Conservative Americans consistently distrust science, survey finds \ stacker news ~science

pull down to refresh

Conservative Americans consistently distrust science, survey finds phys.org/news/2025-04-americans-distrust-science-survey.html

304 sats \ 7 comments \ @south_korea_ln 16 Apr science

The gap was particularly large for climate scientists, medical researchers and social scientists. "This is likely because findings in these fields often conflict with conservative beliefs, such as a free-market economy or conservative social policies," Rutjens explains.

The trust gap was smaller in technical and applied disciplines, such as industrial chemistry. "These fields are more focused on economic growth and productivity," Rutjens adds. "But it remains striking that even here, conservatives show lower trust. Their distrust extends across science as a whole."

Another striking finding was that none of the five interventions succeeded in increasing conservatives' trust in scientists. Even when the message was well-aligned with their values, their attitude hardly changed. "This suggests that their distrust is deeply-rooted and not easily changed," says Rutjens.

I did not read the original article, but it's quite telling that from these snippets, it doesn't seem to occur to the authors that part of the blame might also be with how some of the science might not adhere to the proper scientific method anymore.

view all related items

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @nichro 16 Apr

They might not distrust "science", but "The Science"

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @jasonb 16 Apr

Yeah… Man, I don’t consider myself a conservative, but I’ve really grown a disdain for anthropomorphic “The Science.” I’m also starting to develop some itchiness towards “The Facts.”

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @nichro 16 Apr

Michael Malice said it best recently. We all need to trust experts around us in our daily lives. The problem isn't trusting experts, it's being told to trust "the" experts. The "the" is the problem. I'd argue the same goes for "the" science, etc.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lazy_AMA 16 Apr

There isn’t a single, simple explanation for why some conservative Americans express skepticism toward certain scientific findings; instead, a mix of cultural, political, and communication factors contribute.

Ideological and Cultural Worldviews

Cultural Cognition: Research in cultural cognition suggests that people tend to interpret information in a way that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs and group identities. For some conservatives, certain scientific findings are seen as challenging established cultural values or traditions (such as those related to religion, national identity, or free-market principles).

Identity Protection: When scientific claims appear to support policy measures that could disrupt economic interests (for instance, regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions), they can trigger an identity-protective response. In this light, rejecting the scientific consensus becomes a way to uphold one’s social and political identity.

Perceived Politicization of Science

Association with Political Elites: In some cases, prominent scientists and scientific institutions have been perceived as aligned with political or liberal agendas. When scientific conclusions seem to be drawn primarily from or used to promote certain policy positions (for example, aggressive climate action), conservative audiences may see them as politicized rather than objective.

Distrust of “Elites”: There is also a broader skepticism toward institutions seen as part of the societal elite—including universities and government research bodies. This mistrust can be amplified by media sources and opinion leaders who frame such institutions as disconnected from the “real world” or as pursuing a political agenda.

Media Environment and Information Sources

Partisan Media: Research has shown that media outlets catering to conservative audiences sometimes present scientific issues in a way that emphasizes uncertainty, controversy, or ideological conflict. This framing can reinforce skepticism or encourage selective exposure to information that confirms existing views.

Echo Chambers: The use of social media and selective media consumption can create echo chambers, where individuals are more frequently exposed to narratives that question or dismiss widely accepted scientific findings, rather than the full range of scientific evidence.

Economic and Political Interests

Economic Impacts: Some scientific conclusions, such as those related to environmental impacts or energy production, imply the need for policy shifts that might affect industries where conservatives have strong economic or political ties. This can lead to a defensive posture toward science that appears to threaten established economic structures.

Policy Implications: When scientific research becomes a basis for regulatory proposals that are seen as restricting economic freedom, conservatives may be more inclined to question the objectivity of the science or the motives behind it.

Conclusion

The skepticism toward some scientific claims among segments of conservative Americans is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole but rather a response to specific scientific conclusions that are perceived to conflict with cultural values, economic interests, or political ideologies. This dynamic is reinforced by how scientific issues are communicated through politicized media and the broader social context in which individuals form their beliefs.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 16 Apr

One could interpret the increasing skepticism gap that conservatives have for environmental, medical, and social to be entirely accurate given that those are the most politicized fields.

I guess I'd consider myself one of these skeptical conservatives, so I'll comment on my point of view:

I still trust the scientific method. But I don't trust how scientific results are getting reported and used, especially by members of the media and political class.

Not enough skepticism is applied to scientific results by journalists and politicians, despite skepticism--i.e. don't trust, verify--being at the heart of the scientific method. In fact, politicians and journalists are often more bombastic about scientific results than the scientists themselves.

The type of "science" practiced by journalists and politicians is not science at all. It is credentialism dressed up as science.

And because science is still a word with widely held positive feelings, the word is now being used not to promote actual science but to enforce intellectual orthodoxy instead. And it just so happens to enforce intellectual orthodoxies more prevalent among academia, which happens to be left-leaning, which is why conservatives distrust it more.

Unfortunately, it's also leading to a counterproductive backlash against real science. That's why I'm so mad at Fauci, because he probably did more than any one other person in the last decade, to tarnish the reputation of real science.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jasonb 16 Apr

it doesn't seem to occur to the authors that part of the blame might also be with how some of the science might not adhere to the proper scientific method anymore.

I think you’re so spot on. It would be interesting to hear if @jimmysong has anything to add to this.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @jimmysong 16 Apr

I wrote a whole chapter about this in Fiat Ruins Everything about how Fiat Money has ruined Science. For example, the entire "science" of climate is driven by political considerations through grants, which, of course, is driven by fiat money. What's surprising is how slow scientific progress has been because of how politicized it's become.

It turns out that truth does not give itself up very easily, and anything less than a complete and dogged pursuit of it will fail.