Interesting paper

Algor

Well-known member
probably the best study on the topic I have seen (although honestly, that isn't saying much, and when I say it is best, this is not an uncritical acceptance of its findings)


Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is political and that partisan disagreement drives beliefs; other models focus on basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that they facilitate proscientific beliefs. To test these competing models, we identified a range of controversial issues subject to potential ideological disagreement and examined the roles of political ideology, science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication on science beliefs. Our results indicate that there was surprisingly little partisan disagreement on a wide range of contentious scientific issues. We also found weak evidence for identity-protective cognition (where cognitive sophistication exacerbates partisan disagreement); instead, cognitive sophistication (i.e., reasoning ability) was generally associated with proscience beliefs. In two studies focusing on anthropogenic climate change, we found that increased political motivations did not increase polarization among individuals who are higher in cognitive sophistication, which indicates that increased political motivations might not have as straightforward an impact on science beliefs as has been assumed in the literature. Finally, our findings indicate that basic science knowledge is the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science across a wide range of issues. These results suggest that educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking rather than on the ideologies that purportedly divide people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)



Here's a critical figure:



Capture.JPG
 
Is there a way I can access this paper legally without paying for it?

In general, I have zero confidence in social science studies pertaining to how people think about politics.
 
Is there a way I can access this paper legally without paying for it?

In general, I have zero confidence in social science studies pertaining to how people think about politics.

See if this works: You can get the preprint (possibly not for long) from



I found it via google, so I assume its OK.
 
probably the best study on the topic I have seen (although honestly, that isn't saying much, and when I say it is best, this is not an uncritical acceptance of its findings)


Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is political and that partisan disagreement drives beliefs; other models focus on basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that they facilitate proscientific beliefs. To test these competing models, we identified a range of controversial issues subject to potential ideological disagreement and examined the roles of political ideology, science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication on science beliefs. Our results indicate that there was surprisingly little partisan disagreement on a wide range of contentious scientific issues. We also found weak evidence for identity-protective cognition (where cognitive sophistication exacerbates partisan disagreement); instead, cognitive sophistication (i.e., reasoning ability) was generally associated with proscience beliefs. In two studies focusing on anthropogenic climate change, we found that increased political motivations did not increase polarization among individuals who are higher in cognitive sophistication, which indicates that increased political motivations might not have as straightforward an impact on science beliefs as has been assumed in the literature. Finally, our findings indicate that basic science knowledge is the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science across a wide range of issues. These results suggest that educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking rather than on the ideologies that purportedly divide people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)



Here's a critical figure:



View attachment 3907
OK, so
basic science knowledge is the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science across a wide range of issues

But which group of people acquire basic science knowledge?

Are there lots of liberals that reject climate change science, evolution and the effectiveness of covid vaccines? I don't think so.

My recollection is that Patrick Henry College which attracts Christian homeschooled kids does not have a science dept, and Liberty University requires that all students take a course in creationism.
 
probably the best study on the topic I have seen (although honestly, that isn't saying much, and when I say it is best, this is not an uncritical acceptance of its findings)


Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is political and that partisan disagreement drives beliefs; other models focus on basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that they facilitate proscientific beliefs. To test these competing models, we identified a range of controversial issues subject to potential ideological disagreement and examined the roles of political ideology, science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication on science beliefs. Our results indicate that there was surprisingly little partisan disagreement on a wide range of contentious scientific issues. We also found weak evidence for identity-protective cognition (where cognitive sophistication exacerbates partisan disagreement); instead, cognitive sophistication (i.e., reasoning ability) was generally associated with proscience beliefs. In two studies focusing on anthropogenic climate change, we found that increased political motivations did not increase polarization among individuals who are higher in cognitive sophistication, which indicates that increased political motivations might not have as straightforward an impact on science beliefs as has been assumed in the literature. Finally, our findings indicate that basic science knowledge is the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science across a wide range of issues. These results suggest that educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking rather than on the ideologies that purportedly divide people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)



Here's a critical figure:



View attachment 3907
So climate deniers aren’t motivated by politics? They just don’t understand basic science?

I’m skeptical.
 
So climate deniers aren’t motivated by politics? They just don’t understand basic science?

I’m skeptical.

Some people to say that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and important, but that trying to solve it by government subsidies of windfarms and electric cars, and banning gas stoves, is totally and utterly moronic and even destructive. Those people get called 'climate deniers'. Do you include those as climate deniers?
 
OK, so


But which group of people acquire basic science knowledge?

Are there lots of liberals that reject climate change science, evolution and the effectiveness of covid vaccines? I don't think so.

My recollection is that Patrick Henry College which attracts Christian homeschooled kids does not have a science dept, and Liberty University requires that all students take a course in creationism.

It does cut both ways on some topics they analyse: . Wage gap. SAT math scores etc. Statistically (not by individuals of course) religiosity is inversely correlated with scientific knowledge, bt the same thing could also be said of (say) artistic output.
 
It does cut both ways on some topics they analyse: . Wage gap. SAT math scores etc. Statistically (not by individuals of course) religiosity is inversely correlated with scientific knowledge, bt the same thing could also be said of (say) artistic output.
What is religiosity and does it include faith beliefs like the past existence of mystery ape/human common ancestors or the earth is the mother of us all? What is scientific knowledge? The statement is unsupported and proximate to darker skin color is inversely correlated with math ability. At least we can objectively measure math skills. Which is not the same as scientific knowledge which is far more subjective. Common descent is littered with blind faith and wishful thinking and is scientifically worthless no matter the amount of knowledge about the subject. It is like a PH.D in the Wizard of Oz
 
What is religiosity
The degree to which one identifies with and follows a given religion, in ritual, ethic and study.

and does it include faith beliefs like the past existence of mystery ape/human common ancestors or the earth is the mother of us all?
Those could be religious tenets. I don't think that many people who think we are descended from apes hold those as religious (ie involving ethical and/or ritual imperatives) ideas but I do think one could, and some do, IMHO.

What is scientific knowledge?
How much does one know and understand about what scientists have generally concluded in the various areas of scientific investigation (biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc.)

The statement is unsupported and proximate to darker skin color is inversely correlated with math ability.
Which statement?
At least we can objectively measure math skills. Which is not the same as scientific knowledge which is far more subjective.
Not so. Saying "Men have on average higher SAT scores in math" is scientific knowledge. The earth orbits the sun is scientific knowledge. The continents move slowly is scientific knowledge. And so forth. Nothing subjective about it.
Common descent is littered with blind faith and wishful thinking and is scientifically worthless no matter the amount of knowledge about the subject. It is like a PH.D in the Wizard of Oz
OK, but you know that scentists think differently, and you are probably at least acquainted with the reasons why. So you have that scientific knowledge. And?
 
The degree to which one identifies with and follows a given religion, in ritual, ethic and study.
That could include common descent as religiosity.
I don't think that many people who think we are descended from apes hold those as religious (ie involving ethical and/or ritual imperatives) ideas but I do think one could, and some do, IMHO.
It can fit the definition or at least be a religious counterfeit.
How much does one know and understand about what scientists have generally concluded in the various areas of scientific investigation (biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc.)
That would depend on their career paths. If it does not advance their careers or is not used it will be forgotten eventually. Most general knowledge in science fields available on the net. There is not point in going beyond general if it does not advance career goals. It takes a lot of work and people generally avoid that sort of thing if there is no reward on the other end.
Which statement?
The one emboldened. Could you not figure that out on your own? You were the one who used the word inversely correlated. I used the same words applied to different circumstances involving skin color and math skills for a reason.
Not so. Saying "Men have on average higher SAT scores in math" is scientific knowledge. The earth orbits the sun is scientific knowledge. The continents move slowly is scientific knowledge. And so forth. Nothing subjective about it.
What do your examples have to do with your statement that religiosity is inversely correlated with scientific knowledge? People who attend church is somehow hopelessly illiterate is what your statement implies. Crippled, like blacks were less human and more ape, the so-called science knowledge of the late 19 and early 20th century.
OK, but you know that scentists think differently,
So? Personally i will go with economic literacy over science knowledge because there is more of a future. Not as contingent on outside interests including what others think. If i know how to make and handle money then how much does it matter what others think, including scientists? I can know how to make bombs from scratch but it will do no good if an advanced degree is required to get into the door. Degrees are artificial barrier and are for people who do not know how to do anything useful in early adulthood. Like build a house or fix a car. Those are real skills.
and you are probably at least acquainted with the reasons why.
Prejudice or ignorance, perhaps?
So you have that scientific knowledge. And?
 
Last edited:
That could include common descent as religiosity.
I think a belief that common descent is true could be like a statement of religious faith. But you would have to have some sort of coherent ethic and ritual to integrate with it as part of a dogma and go along with it before I'd consider it religious. There are crank religions that use it that way but I don't think that many people even know of them.
It can fit the definition or at least be a religious counterfeit.
Of a dogma, yes, it could.
That would depend on their career paths. If it does not advance their careers or is not used it will be forgotten eventually. Most general knowledge in science fields available on the net. There is not point in going beyond general if it does not advance career goals. It takes a lot of work and people generally avoid that sort of thing if there is no reward on the other end.
This is true. For most people the idea of common descent just isn't very relevant.
The one emboldened. Could you not figure that out on your own?
TBH, no. I can be pretty slow that way. Please forgive. My apologies.
You were the one who used the word inversely correlated. I used the same words applied to different circumstances involving skin color and math skills for a reason.
OK, I see. It's a statistical correlation. Certainly there are loads of scientifically literate religious folk, and I can think of a few I know personally who are more accomplished than atheist me, for instance, and it's also true that there are lots of non-religious people who are bone ignorant about science. But as an average, religiosity and scientific knowledge are inversely correlated, both in the study I cited and in other studies. It's a sociological trend, but here me out for a second: I think that's because religiosity takes time and attention, and people only have so much time and attention in their lives, so if you spend it on religion (or painting, or writing novels, or anything that engages your mind and spirit) you won't spend it on science. I mean, science is a big deal to me, personally, but it isn't to many intelligent wonderful people. (shrug) No big deal.
What do your examples have to do with your statement that religiosity is inversely correlated with scientific knowledge? People who attend church is somehow hopelessly illiterate is what your statement implies. Crippled, like blacks were less human and more ape, the so-called science knowledge of the late 19 and early 20th century.
Did I explain myself with the para above? Religious folk are not, in my mind, deficient or crippled. I personally think religion is a good thing. Many people need it, societies need it. To me this is obvious. Religion isn't for everybody, but very little is. Kittens, maybe. Unless you are allergic.
So? Personally i will go with economic literacy over science knowledge because there is more of a future. Not as contingent on outside interests including what others think. If i know how to make and handle money then how much does it matter what others think, including scientists? I can know how to make bombs from scratch but it will do no good if an advanced degree is required to get into the door. Degrees are artificial barrier and are for people who do not know how to do anything useful in early adulthood. Like build a house or fix a car. Those are real skills.
Meh. Depends on the degree. I think I could have made a living before I went to University, but I had too many itches to scratch. Still have them, which is why I'm still here. The natural world is captivating, and the harder you look, the stranger and more interesting it becomes.
Prejudice or ignorance, perhaps?
I like to think that isn't the usual reason, but we all have our biases.
 
Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is political and that partisan disagreement drives beliefs...
Interesting.

A simple demonstration of this effect is masking.

It is purely political, actual science is ignored or is neutered.
other models focus on basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that they facilitate proscientific beliefs.
This sounds like a post hoc rationalization of the former.

"We are smart and will force you to mask, because you are stupid you need told."

If I consider the science then these "cognitively sophisticated" people become scientific imbeciles.

Ignorant sciency people using their political power to control the masses, and they think they can do it because they consider themselves the astute scientific minds.

This effect can be seen on many other subjects.
 
Interesting.

A simple demonstration of this effect is masking.

It is purely political, actual science is ignored or is neutered.

This sounds like a post hoc rationalization of the former.

"We are smart and will force you to mask, because you are stupid you need told."

If I consider the science then these "cognitively sophisticated" people become scientific imbeciles.

Ignorant sciency people using their political power to control the masses, and they think they can do it because they consider themselves the astute scientific minds.

This effect can be seen on many other subjects

I think the whole Covid reponse was driven by the needs/anxieties of the laptop class, which heavily splits politically (in the US). So you have a point there.
 
Last edited:
I think the whole Covid reponse was driven by the needs/anxieties of the laptop class,
That means who can work from home like teachers at the expense of students and are mostly Democrats. Lockdowns also ruined the Trump economy during an election year. It was the nexus for vote cheating which is why Biden is President. Which is also why we are on the verge of WW3 with Russia who has hypersonic* missiles. The difference between stupidity and evil is incidental if we go by results. With Biden we have to wonder which trait dominates. Stupidity or evil? The lockdowns were never needed, neither were the mandated shots. It did make plenty of pharma billionaires at the expense of blue collar and even some college grads who lost jobs. So they had a negative agenda with the cooperation of those in science fields. B team players at that. Part of the problem with the college class is no moral foundation with the recent glut.

which heavily splits politically.
Please tell us all the positive outcomes of the Biden Presidency. Many of us have retreated to less populated red states where there is some semblance of law and order as protection from left wing policies and their negative results. While Biden and his woke Generals are playing slap and tickle in Ukraine, the Ruskies are playing hard ball and biding their time. Getting all their ducks in a row. I had a conversation with a recently married first year teacher last night. She did not know about Waco Texas and David Koresh. She did not know about Mary Shelly, author of Frankenstein allegedly at 18 yrs old. So she practically has a masters degree in education and what does she know? I asked here where she sees herself 20 years from now. As a wife, a mother, as a teacher, as an American? She had no clue. And on it goes. It is a negative assessment because i do know she knows things. Being raised in the north and out in the country in two parent family.
 
Last edited:
OK, so


But which group of people acquire basic science knowledge?

Are there lots of liberals that reject climate change science, evolution and the effectiveness of covid vaccines? I don't think so.
You just proved their point. You know that, right?

"Climate change science???" "Evolution?" "Effectiveness of Covid vaccines?" Three sine qua nons of the mind-numbed thralls.

My recollection is that Patrick Henry College which attracts Christian homeschooled kids does not have a science dept, and Liberty University requires that all students take a course in creationism.
Of course it is. It's called convenient recollection. No one did the research, but they effectively told you what to think and they clearly emboldened you to say what they want you to say as if you knew anything.
 
Last edited:
That means who can work from home like teachers at the expense of students and are mostly Democrats. Lockdowns also ruined the Trump economy during an election year. It was the nexus for vote cheating which is why Biden is President. Which is also why we are on the verge of WW3 with Russia who has hypersonic* missiles. The difference between stupidity and evil is incidental if we go by results. With Biden we have to wonder which trait dominates. Stupidity or evil? The lockdowns were never needed, neither were the mandated shots. It did make plenty of pharma billionaires at the expense of blue collar and even some college grads who lost jobs. So they had a negative agenda with the cooperation of those in science fields. B team players at that. Part of the problem with the college class is no moral foundation with the recent glut.


Please tell us all the positive outcomes of the Biden Presidency. Many of us have retreated to less populated red states where there is some semblance of law and order as protection from left wing policies and their negative results. While Biden and his woke Generals are playing slap and tickle in Ukraine, the Ruskies are playing hard ball and biding their time. Getting all their ducks in a row. I had a conversation with a recently married first year teacher last night. She did not know about Waco Texas and David Koresh. She did not know about Mary Shelly, author of Frankenstein allegedly at 18 yrs old. So she practically has a masters degree in education and what does she know? I asked here where she sees herself 20 years from now. As a wife, a mother, as a teacher, as an American? She had no clue. And on it goes. It is a negative assessment because i do know she knows things. Being raised in the north and out in the country.

I think Biden is corrupt and cognitively impaired, and I think the social response to Covid was a perfect storm of political division, corruption and moral panics. Lots of blame to share for that all round.
 
Some people to say that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and important, but that trying to solve it by government subsidies of windfarms and electric cars, and banning gas stoves, is totally and utterly moronic and even destructive. Those people get called 'climate deniers'. Do you include those as climate deniers?
The motivation of every climate denier I’ve ever met has been Market Fundamentalism.

The reason people deny, play down, or dismiss the science and claim it is all a conspiracy is because they think to:
solve it by government subsidies of windfarms and electric cars, and banning gas stoves, is totally and utterly moronic and even destructive.

If you accept the science and don’t want to solve the problem, you are not a climate denier, you simply are indifferent to humanity’s survival. I doubt very many people actually fall into this category.

In reality, climate deniers disingenuously claim they believe the science, yet say that the EPA, UN, NASA, etc. are lying and denier propaganda and conspiracy sites have it figured out. They do this because they are motivated by market fundamentalism.
 
The motivation of every climate denier I’ve ever met has been Market Fundamentalism.

The reason people deny, play down, or dismiss the science and claim it is all a conspiracy is because they think to:


If you accept the science and don’t want to solve the problem, you are not a climate denier, you simply are indifferent to humanity’s survival. I doubt very many people actually fall into this category.

In reality, climate deniers disingenuously claim they believe the science, yet say that the EPA, UN, NASA, etc. are lying and denier propaganda and conspiracy sites have it figured out. They do this because they are motivated by market fundamentalism.

In reality, most "climate deniers" see a commonality of interest between government, transnational corporations, NGOs and academics and draw the conclusion that the self interest of those groups is not their own self interest, and reasonably suspect that, just as conflict of interest dominates objective science in every other field and must be rooted out, it likely dominates climate science. That isn't conspiracy thinking, it's common sense. It's one of the reasons people distrust the Covid vaccines as well; obvious collusion between the government and big pharma.

The fact that you are willing to ascribe this to dishonesty and "market fundamentalism" is basically paranoid ideation. Your enemy, who is determined, is bad, and a liar. Have you ever tried looking at other people as people, and not reducing your opponents to lunatic fringes and liars?
 
I think Biden is corrupt and cognitively impaired, and I think the social response to Covid was a perfect storm of political division, corruption and moral panics. Lots of blame to share for that all round.
That is all well and good but we are going with lab escape and design which means some in science have poisoned the world with no consequences and plenty of monetary benefits. The Americans were rewarded and who knows about China scientists. Science does not self police and leftist politicians? Forget about it. Seems Fauci, a B-team bureaucrat and con man was on the top of the poop pile. It might not be all that different if gutless uniparty Repubs were in control which is two sides of the same coin. If religion did as much damage to the world as science in the past few years there would be mass scale murders where the French revolution was minuscule by comparison. So the reputation of science as a whole has taken a huge nosedive. The next will be far more deadly and it won't come from nature exclusively...it will come from a lab. COVID was simply foreplay.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top