• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: Liberals and Conservatives Deny Science Equally

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
People on both ends of the political spectrum are similarly prone to science denial, according to a study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science — despite a widespread belief that conservatives, especially those who deny climate science, are the biggest offenders.

...But both liberals and conservatives were likely to interpret the info in ways consistent with their own attitudes — and, for most issues, deny the results’ scientific credibility when correct interpretations were at odds with their attitudes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. The idea that skepticism of climate science is due to politics arises out of the idea that anyone who is skeptical of climate science must be in bed with the energy industry, and that's just not true. It's an hallucinatioin of enviromentalists. There are valid reasons for being skeptical of climate science.

Liberals and conservatives deny science equally: study | New York Post
 
Yes AGW denial is just like the anti-vax nonsense, creationism, anti-GMO and other absurdities.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes AGW denial is just like the anti-vax nonsense, creationism, anti-GMO and other absurdities.
Click to expand...

Yes, absurdities like liberals not being judgmental of other people and having an open mind. :lol:
 
LowDown said:
I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. The idea that skepticism of climate science is due to politics arises out of the idea that anyone who is skeptical of climate science must be in bed with the energy industry, and that's just not true. It's an hallucinatioin of enviromentalists. There are valid reasons for being skeptical of climate science.

Liberals and conservatives deny science equally: study | New York Post
Click to expand...

I believe its more concise to point towards the fact that now, and in recent years. Politics have tried to play the issue so closely to each political party, which colors our perceptions as well. Then again you have people that want to shade it like a moral discussion, that if you don't agree with current climate claims for alarmism. They try to paint you as a denier, and in turn you paint them as one of the more radical sides to the climate debate.

Though the two views constantly butt heads now, and again. Its nothing too far from what we have been seeing since the early 80s.

One is waiting for concrete evidence that they can trust, and the other almost outright believes whatever information they are given by someone they see as an official. Though degrees still very between the two.
 
X Factor said:
Yes, absurdities like liberals not being judgmental of other people and having an open mind. :lol:
Click to expand...

The only ones who ever seem to claim liberals are "not judgmental"(usually doing it as you do) seem to be conservatives. ****ing A right liberals are judgemental, just like every other person on earth. The difference between us and conservatives is we judge based on what people do, instead of what people are.

See what I did there?
 
LowDown, nobody thinks you're on the payroll of the fossil fuel companies, just that you're ignorant of science and will always put your political agenda above facts, evidence and truth. Will you ever create a thread that isn't hyper partisan garbage?

Oborosen said:
One is waiting for concrete evidence that they can trust, and the other almost outright believes whatever information they are given by someone they see as an official. Though degrees still very between the two.
Click to expand...

The scientific community is full of scientists, not officials. The problem is that the deniers accept the unsubstantiated opinions of officials like Trump and Ted Cruz over the evidence and facts of the scientific community. Maybe it's time to put partisanship aside and just look at the conclusions the world's leading experts in their fields are putting forth.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The only ones who ever seem to claim liberals are "not judgmental"(usually doing it as you do) seem to be conservatives. ****ing A right liberals are judgemental, just like every other person on earth. The difference between us and conservatives is we judge based on what people do, instead of what people are.

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard conservatives insult those dummies for their stupid worthless college degree mean while complaining that the liberal thinks less of a hardworking guy in the field because he doesn't have a degree and gets his hands dirty. The liberal judging the guy in the field is just as guilty of "judging" as the guy in the field who says that the guy in the office has no common sense and got a worthless degree or that he's not a "real" man.
 
Redress said:
The only ones who ever seem to claim liberals are "not judgmental"(usually doing it as you do) seem to be conservatives. ****ing A right liberals are judgemental, just like every other person on earth. The difference between us and conservatives is we judge based on what people do, instead of what people are.

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

Demonstrated what I posted? You're last line, while it sounds good, is incorrect. There's plenty of judgment of others that's based entirely on stated beliefs, like creationism for example.
 
X Factor said:
Demonstrated what I posted? You're last line, while it sounds good, is incorrect. There's plenty of judgment of others that's based entirely on stated beliefs, like creationism for example.
Click to expand...

Belief is not who you are, it is what you choose.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The scientific community is full of scientists, not officials. The problem is that the deniers accept the unsubstantiated opinions of officials like Trump and Ted Cruz over the evidence and facts of the scientific community. Maybe it's time to put partisanship aside and just look at the conclusions the world's leading experts in their fields are putting forth.
Click to expand...

The problem with scientists, though, is that they are also people. People are susceptible to confirmation bias, irrespective of their profession. Just look what happened to Charles Murray for studying (and overwhelmingly validating) controversial research involving race.

Climate science is a little more rigorous than social science - demographic studies population trends. But that doesn't stop well-meaning, "scientifically minded" people from injecting their own assumptions into datasets (I am not a denier, btw). And it really doesn't help that the negatives we hear involve the loss of oceanfront property - you know, where the rich people live and work - given to us by a wealthy politician fresh off his private jet, from his size 12 carbon footprint of a mansion.

Of course the debate is politicized. Middle America cares about the coasts as much as the coasts care about "flyover country". Of course middle America is skeptical of climate science, because they were told their way of life is going to get more expensive to fix it - the last president making the cost increase sound punitive.
 
LowDown said:
I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. The idea that skepticism of climate science is due to politics arises out of the idea that anyone who is skeptical of climate science must be in bed with the energy industry, and that's just not true. It's an hallucinatioin of enviromentalists. There are valid reasons for being skeptical of climate science.

Liberals and conservatives deny science equally: study | New York Post
Click to expand...

Confirmation bias is innate. We all have it. Anyone says they don't is like someone who says they never lie.
 
X Factor said:
So it's cool for me to judge you for being a liberal?
Click to expand...

Yes and no and no and yes.

Yes in that it is appropriate to judge people based on their actions and choices, no in that it is a pretty broad category, and yes in that, really, people should be able to judge people however they choose, and others should judge them on how they judge kinda thing.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The problem with scientists, though, is that they are also people. People are susceptible to confirmation bias, irrespective of their profession. Just look what happened to Charles Murray for studying (and overwhelmingly validating) controversial research involving race.

Climate science is a little more rigorous than social science - demographic studies population trends. But that doesn't stop well-meaning, "scientifically minded" people from injecting their own assumptions into datasets (I am not a denier, btw). And it really doesn't help that the negatives we hear involve the loss of oceanfront property - you know, where the rich people live and work - given to us by a wealthy politician fresh off his private jet, from his size 12 carbon footprint of a mansion.

Of course the debate is politicized. Middle America cares about the coasts as much as the coasts care about "flyover country". Of course middle America is skeptical of climate science, because they were told their way of life is going to get more expensive to fix it - the last president making the cost increase sound punitive.
Click to expand...

Of course scientists are fallible, but it doesn't make them wrong because American conservatives simply don't like their conclusions. AGW is pretty much unanimously agreed on by the world's scientific community yet people still seem to think that Al Gore invented it as a ploy to screw America.

Also, it's not just the rich people that will suffer from rising tides. There are a LOT of poor and middle class Americans living in low elevation zones near coast lines, and if those "middle Americans" put their political beliefs over the well-being of their fellow citizens they're disgusting sacks of **** who aren't deserving to be Americans in the first place.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Of course scientists are fallible, but it doesn't make them wrong because American conservatives simply don't like their conclusions. AGW is pretty much unanimously agreed on by the world's scientific community yet people still seem to think that Al Gore invented it as a ploy to screw America.

Also, it's not just the rich people that will suffer from rising tides. There are a LOT of poor and middle class Americans living in low elevation zones near coast lines, and if those "middle Americans" put their political beliefs over the well-being of their fellow citizens they're disgusting sacks of **** who aren't deserving to be Americans in the first place.
Click to expand...

Tell a farmer in Missouri that Manhattan and Malibu might be under water soon, and he is likely to laugh about it. That's not politics, so much as "just desserts" to the farmer.

We hear antagonism directed at the middle in a daily basis from the coastal elites. Trust me, "the middle" doesn't give a rats ass, no matter how well fleshed out the science is. They have no incentive to believe. In fact, they have been told that the energy they use to live and make food SHOULD be more expensive, as a moral decision carried out through regulation.

Why is it such a mystery that they aren't receptive to this information? Tell a poor person to take in debt to go to college, and you're likely to hear how "the game is rigged" and that there is no payoff, ever, and they ignore the stats that a college degree ups your lifetime earnings significantly.
 
X Factor said:
Yes, absurdities like liberals not being judgmental of other people and having an open mind. :lol:
Click to expand...

You guys have an open mind to everything but mainstream science.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Tell a farmer in Missouri that Manhattan and Malibu might be under water soon, and he is likely to laugh about it. That's not politics, so much as "just desserts" to the farmer.

We hear antagonism directed at the middle in a daily basis from the coastal elites. Trust me, "the middle" doesn't give a rats ass, no matter how well fleshed out the science is. They have no incentive to believe. In fact, they have been told that the energy they use to live and make food SHOULD be more expensive, as a moral decision carried out through regulation.

Why is it such a mystery that they aren't receptive to this information? Tell a poor person to take in debt to go to college, and you're likely to hear how "the game is rigged" and that there is no payoff, ever, and they ignore the stats that a college degree ups your lifetime earnings significantly.
Click to expand...

What fun examples you cherry picked out of thin air. You forget that Texas, Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina and Virginia also have thousands of miles of coast line with millions of people even as inland as Houston that will be effected by it and driven from their homes. If they don't care, it's because they're selfish and undeserving of citizenship. I would gladly trade any one of them for a brown illegal immigrant wanting a better life.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What fun examples you cherry picked out of thin air. You forget that Texas, Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina and Virginia also have thousands of miles of coast line with millions of people even as inland as Houston that will be effected by it and driven from their homes. If they don't care, it's because they're selfish and undeserving of citizenship. I would gladly trade any one of them for a brown illegal immigrant wanting a better life.
Click to expand...

There it is, the classic condescension aimed at the stupids who selfishly act in their own self interest by acting against their own self interest (which just so happen to be "everybody's").

That's the attitude that makes people not want to listen.

Tell me, do you want the world to get better, or do you simply want to be right?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
There it is, the classic condescension aimed at the stupids who selfishly act in their own self interest by acting against their own self interest (which just so happen to be "everybody's").
That's the attitude that makes people not want to listen.
Tell me, do you want the world to get better, or do you simply want to be right?
Click to expand...

I'm not right or wrong about anything because it's not me presenting the scientific evidence that man does have an effect on the environment. It's no different than the dumbasses that think evolution is false. The burden is not on me to prove it to them and if they're so entrenched in their ignorance that pointing out the facts makes them reject it even more then it's reflective on our educational system and culture, both of which need to change.
 
LowDown said:
I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. The idea that skepticism of climate science is due to politics arises out of the idea that anyone who is skeptical of climate science must be in bed with the energy industry, and that's just not true. It's an hallucinatioin of enviromentalists. There are valid reasons for being skeptical of climate science.

Liberals and conservatives deny science equally: study | New York Post
Click to expand...

That's why we should go with the scientists over the politicized tripe that non-scientists think they can make of the results taken by scientists.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm not right or wrong about anything because it's not me presenting the scientific evidence that man does have an effect on the environment. It's no different than the dumbasses that think evolution is false. The burden is not on me to prove it to them and if they're so entrenched in their ignorance that pointing out the facts makes them reject it even more then it's reflective on our educational system and culture, both of which need to change.
Click to expand...

And to the point that this science was communicated poorly, by people with hostile attitudes toward those who are already disposed to not wanting to hear it?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
And to the point that this science was communicated poorly, by people with hostile attitudes toward those who are already disposed to not wanting to hear it?
Click to expand...

I don't think that it was communicated that poorly, though obviously it could've been better, I think that there was an intentional misinformation campaign run by the oil companies and Republicans to sow as much doubt as possible. It was the same with tobacco and lead, regardless of the science, just sow as much doubt as you can to make it seem like the science isn't actually settled when it is.

It also doesn't help that the political atmosphere is so partisan that if Democrats take up the cause of raising awareness of the science there's a knee-jerk reaction by conservatives to just automatically oppose it. It happens less now, but for decades you were called a "hippie tree hugger" if you even brought up climate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom