Why should political affiliation affect one's acceptance of science?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

Of course politics & affiliation affect beliefs.

Is that enuf of a response?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course politics & affiliation affect beliefs.

Is that enuf of a response?

I didn't say "belief." I said analysis. They are different -- or at least for some of us.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say "belief." I said analysis. They are different -- or at least for some of us.

Very few people do any analysis of anything.
They typically believe that which suits their
worldview, & reject that which doesn't.

 

[Father Heathen]

Measures to curtail pollution threaten the fossil fuel industry's profits, so their lobbyists and pocketed politicians dupe dopes into a accepting cockamamie conspiracy theories over scientific literacy. Most U.S. conservatives tend to religious and take a literal interpretation of the Bible; a view challenged by science (evolution for example), thus they reject the methodology, forgoing critical thought. Lacking such a filter, they're susceptible to accepting all sorts of other irrational, unsubstantiated nonsense (clime change denial, antivax, flat earth, etc.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Very few people do any analysis of anything.
They typically believe that which suits their
worldview, & reject that which doesn't.

Thus tersely explaining why humans have been gleefully killing each others since we started keeping records -- and very likely before.

I wonder if such a creature is going to be an evolutionary success. (Spoiler - I suspect not for much longer.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Thus tersely explaining why humans have been gleefully killing each others since we started keeping records -- and very likely before.

I wonder if such a creature is going to be an evolutionary success. (Spoiler - I suspect not for much longer.)

Evolution involves much death & reproduction over
great lengths of time. What we observe in our
lifetimes would have little discernable effect.
But you already know all this.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

maybe it's acceptance of science influencing political affiliation...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evolution involves much death & reproduction over
great lengths of time. What we observe in our
lifetimes would have little discernable effect.
But you already know all this.

I do. But I have reason to suspect that we could, through our own efforts, extend our own species for a little longer. For those with children and grandchildren this might have more meaning. Having been an orphan all my life, I've now traced my own ancestry back to 1740, to fifth-greats (I've identified 65 of my possible 128 5th great grand-parents). Now, in my dotage, I've got 4 more generations under me. One of them is just a month old.

@Revoltingest, I understand the numbers as well as anyone. The issue is that things are no longer progressing exactly naturally. If, perish the thought, we get to a point where the earth won't support us as we are accustomed to, the length of our petty lifetimes will have very little to do with what (possibly few) generations we (well, not me) might engender.

There's just something too cavlier, too dismissive, about people's attitudes to this issue. As you put it, "Evolution involves much death & reproduction over great lengths of time. What we observe in our lifetimes would have little discernable effect." I can agree with that without effort. But then I could tell you that if the environment in which evolve becomes itself inhospitable -- then we all, as a species, are at serious risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do. But I have reason to suspect that we could, through our own efforts, extend our own species for a little longer.

I don't see a risk that science denial
will cause humans to go extinct.

For those with children and grandchildren this might have more meaning. Having been an orphan all my life, I've now traced my own ancestry back to 1740, to fifth-greats (I've identified 65 of my possible 128 5th great grand-parents). Now, in my dotage, I've got 4 more generations under me. One of them is just a month old.

@Revoltingest, I understand the numbers as well as anyone. The issue is that things are no longer progressing exactly naturally. If, perish the thought, we get to a point where the earth won't support us as we are accustomed to, the length of our petty lifetimes will have very little to do with what (possibly few) generations we (well, not me) might engender.

There's just something too cavlier, too dismissive, about people's attitudes to this issue. As you put it, "Evolution involves much death & reproduction over great lengths of time. What we observe in our lifetimes would have little discernable effect." I can agree with that without effort. But then I could tell you that if the environment in which evolve becomes itself inhospitable -- then we all, as a species, are at serious risk.

Conservatives (tend to) like to deny science.
Liberals (tend to) like to deny economics.
They deny that which makes them
uncomfortable.

 

[Kenny]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

It isn't the refusal of data but rather a difference in interpreting the dats.

By human nature, people of the same feather tend to flock together. (generally speaking). However 22% of Democrats agree with the 77% of Republicans that interpret it one way and the 23% of the Republicans agree with 78% of the Democrats - so it isn't "always".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't see a risk that science denial will cause humans to go extinct.

Then I shall hope you are right, even though I suspect you ignore a lot of science (rather than deny it).

I'm willing to bet the dinsosaurs, 65 million years ago -- had they the capacity for thought -- would have poo-poohed the idea of a big rock smacking the Yucatan peninsula and causing their extinction. I am likewise willing to opine that -- had they done so -- they would have been quite wrong.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

Many Republicans believe the Bible over reality. They will not update their religion with new knowledge, they ignore the knowledge to keep from changing their religious views. Somehow they think that the people in Bible times had the knowledge that we have now. Far from it. I get it. It's nicer when you have pat answers from "on high." No thinking, research or discerning involved. It feels good and secure. This will be our undoing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then I shall hope you are right, even though I suspect you ignore a lot of science (rather than deny it).

We certainly could go extinct, eg, giant meteor strike, Sun going all red giant.
But dumb Republicans gonna do it.
You've offered no analysis for your fear.

I'm willing to bet the dinsosaurs, 65 million years ago -- had they the capacity for thought -- would have poo-poohed the idea of a big rock smacking the Yucatan peninsula and causing their extinction. I am likewise willing to opine that -- had they done so -- they would have been quite wrong.

Actually, mankind is doing something about that
risk. The technology is along way off, but threating
objects are beginning to be tracked.
You should read more about science, junior.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

Republicans tend to be strongest in rural areas, while dems are stronger in cities. Perhaps the main problem is that rural people are inherently aware of the problems of centralized power. It is hard to rule well over large areas. People in cities are more interested in data, because they are likely to match the average data. Rural people and their concerns are easily ignored, so the data interests them less. Its just a guess and probably is only a factor.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Republicans tend to be strongest in rural areas, while dems are stronger in cities. Perhaps the main problem is that rural people are inherently aware of the problems of centralized power. It is hard to rule well over large areas. People in cities are more interested in data, because they are likely to match the average data. Rural people and their concerns are easily ignored, so the data interests them less. Its just a guess and probably is only a factor.

Those in rural areas are at an advantage because of the Electoral College, and they like it that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

Well climate change has always been a liberal idea. The first world leader to inform the world of the concept was the Arch-liberal (Uber-liberal?) Margaret Thatcher (she was British you know).

 

[Twilight Hue]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

I tend to think people won't react until they see it for themselves at their doorstep.

No fire until they see the fire.



.

 

[Heyo]

I just saw a poll showing that Americans' views of climate change show that 78% of Democrats think it is very important, while only 23% of Republicans do.

But this is not a political question, surely, is it? Isn't it just a matter of looking at the data and doing some analysis?

And if it is a political question, isn't it just possible that the Republican refusal to accept the data and analysis could accelerate the rate at which we march to our own destruction?

I thought a poll would be useless -- I'd just like intelligent discussion.

Importance is a value judgement and, in theory, has nothing to do with science.
My guess is that the 23% of pubs who think that climate change is important are the 23% of pubs who are younger 65 years. The rest simply don't think it will massively impact them in their lifetime - and they are probably right.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There's been a lot of push over the last decade from republican representatives to foment the already existing mistrust of anything connected to 'the elite,' which educators and scientists definitely fall into. It was ramping up the last decade of climate change, and spiked during covid. It's partisan driven, but it's also anti-establishment as well as an evangelical thing.