Guest post by David Middleton
Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics
Edited by Roger E. Kasperson, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and approved July 19, 2017 (received for review March 23, 2017)
Significance
Public opinion toward some science and technology issues is polarized along religious and political lines. We investigate whether people with more education and greater science knowledge tend to express beliefs that are more (or less) polarized. Using data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, we find that more knowledgeable individuals are more likely to express beliefs consistent with their religious or political identities for issues that have become polarized along those lines (e.g., stem cell research, human evolution), but not for issues that are controversial on other grounds (e.g., genetically modified foods). These patterns suggest that scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns.
Abstract
Although Americans generally hold science in high regard and respect its findings, for some contested issues, such as the existence of anthropogenic climate change, public opinion is polarized along religious and political lines. We ask whether individuals with more general education and greater science knowledge, measured in terms of science education and science literacy, display more (or less) polarized beliefs on several such issues. We report secondary analyses of a nationally representative dataset (the General Social Survey), examining the predictors of beliefs regarding six potentially controversial issues. We find that beliefs are correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution, and with political identity alone on climate change. Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues. We find little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods. On all six topics, people who trust the scientific enterprise more are also more likely to accept its findings. We discuss the causal mechanisms that might underlie the correlation between education and identity-based polarization.
Unfortunately, the paper is behind the PNAS paywall.
This fits in very nicely with Eric Worrall’s “NYT: We Should Trust Climate Scientists Because The Eclipse” post. According to the scientifically illiterate Justin Gillis, we should trust the predictions of climate scientists because real scientists can predict eclipses of the Sun and Moon with amazing precision an accuracy. Well, no. Mr. Gillis’ notion is moronic. Eclipses have no associated political controversies… outside the minds of liberal law professors and Vox.
According to this study, “individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on” politically or religiously controversial issues. Views on stem cell research, evolution and the Big Bang diverged along political and religious lines, with scientific literacy increasing the divergence. Views on climate change diverged solely on political lines, diverging more with greater scientific literacy. Views on GMO foods and nanotechnology did not diverge on political or religious lines.
This makes perfect sense. There are no religious or political reasons to oppose GMO foods or nanotechnology.
ARS Technica’s article about this paper displayed the standard liberal smugness, but included some useful information.
KNOWLEDGE SURPLUS —
When it comes to controversial science, a little knowledge is a problem
For those on the wrong side of an ideological divide, scientific knowledge hurts.
JOHN TIMMER – 8/22/2017, 12:50 PM
For a lot of scientific topics, there’s a big gap between what scientists understand and what the public thinks it knows. For a number of these topics—climate change and evolution are prominent examples—this divide develops along cultural lines, typically religious or political identity.
It would be reassuring to think that the gap is simply a matter of a lack of information. Get the people with doubts about science up to speed, and they’d see things the way that scientists do. Reassuring, but wrong. A variety of studies have indicated that the public’s doubts about most scientific topics have nothing to do with how much they understand that topic. And a new study out this week joins a number of earlier ones in indicating that scientific knowledge makes it easier for those who are culturally inclined to reject a scientific consensus.
[…]
We’ll do the good news first: there’s no sign of cultural polarization on GMOs or nanotechnology. The former is a bit of a surprise given the widespread public mistrust of this biotechnology (and the frequent claim that the problem arises from a bunch of lefty granola eaters). It would also be easy to envision religious opposition on these topics, given that both involve “playing God” in the sense that humans are creating things that don’t commonly occur naturally.
But that’s about where the good news ends. Drummond and Fishchoff found strong polarization on most of the other topics.
In terms of stem cell research, evolution, and the Big Bang, those with a stronger general education showed greater political polarization, with conservatives more likely to reject them. For those with a strong science education, those topics were also polarized, as was climate change. In a bit of good news, high levels of scientific literacy removed the Big Bang from that list. Put differently, stem cell research and evolution were consistently polarized along political lines. As scientific literacy went up, climate change became politicized, too, but people were more likely to accept the evidence for the Big Bang.
Partly overlapping effects were seen when religious fundamentalism was considered, the exception being climate change, where opinion wasn’t polarized along religious lines. Stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution were, however.
Education vs. science
Overall, Drummond and Fishchoff found that education doesn’t make much of a difference when it comes to accepting science. “Participants’ general educational attainment and science education were at best weakly related to their acceptance of the scientific consensus,” they conclude. Scientific literacy helped a bit overall, as “those with higher scientific literacy scores were more likely to agree with the scientific consensus on three issues: the Big Bang, human evolution, and nanotechnology.”
But that was largely due to the large effect it had among political and religious liberals. In other ways, it hurt, as those with a strong science education or who demonstrated scientific literacy showed higher polarization when it came to stem cells, evolution, and the climate, primarily because conservatives become less likely to accept the scientific consensus.
Ultimately, the thing that matters most is trust. “On all six topics,” the authors write, “people who trust the scientific enterprise more are also more likely to accept its findings.” The politicization of scientific issues may, in part, be the result of a long-term decline in trust in the scientific enterprise among conservatives.
[…]
The ARS Technica article includes a graph from the paper:
Firstly, this does not demonstrate “a big gap between what scientists understand and what the public thinks it knows.” The two panels in the graph comprise a non sequitur to that “big gap.” The first panel has nothing to do with the supposed scientific consensus on climate change (Humans are responsible for more than half of the warming since 1950). This is as bad as Doran & Kendall Zimmerman in its flawed logical reasoning. Accepting the assertion that humans are primarily responsible for climate change does not follow from knowing that carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas.
As a professional geologist, I know the answer to the first question is “carbon dioxide” and the answer to the second question is “mostly because of natural patterns in the Earth’s environment.” There is no logical requirement for the first answer to lead to “mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”
Oddly enough, Doran & Kendall Zimmerman found that a majority of academic & government economic geologists agree with me (they only surveyed academic & government scientists.”
It should come as little surprise that geoscientists have consistently been far more likely to think that modern climate changes have been driven by overwhelmingly natural processes. A survey of APEGA, the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, found that 64% of geoscientists rejected the so-called consensus for various reasons, with climate change being overwhelmingly natural leading the pack.
This study is very interesting because it analyzes the frames of reference (Kuhn’s “different worlds”) in which opinions are formed. Skeptical geologists are most likely to view climate change as overwhelmingly natural. Skeptical engineers are more likely to view it as a matter of economics or fatalism. The cost of decarbonization would far outweigh any benefits and/or would have no measurable effect on climate change.
None of which is ideologically driven, unless there are some unseen forces that drive conservatives into geology and/or engineering… Or something about geology and engineering that drives the practitioners towards conservatism and/or libertarianism. I know that having real jobs, paying beaucoup taxes and having to cut through government red tape, just to do our jobs, certainly could be a motivating factor… The AAPG doesn’t conduct political surveys of its membership, but one company, Seismic Micro-Technology (SMT), did conduct an unscientific survey during the 2008 AAPG convention and found that, “geoscientists are a politically diverse group of people, with no disproportionate representation for any political party.” They also found that 47% of respondents agreed “that human factors are primarily driving global warming.” 36% disagreed and 17% were undecided or unsure. So, the AAPG members who visited SMT’s booth and took the survey probably skewed to the left a bit and SMT’s reporting of the survey seems a bit biased as well:
A minority (37%) of all respondents disagree that human factors are primarily
driving global warming – but political affiliation polarizes opinion
- 57% of conservatives reject the consensus view, versus 27% of liberals.
- Independents align with liberals – with only 30% rejecting the consensus view.
- Political views are more telling here than age, as both Under 45 and Over 45 show pluralities believing in human causes.
A minority, 46%, agreed with the consensus. 54% did not agree with the consensus. 37% disagreed and 17% were unsure.
Putting the AGI, AAPG, APEGA surveys together reveals the following:
| Climate change primarily driven by human activities | ||||
| Reject | Unsure | Endorse | ||
| Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman | AGI | 53% | 0% | 47% |
| Lefsfrud & Meyer | APEGA | 40% | 33% | 27% |
| Seismic Micro-Technology | AAPG | 37% | 17% | 46% |
| Average | 43% | 17% | 40% | |
| Standard Deviation | 9% | 17% | 11% | |
- Reject so-called consensus 43% (±9%)
- Unsure 17% (±17%)
- Endorse so-called consensus 40% (±11%)
All three of these surveys were conducted in or around 2008. Lefsfrud & Meyer was a 2013 reanalysis of a 2008 survey.
While ideology certainly appears to be a factor in scientifically literate disagreement with the so-called consensus, geoscientists clearly fall short of 97% in their endorsement of it.
Yet, Dr. Timmer (a molecular biologist and flaming liberal Democrat) dismisses scientifically literate rejection of the so called consensus with quips like, “a little knowledge is a problem” and “for those on the wrong side of an ideological divide, scientific knowledge hurts.” It appears that he would prefer a scientifically illiterate society in which we would all just bow down to “science” and do what we’re told to do.
Conclusion
If scientifically literate conclusions regarding the causes of climate change are primarily driven by political ideology… The climate science is settled: It’s not science.
References
[1] Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23.
[2] Drummond, Caitlin and Baruch Fischhoff
Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. PNAS 2017 ; published ahead of print August 21, 2017, doi:10.1073/pnas.1704882114
[3] Lefsrud, L. M.; Meyer, R. E. (2012). “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change”. Organization Studies. 33 (11): 1477. doi:10.1177/0170840612463317
[4] SMT. AAPG Geoscientist Survey Results Political Views of Geologists and Geophysicists. © 2008 Seismic Micro-Technology
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mark Twain popularized a saying that may apply here: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Al Gore is familiar with all these and possibly some more besides.
The saying was made by Benjamin Disraeli.
The study appears to implicitly assume that the science is definitive in each case. That is unlikely to be true.
Differing views among the scientifically educated can easily be based in science, because the science is still ambiguous or equivocal.
The article does not explore the rationales offered by those having differing beliefs. We don’t factually know why the people believe as they do. Therefore it’s impossible to know which group, if any, is irrational.
Given the lack of contextual logic and reasoning in the decisions, the article is at best phenomenological, with no objective explanatory meaning.
We might find general value in this post regarding the details that break along party/religious lines, which I think is something we already sensed. But it bothers me a great deal that the survey questions are leading and the data nearly 10 years old! So much has changed!
There are far greater number of scientists today, and growing, that do not agree that CO2 causes warming at all, and in fact just the opposite… follows temperature. On the other side, I would venture to say that the rate of alarmists has greatly increased.
In many ways, this report becomes not useful in helping identify what we’re really dealing with. In fact, it could actually be harmful in suggesting that many of these questions are still relevant if the reader doesn’t catch this was done in 2008.
I don’t think it’s meant to be useful, exactly. It is a tippy-toe way of saying that scientifically ignorant people are more sceptical about “settled” science. It is propaganda lite. The reality is that the veracity of much science today is very weak. This has been shown repeatedly in meta studies. Unless and until science can fix its replication problems it actually behooves us all to examine scientific claims very carefully. Especially where they indicate a need for deep structural changes to our society, lest these turn into catastrophic failed experiments.
You mean that if more people understand the science, they might be less likely to blithely take the word of some ‘expert’, and make up their own minds?
That does NOT suit the collectivist mantra.
It is worth recalling Richard Feynman’s insightful comment:
Full paper:
https://sci-hub.cc/10.1073/pnas.1704882114
It’s the usual lefty illegitimate machinations.
1)There is no rejecting GMO, nanotech, stem cells, eclipses. They are real whether we like them or not. We can know the science inside out but still reject its use.
2)Climate science asTeam CO2 has it, is not established yet – much is in dispute and the proponents are unable to give us convincing scientific evidence that they have it right. With the broken predictions, a couple of decades of Pause, the jiggering out of the pause and its apparent imminent return, aren’t factors to give confidence. Indeed, shame on geologists and engineers who support it. How do they react to asking them to explain the failures? Just like Al Gore, not like scientists, they insult questioners.
3) They use the non scientific word belief.
The great risk that these folk take, is that failure with this hypothesis is going to end up having Conservatives being recognized as the saviours of science. That Conservatives recognized the game being played and have staved off ruination of the world political economy. Now Conservatives haven’t been claiming this role. It’s being thrust upon them by the left. Hubris and entitlement vanquished Hillary and the left in the last election. Hubris and entitlement drives the the political science of thermageddon CliSci.
I’m afraid they aren’t making the independent geological spirit like they used to. Don’t forget the present crop has been fed lefty post normal fancy for a generation and more.
Gary,
In my experience, it is left-leaning folks that reject GMO’s as ‘FrankenFood’ and such drek. It is anathema, here in the Seattle area.
The new paper is just another social science salvo on the same topic — they have decided that Conservatives who actually are trained in Science do not support some Scientific Consensus views because they are better at finding reasons to be irrational.
It never occurs to them that the better trained scientifically, and being more conservative-minded and in possession of critical thinking skills allows Conservative Scientists to see through false consensus positions based on political and social biases instead of science.
BTW — the document locator for the new study is doi:10.1073/pnas.1704882114
Try this:
Unfortunately, the paper is behind the PNAS paywall.
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1073/pnas.1704882114
there are two sorts of academics: rote learners and original thinkers.
Rote learners have to depend on authoritative sources. They do no original research really, they just ‘fill in’ the corners.
They will go along with whatever is presented to them as ‘proper science’
Original thinkers will question and be skeptical.
There are no original thinkers in the Liberal camp. If they thought, they wouldn’t be there.
Politically I believe that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible is not such a good idea. I would like to use AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to defend. The biggest problem with the AGW conjecture is that the radiant greenhouse effect, upon which the AGW conjecture is based, has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. It is all a matter of science and has nothing to do with anyone’s political or religious affiliation.
Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is only finite in the sense that sedimentary basins have finite volumes. While the supply of fossil fuels is finite, it’s large enough that from a human perspective, it’s effectively infinite. We will figure out a more economically beneficial energy source long before we burn up all of the fossil fuels.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/08/17/gilmer-we-should-view-the-permian-basin-as-a-permanent-resource/#1ebcd74156ff
We have barely scratched the surface as it pertains to depleting Earth’s fossil fuel resources.
While all of the evidence points to CO2 being a relatively minor radiative forcing mechanism… The so-called greenhouse effect is real, CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas and its infrared absorption properties are basic physics.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg
The radiative forcing of CO2 has been directly observed and measured on Earth.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/
http://33ooeh42hzcia809132by241.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/graph-big-box-homepage-copy-copy.jpg
What was observed? A ~20 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 correlated with a 0.2 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface.
Total insolation at the Earth’s surface ranges from 40 to 340 W/m^2 per year.
Assuming a linear relationship of .01 W/m^2 per 1 ppmv CO2… A doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv will increase radiative forcing by 2.8 W/m^2. This is about 2/3 of the IPCC’s estimate.
The total warming since 1850 has been about 0.7°C. Over the same period, CO2 increased by about 120 ppmv (~1.2 W/m^2).
0.7°C ÷ 1.2 W/m^2 = 0.6°C/Wm^-20.7°C ÷ 120 ppmv CO2 = 0.006°C/ppmv CO2
This means that a doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 can lead to a maximum warming of 1.68°C… less than half of the so-called consensus estimate.
Since my “back of the envelope” calculations assumed a linear, rather than logarithmic, relationship and that all of the warming since 1850 was GHG-driven, the actual climate sensitivity can be no more than half of my estimate… ~0.8°C per doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2.
This essentially means that the human impact on climate change is insignificant.
All you are showing is that CO2 is a radiative gas.
It’s laboratory properties are well known, but Earth’s atmosphere is very far removed from laboratory conditions, and to date we have been unable to wean out the warming signal to CO2 over and above the noise of natural variation in temperature, notwithstanding the use of our best measuring devices but of course as restricted by the error bounds that come with these measuring devices, and the practice and methodology of collecting and assimilating the data. Accordingly, we just do not know whether CO2 is or is not a GHG.
Until such time as we detect and measure and quantify the signal, we simply will not know.
There is an abundance of evidence that suggests that the planet today is about the same temperature as it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s (well the NH, and we only have historic data on the NH, and as Phil Jones observed in the Climategate emails the SH temps are largely made up). We only know what has happened in the NH, and I would suggest that the (contiguous) US is not an outlier and that if the NH temps were to be measured properly they would show broadly the same temperature profile as the (contiguous) US..
Assuming that to be the case all the warming observed from the LIA took place through to say 1940 with an increase of about 30ppm of CO2, whereas since 1940 there has been no rise in temperatures notwithstanding an increase in CO2 of about (or a little over) 100 ppm.
That puts a rather different complexion on matters.
The correct answer to question 1 is Hydrogen because it is only one that burns in air otherwise you’d have to say the question makes no sense because it says nothing about over what period and in what circumstances.
The question was definitely a leading question; but it was clearly written and the only correct answer, among the options given, was carbon dioxide.
Dave what will be the new fuel for the human race? Unless you can state it then how do you know that there will be one? We have been told that nuclear for 60 years now and that electricity from it would be too cheap to meter. So much faith for a saviour new fuel appearing in the future sounds like the Messiah . Not very scientific is it.
Because we have always found ways to do things better than we used to.
Eventually, someone will figure out nuclear fusion… Someone will figure out how to economically put solar farms into orbit.
In the meantime, we have more than enough fossil fuels and functioning nuclear power plants to get by for at least the next 100 years.
David;
You certainly picked a ripe target when you chose to quote John Timmer, Science editor for Ars Technica. I have some personal experience with John, who once banned me from the Ars comment site for presenting data on the known error in carbon 14 dating methods. I had the temerity to quote the organization responsible for determining that error.
John is a tyrannical buffoon of the highest order.
It’s an interesting conclusion that they make, I certainly saw it in my own time at University.
While I was at University I learnt what science was and can see the BS. Interestingly though, a lot of people around me, who were generally even more educated, seemed to just blindly trust that some other expert knows more than they do. People are so entrenched in the specialist way of thinking that they trust anyone who works in a more specific field than they do on some particular subject.
“People are so entrenched in the specialist way of thinking that they trust anyone who works in a more specific field than they do on some particular subject.”
I was a victim of that very thing myself Jarryd, I can’t agree more. I’ve read others on this forum who’ve admitted the problem. I was (briefly) involved in government funded atmospheric research in the late 70’s and when I moved on to the private sector and got busy with my own career and family I just assumed the folks involved in climate research had the same level of discipline and integrity I’d observed while I was with NASA and NOAA. It wasn’t until 2003, when I retired and decided I could maybe donate my experience for the greater good that I became aware of the gross violations of fundamental statistical and scientific method that had been perpetrated by actors such as Dr. Mann (who was the author of the first paper I read that raised my alarm).
It’s difficult for me to even remember the time I was a benign “believer” in the work of my fellow scientists, but I think it’s happened to all of us.
That’s one of the themes of Lawrence Soloman’s The Deniers .