Survey: Conservatives are less likely to accept the norms of science

[chilehed]

What invalidates the study

Since it's not instantly obvious to you, I can only suggest that you go retake every class you ever had about how to create a valid experiment.

 

[durangodawood]

Since it's not instantly obvious to you, I can only suggest that you go retake every class you ever had about how to create a valid experiment.

Just tell us, what do you think is the most glaring problem?

 

[chilehed]

Just tell us, what do you think is the most glaring problem?

That was in my first post.

 

[durangodawood]

That was in my first post.

You dont point out an actual problem in your first post. Just a vague accusation. What is the main specific problem with the study?

 

[tas8831]

What invalidates the study?

Desire for it to be incorrect?

 

[tas8831]

Since it's not instantly obvious to you, I can only suggest that you go retake every class you ever had about how to create a valid experiment.

That is... amazing.

The OP indicates:

"We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored..."

Tell us, Oh Master of Science, what "experiments" are done in doing surveys and analyzing the data?

 

[tas8831]

That is... amazing.

The OP indicates:

"We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored..."

Tell us, Oh Master of Science, what "experiments" are done in doing surveys and analyzing the data?

The old 'abandon the thread to avoid being exposed as a rube' technique...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The old 'abandon the thread to avoid being exposed as a rube' technique...

Looks like the results of surveys are taken to be 'norms of science' by some

 

[J_B_]

LINK

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the [idea] that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism.

the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought – in this case the belief that people can be improved – are in potential conflict with the evidence.

That whole passage sounds a little like begging the question. However, given you're the one who posted the link, I'll assume you would disagree. So, I'll ask a different question:

Do you see how this topic might be politically charged? Not that such means the topic should be avoided, but just the mere fact of its political sensitivity?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you see how this topic might be politically charged? Not that such means the topic should be avoided, but just the mere fact of its political sensitivity?

I suppose. But perhaps ironically, one of the norms of science is "'detached' critical scrutiny ... The scientific investigator does not preserve the cleavage between the sacred and the profane, between that which requires uncritical respect and that which can be objectively analyzed."

There are enough people here on the forums who proudly tell science to take a hike. It's easy to say they're just motivated to reject the scientific conclusions because they don't like them. It's more interesting to find out that some people may reject the scientific enterprise because they reject some of the philosophical ideas that underlie it.

If somebody doesn't like the idea that his grandpappy was an ape, there's not much that can be done about it to make him like the idea, regardless of whether it's true or there is a stack of evidence. But the other alternative suggests there might be ways to address showing people how these norms of science support a process that produces valid knowledge.

 

[J_B_]

If somebody doesn't like the idea that his grandpappy was an ape, there's not much that can be done about it to make him like the idea, regardless of whether it's true or there is a stack of evidence. But the other alternative suggests there might be ways to address showing people how these norms of science support a process that produces valid knowledge.

There's a lot to discuss, but I'm going to try sticking with where I started. Maybe we'll have a chance to come back to this.

There are enough people here on the forums who proudly tell science to take a hike. It's easy to say they're just motivated to reject the scientific conclusions because they don't like them. It's more interesting to find out that some people may reject the scientific enterprise because they reject some of the philosophical ideas that underlie it.

That is interesting, but I'm not ready to accept this study demonstrates that. Will you allow me to be skeptical for awhile - ask a few more questions?

I suppose. But perhaps ironically, one of the norms of science is "'detached' critical scrutiny ... The scientific investigator does not preserve the cleavage between the sacred and the profane, between that which requires uncritical respect and that which can be objectively analyzed."

Sure. So let's go there. Are you familiar with some of the difficulties with IQ tests? I'm referring to some of the cultural/racial biases.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Will you allow me to be skeptical for awhile - ask a few more questions?

Sure. But I don't have access to the full paper. I'm sure we'd both like to see how questions were asked.

Sure. So let's go there. Are you familiar with some of the difficulties with IQ tests? I'm referring to some of the cultural/racial biases.

Familiar enough to know there is a lot of debate about how much of racial differences is due to bias, genetics, or environmental factors. Not familiar enough to have a strong opinion on the matter.

 

[J_B_]

Sure. But I don't have access to the full paper. I'm sure we'd both like to see how questions were asked.

Yes. And I think the article was poorly written. There must be some typos or something, because I don't see how the content in the article adds up to the given conclusions.

Familiar enough to know there is a lot of debate about how much of racial differences is due to bias, genetics, or environmental factors. Not familiar enough to have a strong opinion on the matter.

It comes down to problems with definitions - 'What is intelligence?' and so forth. Most definitions of intelligence are akin to 'intelligent people are people like me'. So, a middle-class college-educated, American white guy defines intelligence and then runs off to test the intelligence of aborigines in Australia - an extreme example, but you get the idea. The definition ends up being book-smart intelligence (maybe unintentionally), and leaves out street smart, or emotional intelligence, etc.

Who are these 2 authors? Liberal I would guess. So we've got ivory tower liberals deciding what 'conservative' means.

Second, there's a Euthyphro dilemma here - the two horns. We're not defining inanimate objects here, but people. It's dangerous territory when someone appropriates the right to define what people are and are not without their consent. Therefore on the first horn of the dilemma, even if the study is scientifically legitimate based on their definitions, what precludes those definitions from being a strawman? On the other horn of the dilemma, if you allow the people to self-identify, the categories become vague and nearly useless. There's no statistical rigor to it; people choose for all kinds of different reasons.

Which begs the question, then: why were the researcher's set on using 'liberal' and 'conservative' as their categories? It seems like a politically motivated selection. I would find the study much more legitimate if they abandoned those categories and stuck with the 'scientific norms' as their identifiers. If you could pinpoint that people who reject scientific principle A (or philosophical position A - which seems more the case for this study*) are likely to also reject the legitimacy of climate change - well, then you've got something.

- - -

*Note: If you read what they are calling 'scientific norms' in this study, it becomes a head-scratcher. How beliefs about man's role in the universe are a scientific norm is beyond me. Even stranger when you try to figure out they drew their conclusions when the article states:
"... our study provided no evidence for the conjecture that the long history of science in displacing humans from the centre of the world contributes to conversatives’ uneasiness with science."

... Umm?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who are these 2 authors? Liberal I would guess.

While the odds are probably better than 50/50, this is hardly a strong line of argument.

So we've got ivory tower liberals deciding what 'conservative' means.

I feel certain that one of the questions asked in the survey allowed the respondents to self-identify themselves on the political spectrum.

If you could pinpoint that people who reject scientific principle A (or philosophical position A - which seems more the case for this study*) are likely to also reject the legitimacy of climate change - well, then you've got something.

The study also found that people who accept the norms (predictably) are more likely to accept the science.

 

[J_B_]

While the odds are probably better than 50/50, this is hardly a strong line of argument.

The odds are much better than 50/50, and I'll elaborate on that in a bit. But first, could you expand on why you don't find it convincing? Do you think it can be demonstrated that the issues which have plagued attempts to categorize humans (e.g. intelligence testing) - to find that True Scotsman - that those challenges don't apply here? Please explain.

As to the odds of this being written by, reviewed by, and published by liberals ... doesn't their very claim - the one you accept - make that self-evident? If conservatives reject these scientific norms, then isn't it liberals, the ones who accept those norms, the ones who enter this science, isn't it they who will inevitably publish these kinds of papers? It would be truly odd to find people working in a science who don't believe in any of its fundamental principles.

Please recall that, as I said, that doesn't make their research invalid (given the categories they're using). It's not their analysis of the data I'm challenging, but their method of categorization. I'll even allow it could have been unintentional, but category errors happen nonetheless. There are several types of category errors including what is called Simpson's Paradox, where, in an infamous example, UC Berkeley was sued for gender bias based on an erroneous analysis; the data was not categorized properly.

If you read closely, what the paper is calling conservatives actually lumps conservatives and libertarians into a single category. Calling those two groups the same will easily earn you an F-grade in a political science class. As someone with libertarian inclinations, I strongly object to being lumped in with conservatives. My view on climate change, vaccination, etc. is much more nuanced than this study allows. For example, I've been vaccinated, and did it willingly. Yet, at the same time, I opposed many of the regulations the government tried to impose with respect to COVID. Therefore, it would be VERY important how the question was phrased. The phrasing could easily throw me into either the 'accept' OR the 'reject' category. Surveys simply can't capture the spectrum of human reactions to issues as complex as climate change, COVID, etc.

I feel certain that one of the questions asked in the survey allowed the respondents to self-identify themselves on the political spectrum.

Did you not notice that I marked this as the second horn of the dilemma?

The study also found that people who accept the norms (predictably) are more likely to accept the science.

Did it? See, that confuses me. Did you read the note in my previous post? I read the article as saying, 'The study found no evidence that rejecting the norms leads conservatives to reject the science. Therefore, we conclude that people who reject the norms reject the science.'

What am I missing?

 

[Mountainmike]

It says nothing at all about conservatives.

And everything about blatant political leaning of the researchers.
Aka ask loaded questions, get loaded answers. So makes it not worth reading.

I can equally postulate that as scientific thinkers conservatives don’t take anything at face value, they need evidence, on claims made by historically politically biassed left leaning liberal academics. Conservatives want proof so often weak or absent in many stated articles of faith on such as environment where claims have been repeatedly exaggerated.

Conservatives are also self reliant and educated , so On vaccines and other measures like masks, they want to see evidence on which to make up own minds, not be dictated to like sheep.

Conservatives are not as subject to groupthink as are the left, and they don’t invoke cancel culture on any that disagree with them, a clear symptom of the lefts inability to argue its cause. If the lefts arguments had merit , they would not need cancel culture to remove alternative views.

An alternative spin on the same issues.

So it’s all about interpretation, and loading questions to confirm a predetermined conclusion.

The point I make is claims are political not scientific , and should be treated as such, and a further reminder if any were needed to give the magazine and those researchers a wide berth.

LINK

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the [idea] that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism.

the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought – in this case the belief that people can be improved – are in potential conflict with the evidence.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The odds are much better than 50/50, and I'll elaborate on that in a bit. But first, could you expand on why you don't find it convincing?

Again, perhaps ironically, because being disinterested is another norm of science. An idea epitomized by my signature. To use your pet example, if liberal scientists just predetermine the outcomes of scientific studies based on liberal tenets, why do studies show that African Americans score poorly on IQ tests (on average) compared to white Americans? Because them's the facts. And scientists are, on the whole, devoted to finding the facts about the world, regardless of their preconceived notions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It says nothing at all about conservatives.

And everything about blatant political leaning of the researchers.
Aka ask loaded questions, get loaded answers. So makes it not worth reading.

So what you're saying is that you reject the notion that scientists are disinterested observers of the world, and therefore you reject this study.

 

[J_B_]

So what you're saying is that you reject the notion that scientists are disinterested observers of the world, and therefore you reject this study.

Somewhat. Most scientists want to be disinterested observers, but wanting and being are two different things. At its root, it is an issue of hidden, confounding variables that is yet to be solved. You seem unfamiliar with the history of problems that have plagued studies of human behavior and, despite that history, unwilling to apply any skepticism to those studies.

But, you gave me the reason I have not convinced you, so ... OK.

 

[chad kincham]

LINK

We recently conducted two large-scale surveys that explored the [idea] that some intrinsic attributes of science are in tension with aspects of conservative thinking.

We focused on three scientific issues; climate change, vaccinations, and the heritability of intelligence. The first two were chosen because of their known tendency to be rejected by people on the political right, allowing us to observe the potential moderating role of other predictors.

The latter was chosen because the belief that external forces such as education can improve people and their circumstances is a focus of liberalism.

the overall findings were quite clear. Conservatives were less likely to accept the norms of science, suggesting that the worldviews of some people on the political right may be in intrinsic conflict with the scientific enterprise.

Those people who accepted the norms of science were also more likely to endorse vaccinations and support the need to fight climate change.

Finally, we found no strong evidence that people on the political left are more likely to reject the genetic contribution to individual variation in intelligence. This negative result adds to the evidence that science denial is harder to find on the left, even concerning issues where basic aspects of liberal thought – in this case the belief that people can be improved – are in potential conflict with the evidence.

It’s because conservatives know what corrupt liars politicians are, so when they push catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, for example, we do some research and find out it’s baloney, and reject the propaganda.