because conspiracy theorists and skeptics/debunkers don't represent the majority of the population.Notice how almost everyone here is below the middle horizontal line, a couple are just above it, so why are all our politicians in the Anglosphere above the line?
This is my result from a couple of months ago, it might have grown more right since then although.
I think based on the dalai lama, ghandi, nelson mendela's scores compared to many results here at skeptiville I think you are right about culture and time being an issue. Mine changed slightly over the past 3 years (but I haven't changed), red dot is current. Nice to see my new vague answers to black&white questions have moved me further away from Hitler though. Unless TPTB (ie angels) just wanted to move me into the pink/green area so it would match my signatureIt would indeed be interesting to see if and how positions have changed over time. Cultural aspects might also influence results.
Science Knowledge Has Almost No Effect On Republican Beliefs, According To Survey
Politicians don’t normally have a handle on the latest science at the best of times, whether they are on the left or the right of the spectrum. However, it’s difficult to argue against the notion that the Republican Party these days are the de facto political organization for anti-scientific rhetoric.
Conducted during the summer of last year, Pew has highlighted it again this week. Based on a representative sample of 1,534 American adults, it queried people on their scientific viewpoints – in particular, it wanted to know what percentage of people accepted the science of climate change in relation to rising sea levels, environmental destruction, and extreme weather events.
A curious trend emerged. Among Democrats, those with a higher scientific literacy agreed with the general scientific consensus a lot more than those with a limited scientific comprehension. For example, 75 percent of those with “high” literacy agreed that climate change causes rising sea levels, 73 percent agreed that wildlife is going to suffer, and 74 percent agreed that storms will get more severe.
This pattern was not seen at all in Republican voters. In fact, there was no correlation between scientific consensus acceptance and scientific literacy – partisanship seemed to make scientific literacy irrelevant. Those with almost no background in science responded in much the same way to questions as those with a high degree of scientific comprehension.
For example, only 27 percent of GOPers with a “high” scientific literacy agreed that the phenomenon caused rising sea levels, and only 19 percent agreed that storms are more severe because of it.
So, if you’re a Democrat, you are much more likely to accept scientific facts the more educated you are on the subject. If you’re a Republican, the chances are you won’t give a damn about what any scientist says – with some exceptions.
Ultimately, this means that you can throw all the facts you want at certain people, and you can be essentially certain that none of them will change their minds. If that doesn’t scare the living daylights out of you, then we don’t know what will.
It’s not their politics, it’s their values
Other research has similarly found that science denial can run the political spectrum. For instance, another study examined attitudes about climate change, evolution and stem cell research and found that partisan identification was not necessarily a good predictor of how someone will feel about these controversial issues. In fact, very few participants were found to be skeptical of science across the board. And reactions to these specific issues were more tightly linked with religious attitudes than with political ones.
Other scholarship echoes these findings. Indeed, research does suggest that a certain segment of the population places more trust in religion than in science for understanding the world. But even among this group, science and religion are seen as conflicting only on certain topics, including the Big Bang and evolution.
One area in which political beliefs do have an impact is the kinds of scientists that liberals and conservatives are likely to trust. A 2013 study of 798 participants found that conservatives put more faith in scientists involved in economic production – food scientists, industrial chemists and petroleum geologists, for instance – than in scientists involved in areas associated with regulation, such as public health and environmental science. The opposite was true for liberals.
Get past assumptions to common ground
Having a more complete understanding of when and why liberals and conservatives trust science helps avoid oversimplifications. It’s an important stopgap using oversimplified assumptions to denigrate those who disagree with us politically.
None of this is to suggest that the anti-science viewpoints exhibited by Republican politicians on issues such as climate change should be ignored. Nor is it an argument that since "both sides" can fall for anti-science rhetoric, it can be waved away.
Rather, these findings indicate that, in theory, it’s possible liberals and conservatives could work together to encourage politicians to base policy recommendations on sound science, at least on some issues.
Maybe even more importantly, understanding the social and cultural issues surrounding the acceptance or rejection of science is a first step toward crafting messages that resonate with members of the public who question the science on hot-button issues. Research suggests using the right kind of messenger – someone who is trusted within the community – can be key to moving the needle.
That it says I'm not as libertarian or left-wing as I would like I put down to the vagueness of some of the questions...