ignorantianescia
Doctor of Theology
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/ZY7Pk.png "[avatar]")
Joined: Jul 2010
Gender: Male 
Posts: 500
Karma: 8 |  | Trust and distrust in science over 36 years, US
« Thread Started on Apr 14, 2012, 10:23am » | |
Quote:| This study explores time trends in public trust in science in the United States from 1974 to 2010. More precisely, I test Mooney’s (2005) claim that conservatives in the United States have become increasingly distrustful of science. Using data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social Survey, I examine group differences in trust in science and group-specific change in these attitudes over time. Results show that group differences in trust in science are largely stable over the period, except for respondents identifying as conservative. Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest. The patterns for science are also unique when compared to public trust in other secular institutions. Results show enduring differences in trust in science by social class, ethnicity, gender, church attendance, and region. I explore the implications of these findings, specifically, the potential for political divisions to emerge over the cultural authority of science and the social role of experts in the formation of public policy. |
|
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/03/28/document_cw_01.pdf
A commenter on World Magazine, a physicist, thinks it has to do with ideological bunk science:
Quote:As a member of the scientific community, and a conservative Christian, perhaps I can add some insight into why churchgoers might be much less trustful of “science” than decades ago. I have all the qualifications usually claimed as proof of credibility: a Ph.D. (in physics), a consistent record of government-funded research for more than a decade, and an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.
Yet my scientific credentials have been called into question several times. Why? Because, according to the paper, “conservatives are far more likely to doubt scientific theories of origins,” and, “In 2010, only a third of conservatives believed that global warming is occurring.” To be skeptical of these things is, according to the paper, “anti-science.”
In the 1970s, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman became publicly critical of so-called “social sciences.” He called them pseudo-science, bereft of basic honesty and experimental controls, yet having researchers who ostensibly go through the motions of scientific rituals, even wearing lab coats, but without actually doing science. |
|
http://online.worldmag.com/2012/04/03/the-virtue-of-questioning-science/
Not sure whether quoting Feynman is doing much good here though, even though there are some ideas falsely pretending to be science.
|
Non cultri, sed cultores homines interficiunt. |
|
euglena
Clerk
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
Karma: 1 | | Re: Trust and distrust in science over 36 years, U
« Reply #1 on Apr 28, 2012, 12:46pm » | |
I think this is the driving explanation:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and....b_politics.html
A few years back, I found a survey (don't have it now) that showed the political affiliations of scientists were roughly the same in the 1960s. Today, most scientists align themselves with the Democratic Party and consider themselves liberal.
So, if the scientific community is not a representative sample of the general population when it comes to non-scientific views, then distrust is in the cards.
As Sarewitz notes:
Quote:| Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? |
|
And with both atheist and religious fundamentalists pushing the science = atheism theme, it can only get worse.
| |
|
himself
Regent Master
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 365
Karma: 19 | | Re: Trust and distrust in science over 36 years, U
« Reply #2 on May 3, 2012, 12:45am » | |
Might could be that when Bacon et al redefined science to be oriented toward the goal of achieving practical results, goal-oriented science has always run the risk of the goal eating up the science. And people who object to the goal can then be condemned as objecting to science as such. Remember those who objected to eugenics back when that was the "science"? Or more recently the disparagement of those who objected rather vehemently to the proposal for post-birth abortions? Consider how the clear goals of the researchers in the following have subordinated the scientific method to achieve those goals:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5556
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5533
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5581
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5509
As ignorantianescia quoted, social science is not really science; but they do wear white lab coats to announce their socio-political "findings."
| |
|
ignorantianescia
Doctor of Theology
member is offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 500
Karma: 8 | | Re: Trust and distrust in science over 36 years, U
« Reply #3 on May 3, 2012, 7:13am » | |
May 3, 2012, 12:45am, himself wrote:| As ignorantianescia quoted, social science is not really science; but they do wear white lab coats to announce their socio-political "findings." |
|
Just to be clear I do disagree with that quote from the article though, I think sociology, anthropology, psychology and economics to name a few are valid fields of academic study (even if there are some Marxist and feminist subfields that look like pure ideology to me). Whether those disciplines are "science" is a semantic minefield I don't like to enter, but it does seem like Wissenschaft to me.
|
Non cultri, sed cultores homines interficiunt. |
|
endrefodstad
Clerk
member is offline
Sumer ys Icumen in!
Joined: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Karma: 3 | | Re: Trust and distrust in science over 36 years, U
« Reply #4 on May 3, 2012, 1:59pm » | |
May 3, 2012, 7:13am, ignorantianescia wrote:| (even if there are some Marxist and feminist subfields that look like pure ideology to me) |
|
Not to mention conservative wishful-history subfields: there is a growing corpus of Reagan-hagiographies, where his policies get credit for "outcompeting the Soviets into bankrupcy" even if the groundwork for that hypothesis is shaky as hell.
| |
|
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged