What is it with conservatism and science?

[You-Gi-Owe]

This is a superb example though. Here we have someone of conservative political bent, who upon seeing data that conflicts with what he "knows" to be true, rejects it. There's no logical reason to reject the polling data. The methodology is sound and well accepted and has been for years. He simply refuses to believe it.

Why I'm not sure. Admitting mistake isn't easy of course, but this goes beyond that I'd wager.

I haven't seen the particulars of the poll. However, you can easily get a skewed poll by localizing the search area. Also, the likelyhood of persons to take the time to answer a series of poll questions dependent on what time phone calls were made.

There's likely some validity to the poll, but it would also likely have a greater margin of error.

[UNIverseVERSE]

When it's been shown in multiple polls that the people who accept evolution in the minority, you should.

Polls aren't above manipulation. There is a science to opinion polls. Opinions aren't necessarily facts.

Methinks you misunderstand the 'opinion' in opinion polls. It isn't that the poll is an opinion, it's that the poll is designed to gather facts about opinions. When well constructed, and carried out properly, they give an excellent suggestion about the overall opinion of the population.

So far, nobody has shown any evidence to suggest this is not the case with the aforementioned polls.

[Khadgar]

This is a superb example though. Here we have someone of conservative political bent, who upon seeing data that conflicts with what he "knows" to be true, rejects it. There's no logical reason to reject the polling data. The methodology is sound and well accepted and has been for years. He simply refuses to believe it.

Why I'm not sure. Admitting mistake isn't easy of course, but this goes beyond that I'd wager.

I haven't seen the particulars of the poll. However, you can easily get a skewed poll by localizing the search area. Also, the likelyhood of persons to take the time to answer a series of poll questions dependent on what time phone calls were made.

There's likely some validity to the poll, but it would also likely have a greater margin of error.

You could yes, that's why you do multiple polls to see if there's an outlier and compensate for it in the statistics. In this case, there's been several polls (some of them linked here), and they all very much agree. The US as a whole, believes more in Satan than Evolution.

[Grays Harbor]

Often I will turn on the news or poke around youtube, and I end up seeing another conservative saying things like, "Global warming is a hoax"*, or "We should teach creationism along with evolution". Not to mention that back then there were those denied cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Now, I'm not saying all conservatives are all science denying nutjobs. Neither am I saying that the left doesn't have its wackos (see some conspiracy theorists and Code Pink). I'm just curious why does it seem like conservatism seems to generate more people who oppose mainstream science?

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Because conservatism is about conserving traditions and because science and logic contradict these traditions. So therefore when conservatives hear about intelligent things contradicting their bullshit, they simply deny it. Christianity is an established American tradition and they want to conserve it. Evolution goes against Christianity which is a tradition so therefore they oppose it. Global warming goes against the American tradition of unregulated Capitalism because it can cause people to call for government sanctions on companies. So they just deny it. And back in the day when cigarettes were an American pastime, people didn't want to let go of that so they denied it.

spoken like someone who has no clue what being conservative is about. Lets just say the right-wing extreme ninnies who get themselves on TV by yelling and denying are not really representative of conservatives any more than the more extreme looniness of some more radical left are of honest liberals.

[Free Soviets]

This is a superb example though. Here we have someone of conservative political bent, who upon seeing data that conflicts with what he "knows" to be true, rejects it. There's no logical reason to reject the polling data. The methodology is sound and well accepted and has been for years. He simply refuses to believe it.

Why I'm not sure. Admitting mistake isn't easy of course, but this goes beyond that I'd wager.

just hazarding a guess here, but i think it sounds plausible. science and conservatism have an uneasy relationship just on the basis of epistemic principles alone - science inherently denies the traditionalism and use of authority as a legitimate source of knowledge which the conservative mind holds in high regard. this makes it suspect to begin with. but even worse, science keeps on finding stuff that is in direct contradiction with those traditional and authoritative beliefs, and instead seems to overwhelmingly side with the positions held by conservatism's enemies; secularists, dirty fucking hippies, racial egalitarians, etc. mix in a healthy dose of the paranoid style in american politics, and science™ becomes an excellent anti-conservative conspiratorial boogieman, and thus can be easily written off as just propaganda.

[Ifreann]

This is a superb example though. Here we have someone of conservative political bent, who upon seeing data that conflicts with what he "knows" to be true, rejects it. There's no logical reason to reject the polling data. The methodology is sound and well accepted and has been for years. He simply refuses to believe it.

Why I'm not sure. Admitting mistake isn't easy of course, but this goes beyond that I'd wager.

I haven't seen the particulars of the poll. However, you can easily get a skewed poll by localizing the search area. Also, the likelyhood of persons to take the time to answer a series of poll questions dependent on what time phone calls were made.

There's likely some validity to the poll, but it would also likely have a greater margin of error.

Yes, if you go about it the right way you can fake polls to say whatever you want. But if a company like Gallup starts pulling that kind of shit they'll be out of business in no time.

[Kormanthor]

Often I will turn on the news or poke around youtube, and I end up seeing another conservative saying things like, "Global warming is a hoax"*, or "We should teach creationism along with evolution". Not to mention that back then there were those denied cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Now, I'm not saying all conservatives are all science denying nutjobs. Neither am I saying that the left doesn't have its wackos (see some conspiracy theorists and Code Pink). I'm just curious why does it seem like conservatism seems to generate more people who oppose mainstream science?

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Maybe its because even all the scientist don't agree with each other.

[Blouman Empire]

American conservatives, and they do not deserve that name in the slightest, despise not necessarily science, but education. There's a correlation between education and political leanings. The more educated you are the more liberal you tend to be.

I certainly hope people have some studies to show this.

Does anybody else miss the days when conservatism stood for something? Now everybody thinks it means "We hate gays and Jews".

I remember, which is why the OP irks me because that isn't really conservatism.

That makes you a Democrat, not a Liberal.

Not in his country, though technically he should be dropping the capital l for a lower case one.

[Free Soviets]

Maybe its because even all the scientist don't agree with each other.

Response to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

sure, it's not all. but it's not like we're talking about significant numbers among those who know what they are talking about.

[Hayteria]

As I've said before, words like "conservative" and "liberal" don't even sound meaningful to me; they sound more like labels that associate separate opinions on separate subjects with each other. Similarily, I think this thread makes the same mistake. You talk about global warming denial, and false equivalence between creation and evolution, as if to specifically associate them with not only conservatism but with each other in the process; but what about Penn Jillette, who questions the mainstream explanations of global warming, but is against treating creationism like it's a science? Where does that put your associations?

In any case, there are some opinons labelled "liberal" that seem to contradict scientific explanations as well. Like the idea of taking innate gender differences into account when looking at gender inequality, (and according to this video, even university presidents who suggest that end up having to answer to social activists who wouldn't have as much reason to know what they're talking about) something considered "liberal" to oppose.

Even if ideology labels might mean something, there's no sense being selective about this. The real distinction shouldn't be about "liberal vs. conservative" but about "scientific vs. unscientific."

[Ryadn]

Often I will turn on the news or poke around youtube, and I end up seeing another conservative saying things like, "Global warming is a hoax"*, or "We should teach creationism along with evolution". Not to mention that back then there were those denied cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Now, I'm not saying all conservatives are all science denying nutjobs. Neither am I saying that the left doesn't have its wackos (see some conspiracy theorists and Code Pink). I'm just curious why does it seem like conservatism seems to generate more people who oppose mainstream science?

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Whoo, HAYWARD! Shout out to the 'Stack!

[Bottle]

Conservativism is, at its most basic, about the preservation of tradition, traditional values, and the status quo. Science clearly conflicts with that, at its very core, because Science requires that the individual be prepared to give up hypotheses and theories if sufficient disproof is obtained. Science is all about the continual and ceaseless attack on assumptions. Science also undermines the foundations of most Western "traditional values" by removing the authority and power of Judeo-Christian religious myths.

Which is not to say one can't be conservative and a scientist. It's just far less common.

[Hayteria]

Conservativism is, at its most basic, about the preservation of tradition, traditional values, and the status quo.

Doesn't really seem to match with what people associate it with though. The supposed meanings of ideology labels vary depending on who you ask. As I said in my earlier post, scientific vs. unscientific is a more meaningful distinction.

[Bottle]

Conservativism is, at its most basic, about the preservation of tradition, traditional values, and the status quo.

Doesn't really seem to match with what people associate it with though. The supposed meanings of ideology labels vary depending on who you ask. As I said in my earlier post, scientific vs. unscientific is a more meaningful distinction.

The correct definition of "conservativism" is very simple and clear. Naturally there are people who will try to claim that a word means something other than what it really means, but this is almost always because they have a vested interest in not using the term accurately. I suggest you not take such people at their word or use them as your source for definitions.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Conservativism is, at its most basic, about the preservation of tradition, traditional values, and the status quo.

Doesn't really seem to match with what people associate it with though. The supposed meanings of ideology labels vary depending on who you ask. As I said in my earlier post, scientific vs. unscientific is a more meaningful distinction.

The correct definition of "conservativism" is very simple and clear. Naturally there are people who will try to claim that a word means something other than what it really means, but this is almost always because they have a vested interest in not using the term accurately. I suggest you not take such people at their word or use them as your source for definitions.

What about the distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism? They are often at odds with one another. For example, fiscal conservatism would support drug legalization, because it opposes government interference in economic issues.

[Bottle]

What about the distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism?

What about it? It's irrelevant to this topic.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What about the distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism?

What about it? It's irrelevant to this topic.

You're trying to place all conservatism under a single umbrella, which is not possible. Many fiscal conservatives are quite liberally when it comes to social policies. Fuck social conservatism, but both conservative and liberal fiscal policy deserve legitimacy and consideration.

[Free Soviets]

What about the distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism? They are often at odds with one another. For example, fiscal conservatism would support drug legalization, because it opposes government interference in economic issues.

fiscal conservatism is a nonsense label. in so far as there is any conservatism there at all it is just a fancy way to dress up standard conservative practice of more money for bombs and beatings, less money for helping people (especially brown skinned people - rich white guys can usually still get some handouts).

conservatism is not now, nor has it ever been, about how much money the government spends.

[Bottle]

You're trying to place all conservatism under a single umbrella, which is not possible.

It's not only possible to do so, it actually requires overt intellectual dishonesty to NOT do so. So congrats on that.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What about the distinction between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism? They are often at odds with one another. For example, fiscal conservatism would support drug legalization, because it opposes government interference in economic issues.

fiscal conservatism is a nonsense label. in so far as there is any conservatism there at all it is just a fancy way to dress up standard conservative practice of more money for bombs and beatings, less money for helping people (especially brown skinned people - rich white guys can usually still get some handouts).

conservatism is not now, nor has it ever been, about how much money the government spends.

So, if there is someone who does care about how much the government spends, he/she is not a fiscal conservative? Or is it that you are insinuating that there is no one that cares about limited government.

[Scarsaw]

Because conservatism is about conserving traditions and because science and logic contradict these traditions. So therefore when conservatives hear about intelligent things contradicting their bullshit, they simply deny it. Christianity is an established American tradition and they want to conserve it. Evolution goes against Christianity which is a tradition so therefore they oppose it. Global warming goes against the American tradition of unregulated Capitalism because it can cause people to call for government sanctions on companies. So they just deny it. And back in the day when cigarettes were an American pastime, people didn't want to let go of that so they denied it.

I just want to point out that not all branches of Christianity are against evolution or global warming. Pope Benedict XVI has actually acknologed evolution, but added that accepting evolution does not rule out God as the theory doesn't explain the 'how'. Also, "the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful."
-Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’

It seems that mainly the American-made branches of Christianity are the ones who are denying these things.

[Free Soviets]

So, if there is someone who does care about how much the government spends, he/she is not a fiscal conservative? Or is it that you are insinuating that there is no one that cares about limited government.

i'm saying that in so far as there are people who really do care only about government spending per se (and there are bound to be a few, but they are spread thin on the ground), 'conservative' is not an accurate descriptor.

[Dyakovo]

Often I will turn on the news or poke around youtube, and I end up seeing another conservative saying things like, "Global warming is a hoax"*, or "We should teach creationism along with evolution". Not to mention that back then there were those denied cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Now, I'm not saying all conservatives are all science denying nutjobs. Neither am I saying that the left doesn't have its wackos (see some conspiracy theorists and Code Pink). I'm just curious why does it seem like conservatism seems to generate more people who oppose mainstream science?

*If you must argue with this, do it in another thread. This isn't the point of this topic.

Because conservatism is about conserving traditions and because science and logic contradict these traditions. So therefore when conservatives hear about intelligent things contradicting their bullshit, they simply deny it. Christianity is an established American tradition and they want to conserve it. Evolution goes against Christianity which is a tradition so therefore they oppose it. Global warming goes against the American tradition of unregulated Capitalism because it can cause people to call for government sanctions on companies. So they just deny it. And back in the day when cigarettes were an American pastime, people didn't want to let go of that so they denied it.

spoken like someone who has no clue what being conservative is about. Lets just say the right-wing extreme ninnies who get themselves on TV by yelling and denying are not really representative of conservatives any more than the more extreme looniness of some more radical left are of honest liberals.

They are, however, quite representative of the conservatives here on NSG...

[OMGeverynameistaken]

spoken like someone who has no clue what being conservative is about. Lets just say the right-wing extreme ninnies who get themselves on TV by yelling and denying are not really representative of conservatives any more than the more extreme looniness of some more radical left are of honest liberals.

They are, however, quite representative of the conservatives here on NSG...[/quote]

NSG trolls and American 'conservatives' do seem to have quite a lot in common.

Anybody want to bet O'Reilly has a couple of accounts here?

[Treznor]

Because conservatism is about conserving traditions and because science and logic contradict these traditions. So therefore when conservatives hear about intelligent things contradicting their bullshit, they simply deny it. Christianity is an established American tradition and they want to conserve it. Evolution goes against Christianity which is a tradition so therefore they oppose it. Global warming goes against the American tradition of unregulated Capitalism because it can cause people to call for government sanctions on companies. So they just deny it. And back in the day when cigarettes were an American pastime, people didn't want to let go of that so they denied it.

I just want to point out that not all branches of Christianity are against evolution or global warming. Pope Benedict XVI has actually acknologed evolution, but added that accepting evolution does not rule out God as the theory doesn't explain the 'how'. Also, "the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful."
-Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’

It seems that mainly the American-made branches of Christianity are the ones who are denying these things.

The current Pope originally said this in his inauguration: We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. He's made several statements that directly contradict scientific understanding, and the Vatican has been scrambling to "interpret" his statements the whole time. The 2007 "clarification" is a result of two years of pressure to keep the Catholic Church from becoming irrelevant.

If you want to argue that it's the American-made branches of Christianity causing the problem, you might want to make sure the Infallible Head Honcho of the Holy Roman Church has been saying about it.