Conservative trust of science in steady decline

[Super Dude]

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.

Please, we all know that computer wizards hold these babies together with cyber magic.

[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.

Please, we all know that computer wizards hold these babies together with cyber magic.

Your logic... I got nothing to beat this.

[Super Dude]

 

[Scheavo]

I think it's fair to keep some skepticism regarding certain claims made by science, without knowing and seeing for yourself how and why it's "true". I don't think it's quite fair to compare global warming theory to electronic and computer theory, as there's no direct experience of something which uses global warming theory to prove to you that theory is fully adequate. Any theory which creates a tool has much more credibility and power.

[7StringedBeast]

I agree.  Blind faith in anything is silly.  I think being skeptical of science is what makes science, science.  (This sounds so Bill Nye).  Science is supposed to be scrutinized.

[Super Dude]

What about climatology? It's not like there's some entirely new field that's meant to validate climate change, it's a conclusion arrived at through an already fairly reliable field: climatology.

[tofee35]

I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.

[ddtonfire]

THIS JUST IN:

DTF trust of Gallup polls in steady decline

[Super Dude]

I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.

It's a fairly sizable sample actually. I used to know all the science that went into political field research and surveys and whatnot, so I used to be able to tell you how Gallup was legit. Sorry.

[theseoafs]

I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.

Actually, it's because the samples are random that you're able to draw conclusions from the sample. If the people were selected by hand, you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions from the data whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29

I agree that the question about "trusting science" is worded poorly. Obviously the scientific method isn't what's at debate here. "Science" is almost certainly a euphemism for evolution.

[Scheavo]

I'm going to sound totally ignorant here, but where do the polls come from that determine these trends? I understand that Gallup is an organization that holds these polls. But, who fills them out? How does this graph represent anything substantial considering the polls are totally random. I don't think I've ever participated. I don't know anybody that has ever mentioned it. I'm sorry to derail the thread a bit, but I'm trying to understand why they're so trusted.

Actually, it's because the samples are random that you're able to draw conclusions from the sample. If the people were selected by hand, you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions from the data whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29

I agree that the question about "trusting science" is worded poorly. Obviously the scientific method isn't what's at debate here. "Science" is almost certainly a euphemism for evolution.

Which is problematic, considering "evolution" is perhaps one of the most powerful and studied theories in history. We also have direct observations of evolution, including macro-evolution, occurring.

[rumborak]

Yeah, I think climate change and evolution are the biggest cause for conservative's opposition to science. Which to me mostly shows the power of propaganda tbh. The perception has been successfully planted in many conservatives that their lifestyle is under active attack, and that science has become a tool of that attack. From there, it's not a big step to distrust the tool itself.

rumborak

[theseoafs]

It's a real bummer that because conservatives are threatened by evolution, they attack science as a whole. This whole "teach the controversy" thing is really weakening our science curricula, and American children weren't doing particularly well on the science front anyway.

I was thinking about this today: why do many conservatives systematically deny climate change? Is there even a reason?

[rumborak]

I think the reason is fairly, obvious, isn't it? The only reasonable counter-action to climate change is a concerted, country-wide effort, with fairly strong constraints on businesses regarding emissions. It's a plain political decision to oppose that, because that kind of approach is "Democrat" territory.
You can bet that if climate change was best countered by lowering taxes, the GOP would embrace any scientific paper regarding climate change.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

I think the reason is fairly, obvious, isn't it? The only reasonable counter-action to climate change is a concerted, country-wide effort, with fairly strong constraints on businesses regarding emissions. It's a plain political decision to oppose that, because that kind of approach is "Democrat" territory.
You can bet that if climate change was best countered by lowering taxes, the GOP would embrace any scientific paper regarding climate change.

rumborak

[theseoafs]

That's what I figured, but that seemed to me to be too vain of an issue to destroy the earth over.

[Super Dude]

Yeah you'd think it would be, right? It really disappoints me how people can just turn a blind eye to it and say, "But the economy!"

There won't be an economy to make excuses over if we allow BAU (business as usual).

[7StringedBeast]

I don't believe that climate change is caused by man.  I don't think anything we've seen in our lifetimes has shown us climate change that has been directly affected by man.  The Earth changes, and I don't think what humans have done is as large as some people say.

[GuineaPig]

I don't believe that climate change is caused by man.  I don't think anything we've seen in our lifetimes has shown us climate change that has been directly affected by man.  The Earth changes, and I don't think what humans have done is as large as some people say.

If you want, I can provide plenty of reasons why you're mistaken in the Official Climate Change thread.

[Super Dude]

I don't believe that climate change is caused by man.  I don't think anything we've seen in our lifetimes has shown us climate change that has been directly affected by man.  The Earth changes, and I don't think what humans have done is as large as some people say.

If you want, I can provide plenty of reasons why you're mistaken in the Official Climate Change thread.

And I can provide plenty more outside of the thread as well, including one that was even acknowledged by ExxonMobil and BP.

[kirksnosehair]

What anyone "believes" is, frankly, irrelevant with respect to the facts.  If one takes an honest and objective look at the actual facts that have been compiled on the science of climatology, it is practically impossible not to conclude that human activity -especially the burning of fossil fuels- is having an impact on the earth's climate.  That is an unmitigated fact that is pretty much on par with other similar unmitigated facts such as water being wet.

What is still difficult to determine and requiring further study, however, is the degree to which human activity is impacting the climate.  There is certainly room for some debate there. 

[7StringedBeast]

Right.  Humans have done things like put a hole in the ozone layer and whatnot.  But how much of the change is directly caused by humans is not proven fact.  It is not a fact that we are causing the next ice age and according to facts they used to throw around, NYC should be under water within 5 years because of the ice caps melting.

[theseoafs]

The fact that statisticians were wrong about NY being underwater doesn't have anything to do with whether we're causing climate change whatsoever. That's a statistical error.

[7StringedBeast]

All I know, is that the Earth's climate is in constant change.  I'd be more scared if it stopped changing I think.  I'm not saying I'm against cleaning up the air.  I'm all for it.  But I still think claims of global warming caused by humans is exaggerated.  I'm actually not interested in debating this topic though, so I'm just going to end here.

[theseoafs]

Alright. Just pointing out that "I heard NYC was going to be underwater by now, and it's not, so humans must not be having an impact on the climate" is not a valid argument.

[Super Dude]

Derp, nvm.

[tofee35]

Anyway

I have mostly Conservative ideals and I trust Science based on my limited knowledge of it. I don't trust the people that exploit the politics of it, though. People in general don't care to research reliable sources on scientific theories. They rely on what they read in headlines or see on the news. Based on that, you have yoyos exploiting what they see but don't actually know. Which is why I'll reserve my ignorance and do some hard research myself.

[Super Dude]

Anyway

I have mostly Conservative ideals and I trust Science based on my limited knowledge of it. I don't trust the people that exploit the politics of it, though. People in general don't care to research reliable sources on scientific theories. They rely on what they read in headlines or see on the news. Based on that, you have yoyos exploiting what they see but don't actually know. Which is why I'll reserve my ignorance and do some hard research myself.

Ah, love that terminology, man. I'm a witt myself, as is probably obvious by now.

[tofee35]

Anyway

I have mostly Conservative ideals and I trust Science based on my limited knowledge of it. I don't trust the people that exploit the politics of it, though. People in general don't care to research reliable sources on scientific theories. They rely on what they read in headlines or see on the news. Based on that, you have yoyos exploiting what they see but don't actually know. Which is why I'll reserve my ignorance and do some hard research myself.

Ah, love that terminology, man. I'm a witt myself, as is probably obvious by now.

Oh and I want to be clear that I don't mean anybody on this forum is exploiting anything they don't know. From what i see, you're all really well informed. It's like some of you have a PhD in general knowledge. I feel like I'd have to learn the encyclopedia to dispute any arguments on this side of the forum.

[Super Dude]

Oh, I was purely referring to the fact you used YOYO to refer to people of more conservative lean. Didn't mean to implicate you of anything.

[7StringedBeast]

Oh, I was purely referring to the fact you used YOYO to refer to people of more conservative lean. Didn't mean to implicate you of anything.

To be fair, he used yoyo in context of anyone who just reads headlines that support their bias.  Not just conservative leaning people or just liberal people.

[Super Dude]

Yep, whoops, sorry 'bout that.

[tofee35]

Sorry Super Dude, I didn't even mean to quote your post. I was just clearing up mine a bit.

[Super Dude]

No worries.