Posted on 03/29/2012 8:48:53 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Conservatives, particularly those with college educations, have become dramatically more skeptical of science over the past four decades, according to a study published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review. Fewer than 35 percent of conservatives say they have a "great deal" of trust in the scientific community now, compared to nearly half in 1974.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
translation: they ain’t buying the Global Warming B.S. anymore
Indeed ... the problem is with what passes for science these days.
Gallileo was condemned "by consensus".
Science is simply another political ideology today since the vast majority of science is funded by politicians.
You cannot get government funding without a political connection and that connection is always based on political ideology.
This is nonsense. Science is science, it can be neither trusted nor believed in. It is or it isn’t. It is the bs scientists peddling their pseudoscience for political reasons that aren’t trusted or to be believed. They’ve sh6t the bed and now they get to lie in their own excrement.
Conservatives have realized that certain branches of science are largely funded by government grants. And that these grants are simply not awarded to ‘dissenting’ views.
Science whose conclusions are driven by politics is not science.
Precisely. Your characterization is exactly what I believe.
We believe in science. It’s propaganda we have a problem with.
There are two main kinds of research:
1) Research which is funded to get a better understanding of something so that something can be developed from that understanding (better cure for disease, more effective weapons system, better fuel economy for cars, etc). This type of research is pretty rigorous and legitimate, because if the development stemming from the research results doesn't work out because of bad research, then the researchers are in trouble.
2) Research which is funded to prove a point that the politicians want "proven". This is generally scientific prostitution.
They left one key word out of the title: Study: Trust in scientific community among educated conservatives plunges! I have complete and total confidence and trust in science. What I don't trust are the grant-grubbing sycophants who echo the Luddite party line to get AGW funding. The distinction is critical, and journalists are intentionally blurring that distinction.
When Darwinism was deemed as settled science by the left, All belief in science by reasonable people was lost.
Oh, isn’t that just SPECIAL of the left to re-define a term that everyone understands in order to further a political agenda....
they’ve never done THAT before, you know.
With education comes the understanding that scientists are not gods.
I have faith in science... when it is done my “scientists” not political activists pretending to be scientists.
"Science" = "science community." No, I don't think so. "Science" = "propositions proven in repeated trial" indeed.
This is what happens when we agree to an incorrect definition of terms at the outset of a debate. I suggest "Big Science" for "Science" as suggested in the narrative.
My libinlaw was trying to use the “science” argument... nay, not argument, more like a leftist bullying technique,
to try to disparage what we are teaching our kids about the “biggies” of our time - Darwinism and AGW.
And the funny thing was, a few days later, she was talking about another topic - food - and said that any study that was over 5 yrs old was out of date and worthless.
“Was it wrong 5 yrs ago or has reality itself changed?”
I don’t think she got it.
"settled science" is an oxymoron
The Third Reich had “scientists” that believed in a Master Race, and that certain races were subhuman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.