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:
I have 3 degrees, and am not conservative, except in finance. I however was never was a good speller.
nor proof reader
If there is a "political gene", then conservatives must fear and distrust science. In my secret, government funded laboratory, I'm developing a brain virus to irradicate the conservative denial of science gene. Ha Ha Ha!
It's not science that conservatives are skeptical of, it's corrupt "scientists" who will jump on a bandwagon and falsify "evidence" in order to get gov't grants and support from "politically correct" organizations. We keep hearing about "global warming", but our TV weather forecasts keep telling us that "the record high for the day of the year was set in 1879", or "1911", etc. The melting ice in Antarctica in January, for instance, when January in Antarctica is Summer. They cry about the Polar Bears' habitat, when the Polar Bear population is at a record high.
Thanks for illustrating the point of the article.
Hey, if the facts don't fit into your preconceived notions, blame the fact finders!
Scientific evidence conservatives aren't as smart as liberals. Look what religion and science meeting did to Galileo and others like him. Denying the truth doesn't help humanity.
This is hilarious! Conservatives losing faith in science? Got a message for you all;
1. Don't drive a car - science (physics for the most part was used)
2. Don't drink the water - (chemistry is used to purify the water)
3. Don't fly in an airplane - (again physics plays a role)
4. Don't go to the Doctors - ( all sciences are used - just pray)
The list could go on forever. Bottom line - those who don't believe in science (members of the flat earth society, et al) are superstitious, hypocritical idiots who want to take us back to the days of the shaman, witch doctors, etc.
Remember "The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves" Those who wait for "Manna From Heaven" are more likely to be struck by lightning than "Manna" whatever to hell that is!
I certainly hope we taxpayers did not pay for this "study".
Looks like the Republinuts and their follows realized they could not gain votes through women's vaginas so now they are stirring up the left brain/right brain issue as pro/anti science claptrap. How flipping desperate are they?
This is a terrible study and does not belong on a science page. All it does is fuel stereotypes that people have, and judging from the comments, adds to destructive dialogue rather than anything constructive.
First, the idea that you can just lump all of Christianity together as conservatives is ludicrous. Just look at the Catholic Church which teaches that evolution is a perfectly reasonable explanation for man. Yet, Catholics generally do not brand themselves either conservative or liberal and they tend to vote on the issue(s) or the person and not a party line. There are a number of issues that Catholics favor one party of the other, but never do they adopt the views of only one party. As one article on this stated " Extremist beliefs of any sort are always dangerous and often fatal to the institution with which they are associated. The either/or fallacy is always just that—a meretricious assignment of validity to one point of view with the attendant obliteration of any counter system. This blindness lends itself to a bigotry quite often found in social and political systems, but no such corruption should ever be allowed to mar religious and ethical behaviors."
Second, I am a Scientist. Yet, as a scientist, I distrust science. I can show you tons of articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that are wrong, especially in my field. Just yesterday here on MSNBC, there was a huge study that found out that most (89%) of preliminary Cancer research was not reproducible. Does this mean there is a conspiracy in science, is there some hidden agenda to not trusting science even when it is published? No, in fact, Dr. Feynman would also agree that before you believe something you read, you should in fact prove it to yourself. You could call me a Skeptical scientist and part of what I have been doing as my research is correcting things within the literature. Ultimately, science is a search for truth which eventually weeds it way to the surface given enough time. Just look how many years it took for plate tectonics to take hold in the scientific community from when it was first postulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912 but there was no evidence given that technology did not exist yet to dive to the mid-ocean ridge and actually observe experimentally the banding patterns in iron as the seafloor spread recording pole reversals of the earth which only happened in the 1960s. That scientist was derided and even entire countries were against his work yet it turned out to be true. That is how science works though, that theories are postulated and hold for a time, or in the case of Einstein, he got it right the first time, though many people still test his work. Scientists are always testing and retesting old theories in light of new evidence.
In summary, I would probably add that most scientists are skeptical of science. There is a lot of bad science out there and people which you wonder how they ever got their PhD. In the end, this kind of article just seeks to divide and group people together that sometimes should not be grouped and does nothing to bring to light good science which you should accept only after you've weighed the evidence yourself versus bad science which you should be skeptical of.
As far as why this article really does not belong in the science section, I think Einstein said it best:
"One must divide one's time between politics and equations. But our equations are much more important to me, because politics is for the present, while our equations are for eternity."
If as a "scientist" you distrust science and you think most scientists are skeptical of science, I wonder why would you consider yourself a scientist? You don't trust yourself? I think most scientists at times distrust some scientific publications or some scientific consensus, but one scientist can not replicate even a tiny bit of the research being done. In general, you have to respect the scientific approach as opposed to the alternative.
It is evident that there is a misunderstanding of Science to offer such a comment. For skepticism is at the heart of all scientific inquiry and it may surprise you that in order to be a good scientist, you must be a skeptical scientist as well.
I would recommend reading the following (from which I highlight a few important points below.):
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/hilites/skepticism/skepticism.htm
""Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue." (Merton, 1962)
In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus." However, as a "community of belief" develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.
In order to appreciate this concern, it is necessary to revisit the central role of skepticism in science. Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."
For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.
In science, attempts to invalidate hypotheses and models - hard-core skepticism, by any definition - should be viewed as a necessary positive step in the pursuit of truth. Rigorous hypotheses and models will emerge as triumphant - at least for the time being. In a problem-solving and policy-development mode, healthy skepticism is needed to ensure the rigor and effectiveness of proposed solutions. Another way of expressing the difference between these two philosophies is to state that "Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime" (Lakatos, 1978).
Consensus science and the demise of scientific skepticism as an unhealthy combination. Without the boldness and perseverance of earlier skeptics, who risked ridicule and being branded as heretics, we would still believe Earth to be the center of the Universe and continents to be motionless.
The time-honored method of scientific investigation includes promoting skepticism in the search for truth. The crux of the problem is how science is taught and practiced. To protect science in the long term, "a healthy dose of skepticism" should be introduced into every young scientist's education, and more training should be provided for studying and expressing uncertainty at all levels of professional development. The scientific community should raise the standards of peer review and the demands of "adequate proof" if science is not to be subsumed by policy, and scientists are not to be turned into politicians."
You also might be interested in watching a lecture on Science and Skepticism if you want multiple lines of evidence.
http://fora.tv/2010/04/24/Dr_Eugenie_C_Scott_Science_and_Skepticism
There is a distinct difference between "distrust" and "prudent skepticism".
It is always prudent to be skeptical of new findings. However, continuing to be skeptical after the new findings have been independently reproduced and verified, and in lack of evidence to the contrary, is to be distrustful.
I'm an engineer, self-described moderate independent. I trust science and math. I don't trust "scientists" who use science to further a political agenda. From scientists I want unequivocal, supportable information and a willingness to say "Oops, I was wrong". They should let someone else figure out what, if anything, to do with the information provided by science.
Let's all note from the chart that moderates have always been skeptical of science. There's a really good chance that the conclusions of people reading this study are wrong. In my experience. the more knowledgeable you get about science the more skeptical you become about scientist's motives.
A scientific study that shows conservatives don't trust science.
I love it!
If conservatives proclaim to distrust the results of the study, they're showing it's correct, by demonstrating distrust of science.
If they agree with the results of the study, they're invalidating it by demonstrating trust in science.
It's a catch-22!
Science gave you the microwave, cellphone, safer cars, safer houses, longer life, better food...
I could see where conservatives think god did all that.
Not a geek in a lab coat.
Harry -
Engineers and technicians gave you those things, not scientists.
Applied science, dude. The science makes the discoveries, engineers build things based on the science.
Without scientists, engineers don't have anything to build.
Debatable - Engineering is the bridge between scientific endeavor and practical application of the science.
Brian,
That's what MSpielman just said, only in two words. Applied Science.
Applied science - a two year technology degree, expanded into a four year bachelor's because the student's entering the program didn't have enough math or science from high school to qualify for acceptance to an enginering school.
pardon the entry errors
Brian-Basic science might involve something like studying bacterial metabolism while applied science would involve using that knowledge to make a new antibiotic. Both would involve the same amount of education.
My father has a PhD in Applied Sciences from UC Davis, graduated in the late 70s. He's a physicist working on pulsed power technology and fusion, first for the government and later in the private sector. He runs a private laboratory on the side, with several brilliant ex-Sandia scientists, developing water purification technologies and several other inventions I can't begin to understand.
So yeah, not going to jump on the bashing "Applied Sciences" bandwagon. They're the ones who turn science into technology, as far as I'm concerned. They're the ones who recognize then need for engineers on a project and give them jobs.
Junk "science" is everywhere and has been for as long as I can remember. I still remember "scientists" saying cigarettes weren't dangerous. Bought and paid for commercially or politically motivated statements that can't be proven aren't science. They're advertising. The scientific method involves a hypothesis and testing of that hypothesis with repeatable results. The hypothesis by itself is not science. Choosing to not believe a naked hypothesis is not a rejection of science, but rather healthy skepticism and an implied request to apply the testing part. And an opinion poll is just that.
"Junk science" is science that proves you are wrong about something you strongly believe in.
If only liberals would realise that just because they personally have not tried something doesn'tmake it new or different ... if it failed repeatedly throughout history it probably will fail again. As an atheist conservative with degrees in engineering and business management who has lived and traveled around the world, built motorcycles, owned and piloted airplanes, served in the military of the Republic, worked in occupations ranging from herding cattle to help build the international space station and everything in-between ..... I would question jumping on a band wagon just because its a trendy thing of the moment like expecting civilization to degrade to a 19th century quality of life level before all the science is in. Climate change? ...... the earth was warmer than now for the period 900AD to 1300AD, it was colder in the period between 1330AD and 1850AD. The big fear in the science community during the 1960s was a new mini ice-age (all evidence pointed in that direction), wait for all the science to come in. I also believe capital punishment is a consequences for personal actions and mental capacity is all the more reason that justifies that consequence not excuse it. I also believe in abortion rights, it should even be mandatory for any citizen sucking at the teet of welfare system ... if a citizen is not adult enough to support themselves they are not adult enough to make decision to breed or any other adult decision for that matter. I also believe there should be a safety net for any citizen in time of need, but temporary not generational. That is of course assuming that need was not the result of short-sided and myopic actions of the Federal government like conceding manufacturing jobs under clintons "new economy" and the U.N. plan to redistribute the wealth from the developed world to the 3rd world (paid for by the developed world of course). I believe in charity to those less fortunate, but resist the duress of confiscation of property under taxation for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. I understand the difference between charity society can afford and an "entitlement". I believe if science determines it is necessary to have a Manhattan Project to find a viable alternative to fossil fuel a better option may just be a rational slow humane reduction of world population levels to about 500 million, otherwise nature will do it savagely, drastically and quickly. I believe a balance of nature and diversity of wildlife is vital but you can not have expanding human population and animal diversity at the same time. As a conservative I know from history that any agenda to redistribute the wealth just spreads the poverty, that equal rights does not mean equal results (I will for equal rights of all citizens not arbitrary quotas), that immigration should be for the benefit of the Republic not the immigrant (for that matter I know the difference between immigrant and illegal alien), I know that to be of benefit to the Republic a policy of assimilation is better than accommodation. Having traveled the world I know there is a reason one culture succeeds and one stagnates that has nothing to do with the excuses bandied around, If I saw a benefit in a different culture I would move there and assimilate to it, I havent. I believe an educated informed citizen is better than social engineering experiments, I do not expect life to be safe and big brother to protect me from stupid actions like using a hair blower in the shower or to wear a helmet on a bicycle. I know class envy and buzzwords like "the 1%" are just manipulation of the unwashed masses but I also know that corporations that participate in the insanity of exporting jobs need to reinvest in U.S. citizen workforce or face drastic consequences in taxes and restrictions. I believe in a small government minimal intrusion in a citizens life, including the bedroom whether I agree with what happens in either place or not. Gee, stereotypes are a funny thing arent they.
good post. what an intersting life you have had.
The anti-intellectualism and persecution of science is nothing new in would-be dictatorships and oligarchies; it's been tried many times (fascist, communist, what have you). Science represents a dispassionate quest for the unbiased truth. Anyone who attempts to control and wield power over another group would not want their 'base' getting so clever and well-informed that they could poke holes in their already fragile world view.
* Scientists collect data on global warming? Call them alarmist crackpots (a nice way to keep those oil companies and big business manufacturing plants safe from pesky emission regulations/standards). Just plug in an Al Gore joke, and you're safe it seems...
* Scientists discover methods of using stem cells to cure genetic ailments? Conservatives call them everything short of baby killers (nice way to prevent government funding of research); even though stem cell methodology no longer requires drawing cells from unwanted embryos (that info's about 10 years out of date).
* Your kid can't put down his Nintendo DS? Blame childhood vaccinations (that's something we liberals do that really embarrasses me, by the way; shame on the would-be Jenny McCarthys for that one....).
I wish the authors of this book would look beyond simply applying a conservative label to this type of 'thinking', and go a bit further (perhaps globally) with their research. I think it might apply to ANY group with an agenda or bias against a thinking, free-willed populace. The fact that it seems more prevalent in conservatives in this study is only incidental; if the other side had something to hide or a special interest to protect? I'm sure such biased 'thinking' would apply to them as well....
#1) A conservative does not deny a climate change is happening, it has nappened multiple times in recorded history and has lasted centuries in both the warmer and colder direction. A conservative just doesnt jump on a trendy cause and effect doomsday scenerio until there is rational conclusions from reliable sources.
#2) A conservative does not understand why stem cell research is not used to cure desease. A conservative also does not understand why food crop genetics that increase production, increase nutritional value and allows crops to grow better under marginal conditions is not hailed as breakthroughs (stupidity is on both ends of the spectrum).
#3) As a conservative I blame the dumbing down of society on social engineering experiment in public schools sytem that values making a student "feel good about themselves" and "feel included" over getting educated and expecting success.
As a conservative I would dispute the statement that a conservative values ignorance more than a thinking and free-willed populous. EVERY leftist experiment in history used revised history, censorship, indoctrination of children and destruction of "elitist" (read educated members of society) as tools to manipulate citizens. Makes no difference whether it was National Socialism, Communism, Social Democracies same tactics same results. Yet conservatives such as the authors of the Constitution and leaders of the revolution demanded an educated and informed citizen as the ONLY guarentee of chancel of longterm survival the Republic with liberty a free citizen.
Dennis - I'm pretty sure those guys were considered progressives.
For the time period yes. Yet they are conservatives of today. They knew that direct democracy was the biggest danger to a free citizen, setup a representative democracy instead of a parlimentry system as a check on populous influence, checked populous rule by only having one branch of the government elected by popular vote (the house), designed the Federal government to be small and with minimal intrusion into the life of a citizen, intended few legitimate functions for a Federal government and would be horrified at income taxation. Read "The Federalist Papers" , they were revolutionaries for the time with all the values of todays conservative.
That's a stretch you cannot make. If anything they would more likely be Libertarian, but more than that, they would not recognize the world as it exists today.
Oh, so you're telling me the world isn't flat?!
Nope, just demanding the government stop wasting money on building ships and research into navigational tools for exploration of the unknown when that resource could be used to feed and shelter the poor and disadvantaged in Europe.
I would be curious to see how the graph would turn out if political stance were replaced with income. Some of the most lucrative industries do the most damage to the environment. I would imagine the graph would fall on these lines, those who profit from the status-quo are the ones who are the most loath to see it change. I suppose it's a moot point, policy makers are largely funded by those causing the problems. Yesterday I was researching superconductivity and stumbled on a patent (4349636) claiming near room temp. superconductivity. The gov has dibs on it apparently, and I haven't found a study rebuking it's claims. If accurate, this proves (to me anyway) the government and industry will squeeze every penny they can from fossil fuels prior to releasing any important discoveries to the public. I don't usually play into conspiracy theories but when you look deep enough there seems to be more going on than meets the eye.
Conspiracy Theory? How expensive is the manufacturing process? What is the reliabilty factor and under what real life conditions is it functional? Transister technology was known for decades before it became practical in application. The miliary value alone of a room temp. superconducter or a viable alternate fuel source alone would instantly put either product in use if viable. Why would any corporation withhold a product that has the potential to reap profits that make fossil fuel look like chump change. Any business that did not jump in to be first with either product with that kind of profit earning potential would be stupid. Naw cant buy into that Conspiracy Theory at all.
Destroy all humans and give the planet back to the plants and animals. They apparently are the only ones here on Earth mature enough to deserve it.
From a political and social standpoint the vast majority of scientists, 90+% (maybe 95+%) are lefties. They are also athiests. So when lots of them put together computer programs that model, say, global warming, it gives pause to conservatives who don't swoon over greenie and leftie political and social goals that use this "science" to call for all manner of societal upheaval - leftie upheaval.
These computer programs are the creation of these same 90+% scientists and there is some evidence that, while not a conspiracy in the technical sense, these people are not above skewing the data to their own end. There is an article today describing how 90% of scientists doing cancer research fudged their study results for various reasons that further their personal interests, instead of the interests of cancer patients. Most all of these scientists are cut from the same cloth when it comes to fethering their own nests and their private interests. These folks are part of the warm leftie soup personified by National Public Radio. Is it any wonder normal non-leftie citizens doubt the scientific veracity of their "findings."
Anything to back that up or just your spewing?
Brian~
Don't sweat it; I'm sure joe made it up. It sounds like one of those 'magic figures' that the Tea Baggers pull out of their a$$es when they need to make a point. They're not burdened with reality or fact-checking like most scientists or critical thinkers....
Science like everything else in this world requires money, and therefore there will always be those among scientists that can be corrupted by it. If you want a particular result, offer funding for research showing that result. Even if there is scant or shaky evidence, you will always find those who will end their research by saying there is a strong indication that you are right and more study (another large research grant) is needed. If you want proof of Human Induced Global Warming offer large research grants to prove it, likewise if you want to scientifically validate the Bible, do the same.
I am a great believer in science, and nothing scares me more that seeing religious groups dismissing it as heresy, which has led to dark times for mankind in the past. But I also live by the first rule of good science .. Skepticism .. Prove it to me, not with anecdotal evidence but with empirical evidence that can be duplicated and verified. Today we see science used to validate political causes on both sides of the isle, and this can only denigrate scientific credibility, but it is also a reality of the times we live in.
This article of absolutely obsurd. My conservatism (and most people's) has nothing to do with a lack of faith in science. Instead, it has to do with the role of government in our lives. Spend a little time reading about what government is supposed to do in between the Pricipia (which I'll bet you haven't read) and Brief History of Time and you might get that.
Even the federalists would think you are stupid. (bet you don't get that either)