Conservatives Have "Slipped" Away From Science (Gordon Gauchat, Stephanie Pappas)

By RightKlik


Scientific insight or more junk science? Via Hot Air, Stephanie Pappas discusses a new report from Dr. Gordon Gauchat:
Politically conservative Americans have lost trust in science over the last 40 years while moderates and liberals have remained constant in the stock they put in the scientific community, a new study finds.

The most educated conservatives have slipped the most, according to the research set to appear in the April issue of the journal American Sociological Review.

...At the beginning of the survey, in the 1970s, conservatives trusted science more than anyone, with about 48 percent evincing a great deal of trust. By 2010, the last year survey data was available, only 35 percent of conservatives said the same.
Concern for bias in Stephanie's article starts with the title, "Conservatives Losing Trust in Science." This is considerably less neutral than the title of Gauchat's article, "Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere..."


Gordon Gauchat calls his objectivity into question by agitating for Barack Obama starting with the first sentence of his article:

In the first months of his presidency, Barack Obama addressed the National Academy of Sciences to speak about U.S. science policy and a renewed commitment to fund scientific research. In this speech he charged: “We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas” (White House 2010). The previous administration under George W. Bush was widely seen as unfriendly toward the scientific community. As a consequence, many scientific organizations and advocacy groups became concerned that political and ideological interests were threatening the cultural authority of science.
Gauchat then draws sloppy connections between conservative distrust for the scientific community and the policies of recent Republican administrations while labeling skepticism about the integrity of the scientific community and debate about the proper role of government in funding science as "anti-science." Moreover, as commenters at Hot Air are quick to note, Gauchat conflates distrust for the "scientific community" with distrust for "science."

I think Gauchat greatly overstates his case in light of the fact that his data indicate that trust for the scientific community has been quite low among liberals and moderates as well (below 50% on average).




Updated: Lot more at Memeorandum.

9 comments:

  1. Science, in its truest form, only proves the existence of God.

    Science also takes a great amount of faith and trust.

    Besides, if God was so anti-science, why did He make human beings so incredibly complex and flawless in how our bodies function? Respiratory, cardio-vascular, digestive, reproductive, blood cells, pulmonary, etc. We are indeed the jewel of His Creation.

    Science isn't anti-God at all. Science is basically another form of theology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science is not mysticism, theology is...

      Delete
    2. RNUSA,

      I figured you would disagree. However, looking at the very word 'atheism', it still has 'theism' in it, denoting a religious meaning and attribute. So why is it so difficult to accept science as just another form of theology when it is obvious God has blessed us all with science to be discovered in the first place?

      Science is not anti-God. God is not anti-science. It is merely a matter of God showing us His creative and factual side by giving science to His creation to play with.

      Delete
    3. Faith is a belief in something not proven. Belief in something which can not be scientifically proven is solely faith based, or a belief in mysticism or a mystical power.

      Certainly throughout history humans, in their desire to believe in life after death, have believed in a hereafter and some form of a higher power. Understandable, yet questionable.

      If your premise (last sentence)is correct it might explains why there has been so much death and destruction throughout human history in the name of a higher power, What ever name such higher power is given.

      It has always intrigued me why there are so many religions and even so many differing beliefs within the same religion. Perhaps this is the method in which theology evolves? The theology of all faiths perhaps?

      As to atheism having theism in it... well I guess that's because as in atypical meaning "not typical" or not representative of something so to atheism means "not theism" or not representative of theism.

      Delete
    4. It is wonderful that each can have his or her own beliefs. After all that is as it should be. In so long as ones beliefs do not infringe on anyone else as they have the same right to believe as they chose.

      Delete
    5. One Guy's convoluted logic demonstrates the difficulty of engaging fundamentalists on a wide range of issues including politics, science, and religion. Fundamentalists tend to throw objectivity out the window because they interpret everything through the prism of Scripture. For those who use empirical data to interpret the world around us instead of the Koran (or the Bible as the case may be), it's a fruitless endeavor to engage a fundamentalist in conversation. It's like talking to a child throwing a tantrum. Or like talking to a wall. (Perhaps the wall of separation between church and state). In either case, postings like these hopefully demonstrate to the uncommitted the factual and rational weaknesses of fundamentalism.

      Delete
    6. One Guy's convoluted logic demonstrates the difficulty of engaging fundamentalists on a wide range of issues including politics, science, and religion. Fundamentalists tend to throw objectivity out the window because they interpret everything through the prism of Scripture. For those who use empirical data to interpret the world around us instead of the Koran (or the Bible as the case may be), it's a fruitless endeavor to engage a fundamentalist in conversation. It's like talking to a child throwing a tantrum. Or like talking to a wall. (Perhaps the wall of separation between church and state). In either case, postings like these hopefully demonstrate to the uncommitted the factual and rational weaknesses of fundamentalism.

      Delete
  2. It isn't science that's the problem here, it's the politics behind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the irrationality of fundamentalism perhaps?

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.