Merged US conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since the '70s

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find that a little puzzling. But then, we do have a lot of whackadoodles living as isolates on the west slope, and some real rednecks on the east slope.

Would you happen to have access to data that shows a distribution by county for that data?

It's true, Lefty. The state public health department has been voicing concerns about our low vaccination rates in the state. We are one of the lowest in the country.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Election officials and machines count votes.

I wrote "court". Did you read "count"?

 

[Humes fork]

Example?

Example of what?

 

[Humes fork]

We have a cluster of anti-vaxxers here in the state. I believe they are split between the Green Party and Ron Paul.

Aren't the Greens more extreme liberals than the Democrats (bleh, the American political terminology is horrible)?

No liberal skeptics I know deny this.

Of course not, but not all liberals are skeptics.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I wrote "court". Did you read "count"?

Right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Aren't the Greens more extreme liberals than the Democrats (bleh, the American political terminology is horrible)?

Of course not, but not all liberals are skeptics.

I'm referring to your claims about what people are debating in this thread.

 

[MG1962]

Yet they trust science when they use their computers, go to the doctor, drive their cars or ride the airplanes, etc... It's just the "inconvenient" science (with it's well known liberal bias) that earns their ire...

This for the win, and reflects my own thoughts as I was reading through the thread

 

[Morrigan]

[...] S. J. Gould) are anti-evolution.

....Did you just say that Stephen Jay Gould is anti-evolution? Really? Really?

Cool story, bro. I read somewhere that deniers of climate science were all sexual deviants with silly haircuts.

 

[RandFan]

Reality Bites

The science-based community once was split between Democrats and Republicans -- but not anymore.

The expertise gap itself is becoming dramatic. In one of the most comprehensive surveys of American professors, sociologists Neil Gross of the University of British Columbia and Solon Simmons of George Mason found that 51 percent described themselves as Democrats, and 35.3 percent described themselves as independents--with the bulk of those independents distinctly Democrat-leaning, rather than straddling the center. Just 13.7 percent were Republicans. Academia has long been a liberal bastion, but it hasn't always been this lopsided. According to Gross, professors have been drifting to the left since the late 1960s, gradually carrying us into today's very unbalanced expertise environment.

Gross and Simmons' findings parallel the results of surveys on two overlapping groups: scientists and those with graduate degrees (whether or not they stay in academe). A 2009 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science members found they were overwhelmingly more Democratic, and more likely to describe themselves as liberal, than the general public. Fifty-five percent were Democrats, 32 percent were independents, and just 6 percent were Republicans. Then there are all the folks with letters after their names. Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress has shown that Americans with a post-graduate level of education have been trending more and more strongly Democratic in the past three presidential cycles. They supported Al Gore by a margin of 52 percent to 44 percent in 2000, John Kerry by 55 percent to 44 percent in 2004, and Barack Obama by 58 percent to 40 percent in 2008.

Study after study shows that the liberal community is more likely a science based community.

 

[epepke]

That's the premise in Merchants of Doubt.

I haven't read that.

I just remember when it was possible to get funding for science from Republicans. It was a soul-destroying process, because you had to lie about what it was for, but it was possible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't read that.

I just remember when it was possible to get funding for science from Republicans. It was a soul-destroying process, because you had to lie about what it was for, but it was possible.

That's interesting you haven't read it considering your comment.

Merchants of Doubt^WP

Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions".[4] The book states that these scientists have challenged the scientific consensus about the dangers of smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, and the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[4] The authors write that this has resulted in "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues which has had an influence on public opinion and policy-making.[4] Oreskes and Conway reach the conclusion that:
There are many reasons why the United States has failed to act on global warming, but at least one is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.[4][5]
All three are physicists: Singer was a rocket scientist, whereas Nierenberg and Seitz worked on the atomic bomb.[6] Oreskes and Conway state: "small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power".[7]

The historians found that these particular scientists lost their central motivator, the commies and the cold war, when the cold war ended. They moved on to other motivators.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

....Did you just say that Stephen Jay Gould is anti-evolution? Really? Really?

Yes. Read Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. I'd add all those Harvard profs who wet themselves when Lawrence Summers suggested that the distribution of intellectual ability might not be the same for males and females.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yes. Read Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. I'd add all those Harvard profs who wet themselves when Lawrence Summers suggested that the distribution of intellectual ability might not be the same for males and females.

Twaddle.

You really let your knickers drop when you claimed that anything Gould says contradicts evolution.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'd add all those Harvard profs who wet themselves when Lawrence Summers suggested that the distribution of intellectual ability might not be the same for males and females.

Wait a minute. That turd is an ecconomist. What have his opinions to do with science?

 

[uke2se]

Wait a minute. That turd is an ecconomist. What have his opinions to do with science?

Obviously because he said something Malcolm likes. That makes it science, right?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Obviously because he said something Malcolm likes. That makes it science, right?

Sarcastic one liners do not a rational argument make,

It's unscientific to assert without evidence the that population profiles of male and female (or white and Asian, or black and white) nervous system function must exhibit the same distribution.
Perhaps the greater distrust among "conservatives" (defined how, btw?) of the scientific establishment results from reading things like this. Or, maybe this. Or perhaps this. Or this.

Or, we could get personal.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sarcastic one liners do not a rational argument make,

It's unscientific to assert without evidence the that population profiles of male and female (or white and Asian, or black and white) nervous system function must exhibit the same distribution.
Perhaps the greater distrust among "conservatives" (defined how, btw?) of the scientific establishment results from reading things like this. Or, maybe this. Or perhaps this. Or this.

You haven't done much to support any of your positions so far.

 

[uke2se]

It's unscientific to assert without evidence the that population profiles of male and female (or white and Asian, or black and white) nervous system function must exhibit the same distribution.

Nobody did. You posted an assertion from someone asserting without evidence the opposite. Your claim. Your burden of evidence.

Perhaps the greater distrust among "conservatives" (defined how, btw?) of the scientific establishment results from reading things like this. Or, maybe this. Or perhaps this. Or this.

Yes, I am sure alarmism like that presented in those partisan and unscientific books are responsible for some of the conservative denial of science.

Or, we could get personal.

Fisticuffs?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Nobody did. You posted an assertion from someone asserting without evidence the opposite. Your claim. Your burden of evidence.¹Yes, I am sure alarmism like that presented in those partisan and unscientific books are responsible for some of the conservative denial of science..²Fisticuffs?.³

1. Summers offered a hypothesis. Some Anthropology or Psych professor threw a fit. She (and the faculty who followed her) presumed without evidence (against evidence, actually) that the population distribution of measures of nervous system function must be the same for women and men.
2. Why "alarmist" and "unscientific"? Have you read these? I have. They cite abundant evidence.
3. Your usual style of interaction with those who do not share your views.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I find that a little puzzling. But then, we do have a lot of whackadoodles living as isolates on the west slope, and some real rednecks on the east slope.

Would you happen to have access to data that shows a distribution by county for that data?

You do realize that just about half the people in Washington live in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties and that those counties are consistently the most liberal counties in the state?