Conservative trust of science in steady decline

[rumborak]

https://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10911111-study-tracks-how-conservatives-lost-their-faith-in-science



Interesting article. Not exactly mind-blowingly surprising though as I think everybody has had that impression as of late.

rumborak

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

In other news, sky still blue, water still wet. 

[7StringedBeast]

I have a hard time believing that moderates don't trust in science.

[rumborak]

That actually strikes me as weird too I have to say. That at some point conservatives' trust in science was higher than moderates' trust...

rumborak

[snapple]

Without looking at the article (at work, will check it later), I can say that is one hell of a broad generalization. Plus it's from MSNBC.

[gmillerdrake]

Being a conservative (believing in personal responsibility, limited government,GOD and a Strong National Defense) what is the criteria to 'believe' in science? I 'believe' in science and find no issue with Science and God co-existing in my beliefs. Is that the point of the study? To say 'conservatives' favor God over study or is it more general?

Edit:
 that is one hell of a broad generalization. Plus it's from MSNBC.

Nevermind......

[the Catfishman]

.. if you would click the link you would see that this is a publication in 'the American Sociological Review' not a study done by MSNBC.

[gmillerdrake]

.. if you would click the link you would see that this is a publication in 'the American Sociological Review' not a study done by MSNBC.

But that would totally require me to try and learn for myself.....

[snapple]

.. if you would click the link you would see that this is a publication in 'the American Sociological Review' not a study done by MSNBC.

.. if you read my post, you'd see it what I said was without clicking on the link.

[the Catfishman]

I know

[orcus116]

If it's accurate to any degree that graph says a lot about humans.

[Super Dude]

I'm pretty surprised about the moderates myself. You'd expect them to be, well, in between.

I'd also like to see the data going back to about the late 40s, since that's really when Americans started getting really invested in technological advancement.

[Scheavo]

Without looking at the article (at work, will check it later), I can say that is one hell of a broad generalization. Plus it's from MSNBC.

You can speak about the whole, without talking specifically about any individual part.

And says it's an overview of society, in general, or at least supposed to be, then it's of course supposed to be a "broad generalization." It's not a fallacy though, becuase the logic for the statement is not fallacious, it's scientific.

[snapple]

You just have to wonder about its accuracy. You'd have to see the questions that were asked and such.

[hefdaddy42]

Not sure why anyone is confused that moderates are somewhat low.  The terms "conservative" "liberal" and "moderate" have to do with political view, and have nothing to do with their scientific intellect or knowledge base.  Some people could classify themselves as politically moderate and still be dumb as shit.

[snapple]

I still wonder how certain questions were phrased. Because I don't buy into the Big Bang, evolution (at least as far as "where we came from") or gravity. Doesn't mean I write off science completely. I understand water freezes and melts.

[Adami]

I still wonder how certain questions were phrased. Because I don't buy into the Big Bang, evolution (at least as far as "where we came from") or gravity. Doesn't mean I write off science completely. I understand water freezes and melts.

Then you'd fall under the whole "People don't trust science" or whatever title.

[snapple]

So, I don't believe in two theories, so I get lumped into "don't trust science"? I call bullshit. Science is more than two theories.

[Omega]

What do you believe in?

[Adami]

So, I don't believe in two theories, so I get lumped into "don't trust science"? I call bullshit. Science is more than two theories.

The classic definition of Science is Evolution, Big bang and Gravity. Everything falls under Science Fiction.

[snapple]

So, I don't believe in two theories, so I get lumped into "don't trust science"? I call bullshit. Science is more than two theories.

The classic definition of Science is Evolution, Big bang and Gravity. Everything falls under Science Fiction.

I believe in the concept of natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), but I don't believe that as to where we came from. I didn't realize chemistry and physics were "fiction".

[Adami]

Chemistry and physics don't exist.



Also, "survival of the fittest" is a terrible way to describe it. As is natural selection. There is no force selecting anyone, and it doesn't matter how "fit" you are. It should be Survival of the most Adaptable.

[snapple]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

I'm done, now. Didn't realize I couldn't use the correct terminology.

[Adami]

It is the correct term. But it also is misleading and causes people to misunderstand what it really is. I've met lots of people who thought it meant that the strongest people survive.

[snapple]

It is the correct term. But it also is misleading and causes people to misunderstand what it really is. I've met lots of people who thought it meant that the strongest people survive.

Which is exactly what we were discussing. Wait, it wasn't. Which is proving to me that this is a waste of my time to discuss. I realize that I got all "uppity" over the semantics of the study. I've taken biology classes. I understand what the concept is. Shit, I even said I like the idea. I don't necessarily equate the word "fittest" to "strongest" or "most physically fit". And, it really pains me that I can't give an alternative definition to "fittest" or "fit" that doesn't relate to one's physical quality. I blame the beer.

But, what I can do is much better. While there are others on here that post things I flat out disagree with, I can honestly say what you're posting is so far beyond absurd it's actually humorous. First of all - how doesn't "chemistry" exist? Are you, again, arguing semantics? Last I checked, there were ways to create compounds, cause exothermic and endothermic reactions and so on. Same applies to physics. I absolutely refuse to waste my time arguing with someone who argues semantics over something like this. Especially on a message board. It doesn't add to the quality of discussion.

[Adami]

Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.


I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.

[snapple]

Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.


I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.

Given your posts, it's near impossible to tell (for me). It didn't even come off as Devil's advocate. I apologize for my tone. It just seemed like "is this guy really this much of an asshole?"

edit: and the science thing you were joking about did to me make a bit of sense. I mean, in the way that science is most likely meant in the study, but isn't presented as such. which is why I gave your posts any validity.

[Adami]

Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.


I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.

Given your posts, it's near impossible to tell (for me). It didn't even come off as Devil's advocate. I apologize for my tone. It just seemed like "is this guy really this much of an asshole?"

That's my sense of humor. Sorry. I'll make sure not to joke around with you, no worries.

[snapple]

Sorry this got so drawn out. I made the mistake of making half of my post a joke, and half serious.


I was kidding about the definition of science. In fact the only thing I said that was serious was the evolution bit. The rest was all me kidding around.

Given your posts, it's near impossible to tell (for me). It didn't even come off as Devil's advocate. I apologize for my tone. It just seemed like "is this guy really this much of an asshole?"

That's my sense of humor. Sorry. I'll make sure not to joke around with you, no worries.

I just wonder if this was the appropriate place/time to do that? Remember, this is the Internet and it isn't always easy to tell.

[antigoon]

lol, he was clearly joking.

And, didn't you let this little nugget dominate like a whole page of discussion, what, a day or two ago?

Military might is a Cold War measurement. All the Patriot missiles didn't help against 9/11.

rumborak

The little guys can't really militarily beat us. The big guys have to face the nukes.

What is China going to do? Ask us to pay them back?


We run this town.

[snapple]

lol, he was clearly joking.

I blame the beer.

I also do not know Adami very well.

[rumborak]

Snapple,

as a personal book recommendation, I suggest "Your inner fish". Phenomenal book.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

Here's a good way to measure whether or not you "trust science":

Q: Do you think the scientific method is the most reliable tool for investigating the natural world/universe?

I'd argue if you don't "buy" into evolution you would reject that claim, as you prefer a faith-based (most of the time, anyways) alternative to the central theory of a major scientific discipline.

[unklejman]

I trust science. However, I don't trust people.

[7StringedBeast]

I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could post an opinion on THE INTERNET from A COMPUTER and not have any trust in science.