, God is clearly evolving us, or most of us at least.
It is curious that conservatives are rarely conservationists. They want to conserve their contitutional rights and often manage to put themselves at odds with conserving the environment. They say they like small government but in moral matters their government explodes with overreach. What are they thinking?
The old words dont work in the current climate. Conservatives have moved to the left and Liberals continue to move further left. The "small" government folks are the libertarians
The libertarians won't committ themselves to environmental protections and often, as with Ron Paul, overreach their government in personal liberties so they share some significant qualities with conservatives in general.
To sum up what I've written above...
One of the arguments I hear from the Right on the issue of evolution is this: "If we evolved from apes, then how come there are still apes?"
Unfortunately, this theory explains it by saying that individuals in any species chooses what their offspring will become in the future. By disallowing evolutionary solutions to environmental changes, the evolutionary process stops for those lines who so choose. Those of science will understand it; those who don't, won't.
Nothing chooses to evolve, and yet everything evolves. Evolution is automatic in all reproducing organisms.
Jock - your point is well taken. However, this is not about choosing to evolve, this is about conscientiously choosing NOT to evolve, which changes the whole equation.
One does not need to choose evolution to evolve; however, once we are aware that evolution is part of the natural order, then dismissing it and going another direction is the equivalent of disconnecting from the source. The old saying "not to decide is to decide" is at work here, even if in reverse; as in "to decide is to decide not (to be)".
A living thing will drink water. By nature it is what we all do. But if we suddenly decide that drinking water is evil, and we stop - the outcome will be evident within days.
Interesting they didn't mention much about religion when science and religion are largely incompatible, and most conservatives choose religion over science.
Having an education does not equate to being able to understand science but education is compatible with religion.
There's not much mystery in understanding why conservatives hate science.
Consevative: Have faith and trust me...
Scientist: Question everything and trust the data...
This article highlights the concern that even educated conservatives are doubting Science. This raises serious concerns about what money and politics have sacrificed for power and influence. This trend could be reversed if the correct tact is used, instead of always backing down from the conservative propaganda and allowing the resulting public opinion to be shifted to the political right.
Democrats actually have the upper hand socially and thus politically, but have allowed Republicans to con voters by using their ignorance of Science and Technology to pit them against Progressives. Democrats need to bring the true facts to light in order to show voters that they already prefer a progressive environment.
This point can be readily made because Conservatives embrace and rely on Science in their daily live much more then they may realize. They like their car, fancy cloths and TV's, they use Computers, Cell Phones, see their Dentist and Doctors. They drive their cars across bridges and work and shop in Scientifically Engineered buildings, and later return to their climate controlled all amenities home.
They really should not badger Science at all, because if they do they are just allowing someone to badger them for their political vote. This is because without Science the only coziness of their home, would be the cold rock and dirt walls of a typical Stone Age cave dweller.
It appears that the article is mislabeled. It should be When Conservatives lost their faith in science. From the graph, Conservatives began losing their faith in science in the early 1970's. Just about the time of great social upheavel. In many cases people are being asked to accept 'science', just because someone says so. As a conservative, I appreciate some of the things that science has brought to us. However, some of the 'social engineering science' has brought us great pain and suffering. It simply does not work. Look at our schools, prisons, political unrest, national debt, etc. When something works, yes it is great. When you are asked to accept things that you know has not worked and will not work; it is fair to lose faith.
Tom
Have you considered how the business community's desire to import cheap uneducated labor while simultaneously exporting our jobs overseas has impacted society? It looks like they are getting you to blame "social engineering science" instead of their exploitation for our economic decline. They need to so that they can still get your vote so that they can continue to exploit our economic system and it's wealth.
This is a useless study without context. What we're really talking about here is evolution and global warming. In the case of evolution, there is actual scientific consensus that species evolve, though there are certainly gaps in understanding when it comes to specific species and origin of life. Those who seek wholesale alternative hypotheses are mostly conservative, but always religious. Global warming is different. The implicit argument is that conservatives who "oppose science" on this issue are delusional. In terms of climate, I suggest that those who believe that the earth is getting ever warmer because of CO2 and that we need drastic action ... and that 97% of scientists agree are the ones believing what they want to believe. Many who scoff at the lumped argument consensus are in fact scientists and not always conservative.
Before we can get to the bottom of any of these arguments, we need to come up with definition of religion, and also god. It seems to me that science has shown that we have progressed well beyond what folks 500 years ago would have thought possible. In fact we might appear to be 'god-like' to people from the time of 0 AD. So, if we progress continually, and dont destroy ourselves or get hit by a comet first, will we fit the definition of "god"? Will our descendants be able to do all the things that folks say god can do? If so, wont that marry science and religion??
JW,
Hmm... We already worship ourselves... and oh yes... Money.
There is no advantage to choose ignorance over knowledge.
It does give the rest of us, the educated progressives, an advantage in that we have a better understanding of how this entire God-given world works and how to enrich this life experience beyond the mindless struggle for money.
Conservatives will still listen to a scientist if he or she has developed a better weapon of mass destruction.