PZ Myers offers up a worthy review of a recent poll on Americans belief in science, one that not too surprisingly finds that fundamentalist Protestants are the least likely to believe in evolution. More interesting was the discovery that while higher levels of education tend to increase one's belief in evolution among most religious groups, it made no difference for the fundamentalists. In PZ's words, "they are completely refractory to education." That brought to mind a similar poll on belief in anthropogenic global warming (AWG) I heard mentioned on NPR this past weekend...
The climate poll, carried out by the veneral Pew group, found that more education you have, the more likely you are to share the the scientific community's consensus on AWG -- that fossil-fuel emissions are responsible of warming the planet -- but only if you're a Democrat. For Republicans, more schooling actually made you more skeptical of what scientists have to say. Here's one of the simple charts from the PEW poll:
There also are striking educational differences in partisans' views of global warming. Among Republicans, higher education is linked to greater skepticism about global warming -- fully 43% of Republicans with a college degree say that there is no evidence of global warming, compared with 24% of Republicans with less education.
But among Democrats, the pattern is the reverse. Fully 75% of Democrats with college degrees say that there is solid evidence of global warming and that it is caused by human activities. This is far higher than among Democrats with less education among whom 52% say the same. Independents, regardless of education levels, fall in between these partisan extremes.
Why should this be? Two possibilities: Either the schooling Republicans are getting is sub-par, or a Republican upbringing tends to immunize a student from reason. Any other options you can think of?
- Log in to post comments
Yes. I have an engineering degree, and an active interest in Astronomy and other sciences. I certainly don't have the background to vet or refute global warming climatology. I can't even read peer reviewed journals on the subject to verify the consensus on the subject. I'm highly skeptical of mass media to relay the science right. Yet, twenty years ago i stopped skiing because there's hardly any snow anymore. I'm convinced. (duh!)
But i have a friend who also has an engineering degree, and thinks that ID is science. My best guess is that he thinks he needs some sort of absolutism to keep his sanity. Any idea that is sensitive to context makes him uncomfortable. And, this stupidity isn't going to hurt him here in Michigan. I mean, we're not subject to hurricanes, we're too high for floods, we have plenty of good fresh water, and if it warmed up a little, so much the better.
I think we're both scared $#!^!355 about climate change. But i've changed all my light bulbs.
Does the "GW" in "GW Bush" refer to Global Warming?
What are the percentage of Republicans and Democrats among college grads and not college grads ? One could imagine that being educated makes you more of a Democrat, except for the hopeless, who are also the ones less accessible to reason.
We Oxygen-breathers exist with the aid of plant waste product. That's how we got our start. If we keep diggin' up fossil Carbon & attachin' Oxygen to it climatological changes will prob'ly happen. Keep watchin' the evidence and in the meantime wouldn't it be wise to minimise our footprint? Y'can't lose by going sustainable and you might lose by profligacy. Which side are you on?
One could imagine that being educated makes you more of a Democrat, except for the hopeless, who are also the ones less accessible to reason.
I've encountered enough conservative engineers, obviously bright, who are skeptical about global warming to chalk a lot of it up to skepticism about anything that is perceived as a pet cause among liberals. I've even met the wife of a meteorologist who's husband is skeptical about global warming. A large part of the problem is that the intricacies of the whole debate are largely inaccessible to those who are not professional climatologists directly involved in global warming research, which inclines conservatives to dismiss the matter when people like Al Gore, whom they hate, are seen championing it.
I am a conservative who believes in human-induced global warming. However, I can understand the difficulty liberals have in trying to convince conservatives of that position. It is similar to the way I cannot convince liberals that Third World immigration is harmful, no matter how much educational, criminal, or economic data I throw at them. They insist that Hispanic newcomers will assimilate to the educational and economic norms of white America in spite of all evidence to the contrary. (For example, even fourth-generation Mexican-Americans are nowhere near the educational norms of white America.) An anti-immigration stance, regardless of the data, doesn't fit the liberal world-view and so liberals are happy just to ignore the data.
The funny part is that my interest in environmentalism and immigration converges at a point: First World countries, as (usually liberal) environmentalists are apt to point out, consume an inordinate amount of the world's resources. What they miss is that First World population growth is being driven almost entirely by the influx of high fertility Third World immigrants these days. If immigration were halted, then the populations of most First World countries would begin to decline and so, consequently, would the amount of resources being consumed by First World populations. Liberals like to talk a lot about the problems caused by population growth, but they don't seem to give a damn about immigration-driven population growth, which is about the only population growth to speak of in the First World. It doesn't jibe with prevailing liberal thought, and so they pretend it doesn't exist. Likewise, convincing conservatives to take the environmental consequences of immigration seriously is difficult.
Republicans, particularly in the past 15 years or so, have had to learn to ignore reality in favor of their party's positions on almost every issue. They've gotten really good at it.
See: the Obama thread.
In the metropolitan DC area, many "educated" Republicans attended schools like Patrick Henry (focusing on radical Christian political theory), Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and Pat Robertson's Regent College, all of which do not teach real science. Pat Robertson and other radical Christians have stated 10-15 years ago that their purpose is to infiltrate government and create a "Christian" nation with private schools and social services all run by Christians.
It's working. Faith-based funding, school vouchers, and tax-free status (even with all the political action that should result in their paying taxes) have funneled taxpayer dollars into fundamental Christian (as well as radical Islamic) organizations. And their extensive so-called "grassroots" movements (really well-funded brain-washing efforts) entangling themselves in local politics nationwide.
And the Supreme Court gave them a leg up when it allowed the Salvation Army to hire and fire based on religious belief even when funding comes directly from taxpayers. We are headed for the evangelical Christian dark ages, folks, unless we unleash counter forces.
There is a lot of hate shown in these comments section. As a conservative with a PhD and a faculty position in academia, I am not the least bit surprised that the more educated conservatives are, the more they are skeptical of things which come from academia. The educational experiences of liberals and conservatives is similar in content but different in terms of acceptance and hostility. My supervisor repeatedly threatened to cause harm to people like me who were conservative Christians. Getting an education in a system where you are hated and despised simply for who you are will generate skepticism.
This poll, even more so than polls showing that a large portion of professors are liberal, demonstrates that academia needs to do a better job ensuring diversity of thought among the ranks of the professorate. Liberals come our of the liberal echo chamber of academia with increased trust in the system and conservatives ome out of the same echo chamber with less trust. That seems to be a reasonable response to academia which is so imbalanced in terms of thought diversity.