From Anti-Government to Anti-Science: Why Conservatives Have Turned Against Science

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Daedalus Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1162/daed_a_01946
N. Oreskes, E. Conway
{"title":"From Anti-Government to Anti-Science: Why Conservatives Have Turned Against Science","authors":"N. Oreskes, E. Conway","doi":"10.1162/daed_a_01946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Empirical data do not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. They do support the conclusion of a crisis of conservative trust in science: polls show that American attitudes toward science are highly polarized along political lines. In this essay, we argue that conservative hostility toward science is rooted in conservative hostility toward government regulation of the marketplace, which has morphed in recent decades into conservative hostility to government, tout court. This distrust was cultivated by conservative business leaders for nearly a century, but took strong hold during the Reagan administration, largely in response to scientific evidence of environmental crises that invited governmental response. Thus, science-particularly environmental and public health science-became the target of conservative anti-regulatory attitudes. We argue that contemporary distrust of science is mostly collateral damage, a spillover from carefully orchestrated conservative distrust of government.","PeriodicalId":47980,"journal":{"name":"Daedalus","volume":"151 1","pages":"98-123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Daedalus","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01946","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract Empirical data do not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. They do support the conclusion of a crisis of conservative trust in science: polls show that American attitudes toward science are highly polarized along political lines. In this essay, we argue that conservative hostility toward science is rooted in conservative hostility toward government regulation of the marketplace, which has morphed in recent decades into conservative hostility to government, tout court. This distrust was cultivated by conservative business leaders for nearly a century, but took strong hold during the Reagan administration, largely in response to scientific evidence of environmental crises that invited governmental response. Thus, science-particularly environmental and public health science-became the target of conservative anti-regulatory attitudes. We argue that contemporary distrust of science is mostly collateral damage, a spillover from carefully orchestrated conservative distrust of government.
从反政府到反科学:保守派为何反对科学
摘要实证数据并不支持公众对科学信任危机的结论。他们确实支持保守派对科学信任危机的结论:民意调查显示,美国人对科学的态度沿着政治路线高度两极分化。在这篇文章中,我们认为保守派对科学的敌意植根于保守派对政府监管市场的敌意,近几十年来,这种敌意已经演变为保守派对市场的敌意。这种不信任是由保守派商业领袖培养了近一个世纪的,但在里根政府期间得到了强烈的支持,主要是为了应对环境危机的科学证据,促使政府做出回应。因此,科学,特别是环境和公共卫生科学,成为保守的反监管态度的目标。我们认为,当代对科学的不信任主要是附带损害,是保守派精心策划的对政府的不信任的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Daedalus
Daedalus Multiple-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Daedalus was founded in 1955 as the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It draws on the enormous intellectual capacity of the American Academy, whose members are among the nation"s most prominent thinkers in the arts, sciences, and humanities. Each issue addresses a theme with authoritative essays on topics such as judicial independence, reflecting on the humanities, the global nuclear future, the challenge of mass incarceration, the future of news, the economy, the military, and race.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信