Science, Politics and Religion, Oh My
I had an interesting discussion on FB recently, where most of my interesting discussions occur these days in those frustratingly tiny dialogue boxes, about the vaccine-autism link. One of my FB friends claimed that "somehow, whether you believe vaccines cause autism positions you on the political right or left" and further that "it has to do with an alarming mindset that's developed among a LOT of people that the basic concepts of science -- i.e., truths are what are derived from unbiased experiments and evidence -- are in themselves a godless, communist approach that threatens faith, and is somehow conspiring against them."
But I thought about it and I noted that while I know a number of conservatives, conservatives who live up to a lot of conservative stereotypes, I've never heard any of them claim that vaccine causes autism. In fact, the only people I know who claim or who've claimed such things are better characterized as hippie-like lefties who aren't devout practitioners of religion at all. (As it happens, I know a few home schoolers who fit that description as well, defying the stereotype that home schoolers are all rigid fundamentalists who hate science.)
On the other hand, I know or have met a few climate change sceptics, and they're, to a person, conservative people. So, I think that this notion of conservatives hating mainstream science and liberals embracing it, is something of a misnomer. (I appreciate treating mainstream science with scepticism, I'm not Feyerabend, but I have observed that people are willing to accede to the authority of science too quickly. By that I mean, they are willing to embrace things just because they've read that a lot of scientists believe it, even when it turns out they have no understanding of the reasoning behind it.) In fact, I think that we all are, not surprisingly, inclined to be sceptical of science when it requires us to change the way we view the world and embrace it when it confirms it. Left wingers are more likely to embrace ingesting organic substances, minimal intervention in the food chain, etc. and it's understandable why they'd be sympathetic to scepticism about vaccines as it involves utilizing a fairly highly processed substance and implementing it via a very unnatural intervention in development to prevent disease. Similarly, we can understand why conservatives who are business and free market proponents will be sceptical of science that implies the necessity of a radical change in our economic infrastructure that's unlikely to be accomplished via free market processes alone. So, I don't think that being a right winger or left winger makes us more or less inclined to embrace science. Instead, if you want to understand why or when people will be sceptical of science, just look at their web of beliefs. How easily can they accommodate the scientific claims under consideration into them? This is an old story and it has far less to do with one's political stance, there may be a secondary effect insofar as reality really does have a liberal bias, than it has to do with the way we function as knowers.
x-posted to talkpolitics
But I thought about it and I noted that while I know a number of conservatives, conservatives who live up to a lot of conservative stereotypes, I've never heard any of them claim that vaccine causes autism. In fact, the only people I know who claim or who've claimed such things are better characterized as hippie-like lefties who aren't devout practitioners of religion at all. (As it happens, I know a few home schoolers who fit that description as well, defying the stereotype that home schoolers are all rigid fundamentalists who hate science.)
On the other hand, I know or have met a few climate change sceptics, and they're, to a person, conservative people. So, I think that this notion of conservatives hating mainstream science and liberals embracing it, is something of a misnomer. (I appreciate treating mainstream science with scepticism, I'm not Feyerabend, but I have observed that people are willing to accede to the authority of science too quickly. By that I mean, they are willing to embrace things just because they've read that a lot of scientists believe it, even when it turns out they have no understanding of the reasoning behind it.) In fact, I think that we all are, not surprisingly, inclined to be sceptical of science when it requires us to change the way we view the world and embrace it when it confirms it. Left wingers are more likely to embrace ingesting organic substances, minimal intervention in the food chain, etc. and it's understandable why they'd be sympathetic to scepticism about vaccines as it involves utilizing a fairly highly processed substance and implementing it via a very unnatural intervention in development to prevent disease. Similarly, we can understand why conservatives who are business and free market proponents will be sceptical of science that implies the necessity of a radical change in our economic infrastructure that's unlikely to be accomplished via free market processes alone. So, I don't think that being a right winger or left winger makes us more or less inclined to embrace science. Instead, if you want to understand why or when people will be sceptical of science, just look at their web of beliefs. How easily can they accommodate the scientific claims under consideration into them? This is an old story and it has far less to do with one's political stance, there may be a secondary effect insofar as reality really does have a liberal bias, than it has to do with the way we function as knowers.
x-posted to talkpolitics