Liberals and Conservatives Both Resist Science, But Differently

[HuckleB]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/liberals-and-conservatives-both-resist-science-but-differently/#more-7638

There have been a number of studies looking at how ideological belief influence attitudes toward science. It is no surprise that in general people, of whatever ideological bent, engage in motivated reasoning to deny science that appears to contradict their religious or political beliefs. There are different views, however, regarding whether or not the two main political ideologies in the US, liberal and conservative, are equal or substantially different in their resistance to science.

A series of articles in a special section of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science explore this question. In a commentary summarizing the findings, Kraft et al write:

The studies presented in the preceding section of the volume consistently find evidence for hyperskepticism toward scientific evidence among ideologues, no matter the domain or context—and this skepticism seems to be stronger among conservatives than liberals. Here, we show that these patterns can be understood as part of a general tendency among individuals to defend their prior attitudes and actively challenge attitudinally incongruent arguments, a tendency that appears to be evident among liberals and conservatives alike.

As is often the case when there are two schools of thought, both are partly right. In this case it appears that the tendency to defend one’s position, resist incongruent evidence, and engage in motivated reasoning is a universal trait among humans. However, the research does consistently show that the magnitude of this effect is greater for conservatives than liberals. No one doubts that this asymmetry is consistently seen in research, but there remains a difference in interpretation.

..."



Basically, the evidence is that we should always question ourselves more than others, or at least before we question others. Or that's my take on it.

[HuckleB]

1. It scares me that there has been no feedback on this one.

I would have expected more thought from DU.

[el_bryanto]

2. I think the factor is how ideologically driven someone is -

Right or Left. But Leftists tend to respect science more and tend to respect data more, at least by my observation.

Bryant

[HuckleB]

4. I used to agree about leftists and science, but not so much any more.

That's why I find the results of such studies rather interesting.

[Marr]

3. I do think this is a human tendency in general. However--

liberals tend to resist scientific findings when they consider them tainted by the agenda of moneyed interests. Conservatives resist science almost as a matter of dogma. That is, they resist science in general. They seem to regard rational thought itself as suspect.

Most of the time, when I hear a liberal denying some scientific finding, I disagree with them-- but I do understand their reasoning.

[HuckleB]

6. In my experience, anti-science reasoning uses different languages.

Still, in the end, there's not much difference.

This is what scares me as a human.

[Marr]

8. I think there's an enormous difference in how often you find it on the two sides.

I've heard liberals deny scientific findings on issue like vaping, vaccinations... things like that. But that crowd is almost always a very small portion of liberals. Their positions on these issues are not mainstream, as most of their fellow liberals are willing to consider an alternative viewpoint if backed up with data-- or at the very least, trust the opinions of experts in the relevant fields.

Conservative politics is dominated with issues of science-denial, based on literally nothing but personal bias. Climate change, evolution, you name it. Conservative politicians must take the anti-science position on a whole range of issues to be electorally viable. I don't think that's true for a single issue on the liberal side.

[HuckleB]

9. Data matters.

Anecdotes, not so much.

[Marr]

10. It sounds to me like you want to say something without actually saying it.

Are you trying to say the 'far left' is as out of touch as the far right?

[HuckleB]

12. Did you read the OP at all?

[Marr]

37. Why are you being so combative?

Yes, I read the OP, and your comment about hoping for some discussion on the topic. I attempted to provide some. You seem to be upset because I'm not echoing some opinion you hold, which you are unwilling to state.

The article you cited says that liberals and conservatives are not the same on this topic. Did you actually read the article, or just the headline?

[HuckleB]

39. You could use a mirror.

[edhopper]

25. You want data

Show me the times Democrats try to pass anti-science bills compared to Republicans.

Do you think it is equal?

[HuckleB]

27. So you want to cherry pick your data.

That says a great deal.

[edhopper]

29. You have only presented this one article

Which clearly states the two groups are not equal.
Then say it's wrong, with zero data to back you up.

Whatever game you wanted to play, it's a poor one.

I see no point to continue with your ridiculous thread.

Buh-bye

[HuckleB]

33. So you never bothered to read the full article with it's links.

Got it.

Honesty is the point of the article. Why are you being so dishonest?

[former9thward]

42. A large majority of liberals deny the science behind GMOs.

At least so it seems on DU. Any GMO thread is filled with CTs and a refusal to look at the science.

[Marr]

44. That may be true.

I'm not aware of the polling there, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.

That sort of thing seems like a theme that runs through the science denial you find on the left. It's usually some brand of 'the industry is lying about the safety of X because they sell X'.

I do think it's reasonable to be skeptical about industry-funded research that says a product is safe, but yeah-- it is often carried past the point of what I'd consider rational.

[stevenleser]

5. I am bookmarking to read later, but I suspect there is false equivalency here.

More later.

[HuckleB]

7. It's good to challenge one's suspicions.

[Sheepshank]

11. "....this skepticism seems to be stronger among conservatives than liberals."

while both show signs of skepticism, it would appear that Republicans are quantifiably the biggest loser in this study. That validates what I had always assumed anyway.

[HuckleB]

13. And how is it that a be all, end all for you?

Have you noticed how much science denial occurs at DU?

They're not as bad is not good enough.

[Sheepshank]

14. My quote comes from your own OP

In EVERY sampling of population there will be a wide range of participants. I am not sure what your problem is with acknowleding that even amongst Dems there are those that are a little off or march to the beat of their own drummer.

What is the purpose of the second paragraph in your response...are you insinuating that Liberals are just as badly off as the Conservatives and therefore we need to impletement some sort of reeducation camp? What would make it "good enough" for you?

[HuckleB]

15. So, you think cherry picking words is legitimate?

Umm. Really?

That's kind of the opposite of the point of the OP.

[Sheepshank]

17. isn't that exactly what your are doing?

Why the fuck are you trying to pick a fight over this?

Good god, move on already.

[HuckleB]

19. So, challenging yourself is really hard for you to do.

I get it.

How did you not get the point of the OP?

[Sheepshank]

23. so pony up and tell me the purpose of your continued diatribe

you said something isn't good enough? so either continue to ignore my request for you to clarify what you think is not good enough and what should be done aoubt it. Otherwise, I'm done with the idiocy here, (the attempt to constantly bump the most stupid post on the front page and the attempt to raise post counts).

[HuckleB]

24. The OP spells it out quite clearly.

Sheesh.

[edhopper]

18. I agree

The OP article shows science denial is much more evident with conservatives, and to a much higher degree. Also the science they deny is more significant.

It singles out tracking for liberals, I know of no studies that say frcking is as safe as the Industry says.
The RW denies evolution and GCC.

I don't know why the OP, doesn't admit what the data shows.

[HuckleB]

20. Well, the author of the piece is very liberal and science minded.

I suspect that that confirmation bias has a hold on you.

[edhopper]

22. Wait

You post this article to make a point. And then says it's biased and inaccurate?

If you want to clearly state why you posted it, and the point you are trying to make, I'll listen.
If not, I see no reason to reply.

[HuckleB]

26. You seem to be trying to not make sense.

What do you fail to understand about the study in the OP? Or did you simply fail to read everything, as is so often the case?

[edhopper]

28. I read it

It clearly says conservative deny science much more than liberals.

You keep implying equivalency.

My previous post was clear.

And it appears you just want to nay-say everyone.

Bye.

[Fumesucker]

16. Does this mean you question yourself more than others?

I haven't noticed that tendency yet, perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention.

[HuckleB]

21. I haven't noted that tendency with you, at all.

Ever. Confirmation bias is the thing that pops into my mind when I see your moniker.

Thus, I could care less about your anecdotal impression.

Science matters. When your posts show that, I might care.

Bye.

[Fumesucker]

31. You were the one who brought up questioning oneself and when I ask you about it you attack me.

You attack me rather than answering a reasonable question.

Why is that?

For someone who is trying to convince others of the correctness of your position you come across as remarkably hostile any time anyone asks you a question.

[HuckleB]

40. Oh brother.

Thanks for reminding me why I never bother reading your OPs.

[Fumesucker]

43. Which of us is having more influence here?

If that's what you care about, influencing people toward your point of view then you are doing it wrong.

There's an organization called Toastmasters that's dedicated to teaching public speaking, you can get up and make a presentation and get critiqued from other members who get up and make their own presentation. You end up with a perfect audience of people who are interested in communication but likely don't know what you know, they will listen to you and tell you what is wrong with your presentation.

http://www.toastmasters.org

You may know science but you don't know people, I'm not that great at in that it doesn't come naturally to me but I was married to a natural people person for a long time and I've watched it done tens of thousands of times. It's like trying to play basketball if you have poor hand eye coordination, you understand how to play and with enough practice you can play but you'll never be great at it.

If you can learn how to respond to people without insulting them you'll do a lot better, you probably thought that remark about my OPs was cutting, I couldn't decide if it was funny or sad. You are the one who showed the closed mind.

"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him." -Galileo Galilei

You insult me, I try to help you.. See how it works?

[peacebird]

30. Who funded the science used in each area of this study? The article says libs rejected science on

Fracking and nuclear power. Who funded the science behind the studies presented for those?

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Liberal skepticism isn't irrational.

Just about any issue in which there is any debate, fracking, global warming, GMO's, liberal skeptics are reacting to a strongly entrenched profit interest.

There's good reason to be skeptical of Monsanto - even if not all the suspicions are founded.

[MicaelS]

34. That is a bias right there.

liberal skeptics are reacting to a strongly entrenched profit interest.

If you are automatically reacting because someone is making a great deal of money, then that is irrational, IMO.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Is experience derived from decades of observation irrational? YMMV

I don't trust Monsanto. In each instance in which their profit interests conflict with public interest, my bias experience is that they'll generally choose the former.

Past performance suggests that odds are good that I'm right.

The opposite of discriminate is indiscriminate.

[HuckleB]

41. Exactly.

Too many liberals fail to look at the whole picture, and they do everyone a disservice by doing so, as they end up responding to a world that is not real.

[GreatGazoo]

35. Good science and general faith in it results from discussions. Real discussions.

Science itself is a kind of discussion between mankind and the Universe -- questions and theories get tested to produce answers. Data gets aggregated and queried to become multi-variate analysis. Research is peer-reviewed and that is yet another discussion.

I think the blogger presents "science" as a monolith of agreement and of hard facts when it is closer, at its edges if not the center as well, to clusters of theories which explain various phenomena. The word "theory" seems increasingly to be left out by those who present science as a monolith. If science cannot stand up to discussion by those who make the distinction between theory and law then it is perhaps closer to religion than it is to real science.

Also of note is the use of the umbrella term science when most of the discussion and subject matter is in the sub-set of biology. Of all the sciences biology is perhaps the most complex and elusive. At the hard facts and laws end of the range I would put a science like Mathematics or Physics. At the complete other end of the range, the end where things are often just too complex to be reduced to equations and pure numbers, I would put biology. Using the term "science" to mean "biology," or the complimentary "ecology," sets expectations of certainty that Physics can meet but biology seldom does.

[hunter]

36. I'll always be a raw scientist first.

The odds are very good today we'll be nothing more then an unremarked layer off trash in this earth's geologic record 10.000 years from now.