Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tea Partiers were more scientifically literate than the general populace, and as compared with other categories of conservatives. The articles I see out there do not say how liberals came out, but I'll see if I can track that down.
I wonder how much of this comes from right-wingers reading their blogs that tell them scientists whose findings contradict Republican lies. I'd be willing to bet the average right-wing denialist knows more about climatology than a non-******. They don't believe any of it because it's not in agreement with declarations made by the likes of Inhofe and Limbaugh, but they're aware of it.
I bet creationists know more about evolutionary biology than the average non-****** as well, for similar reasons. To declare something a lie you need to be aware of its existence first.
People sure "hate" them on here and I think it is odd when these people also preach tolerance... but then again, they make good scapegoats for Liberals and Republicans.... I have nothing against them... anyone who wants to speak their minds is welcomed to it...
Typical, instead of attacking the study, the liberals here attack an organization and personalities.
Liberals, if you are so sure that the results of this study are inaccurate, then present a rational and logical critique, ideally including some empirical data that lends credence to your opposing viewpoint.
Tea Partiers were more scientifically literate than the general populace, and as compared with other categories of conservatives. The articles I see out there do not say how liberals came out, but I'll see if I can track that down.
That is actually pretty scary. It is one thing to just not know much about certain things. It is quite another to know and refuse to believe it anyway.
Typical, instead of attacking the study, the liberals here attack an organization and personalities.
Liberals, if you are so sure that the results of this study are inaccurate, then present a rational and logical critique, ideally including some empirical data that lends credence to your opposing viewpoint.
Any takers?
From the researcher's comments.
Quote:
In this dataset, I found that there is a small correlation (r = -0.05, p = 0.03) between the science comprehension measure and a left-right political outlook measure, Conservrepub, which aggregates liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification. The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more "liberal" and "Democrat," the more science comprehending.
So it turns out that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction. Hmmm. Watts up with that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
