New Proof: Republicans Really Are Anti-Science

authordefault
on

As readers know, Iโ€™m a regular monitor of polls capturing various aspects of the publicโ€™s views on science. These polls consistently show that for the most part, even if people donโ€™t know a ton about it, they basically think science rocks. Americans know very well that science has made their lives immeasurably better, and they show high levels of trust in the scientificย community.

There are, however, a fewย caveats.

Although people like science in general, theyโ€™re more than willing to spike it in any particular instance, on any particular pet issue. Evolution, global warming, vaccinesโ€”otherwise โ€œpro-scienceโ€ people will happily deny reality on these subjects, and not necessarily even experience any cognitive dissonance in doingย so.

For the most part, I have tended to feel it is unfair to call such individuals โ€œanti-science.โ€ If someone denies science on one particular topic, but nevertheless thinks science is a groovy thing in general, I figure theyโ€™re not being anti-science, so much as just beingย human.

However, new polling data from Lawrence Hamilton, of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, suggests that the โ€œanti-scienceโ€ epithet really does apply to many U.S. Republicansโ€”at least on environmentalย issues.

Hamiltonโ€™s data once again show that Republicans, in New Hampshire and elsewhere, doubt and deny climate science, doubt there is consensus on the issue among scientists, and are bizarrely confident that they know a lot about the issue. Dunning-Kruger,ย anyone?

When it comes to the specific issue of global warming, such things have been shown before. But Hamilton also included a question you donโ€™t see as much in theseย polls:

Would you say that you trust, donโ€™t trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about environmentalย issues?

When you ask Americans this particular question, and break the result down by political party, you find a dramatic asymmetry. 67 percent of Democrats trust environmental scientists, 26 percent are unsure, and only 6 percent donโ€™t trust them. But then look at the Republicans: 42 percent trust environmental scientists, 35 percent are unsure, and 22 percent explicitly say they donโ€™t trustย them.

What these untrusting Republicans are saying, basically, is that scientists canโ€™t be expected to get it right on environmental issues. They are no longer merely rejecting established science on the climate issue, then. Theyโ€™re creating an โ€œout-groupโ€ and putting all environmental scientists inย it.

In turn, that means that whenever the next environmental issue comes along, we can expect these Republicans to inherently distrust what scientific experts have to say about it. In other words, their animus goes far beyond climate science. And if that isnโ€™t anti-science behavior, I donโ€™t know whatย is.

Why do Republicans behave this way? It has a lot to do, I suspect, with the vast liberalism of science and academia in general. As I have extensively documented (see previous link), Democrats today are basically the party of experts, scientists, and Ph.Ds. This is a big change from the situation that obtained 30 years ago. And Republicans have reacted against this left-clustering of knowledge by coming to dismiss much of โ€œliberalโ€ academia, and also much of science, across theย board.

But for precisely this reason, unlike 30 years ago, many Republicans now really are fundamentally anti-science. As the campaign season heats up this year, expect to see evidence of thisย aplenty.ย 

Related Posts

Analysis
on

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.
on

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.
on

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.
on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?