# Change in conservative fears about higher education? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2021, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578 "2021-01-03T15:37:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/162 "2021-01-16T20:15:19Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > A lot of feminists are very reluctant to accept studies showing differences between male and female brains, for example. That statement probably needs some clarification. A lot of feminists have challenged some sociological interpretations of scientific studies of differences between male and female brains, but that doesn’t mean they’re denying or rejecting scientific facts. In the study of gender, race, and a lot of other phenomena that have both biological and sociocultural components, there are always a lot of popularizers and hucksters claiming that some specific study of physiology “scientifically proves” some hypothesis about the causes of behavior. It’s not “anti-science” to criticize the problems with such claims. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/163 "2021-01-16T20:31:56Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > So how do you explain the liberal increased faith in science as science starts to support their ideology. How do you explain the liberal loss of faith in the judiciary as the judiciary becomes more conservative? No one should have faith in science. Faith is not required because science works. When I was a conservative conservatives were not anti-science. Anti good economic policy, maybe. I have no idea of what you mean by faith in the judiciary. Seeing judges appointed that oppose rights we believe in and objecting to them is hardly losing faith in the judiciary. Unless you think that the Dred Scott decision was good because the court made it. > [@damuriajashi](#): > > It sounds like you are conflating conservative with fundamentalist christian. > I think there are plenty of conservatives that do not deny reality. Not at all. My point was that if you want to see a clear case of someone denying facts, these are two good places to look. Clearly not all conservatives deny facts - look at Mitt Romney. But the large number of conservatives denying the results of the election must mean something. Climate change also. I’m not talking about the best way to deal with climate change, I’m talking about whether it is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/164 "2021-01-16T20:42:48Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > As for science, I think many people on both sides are not very good at critical thinking. I think the big difference right now, is science tends to favor liberal views, so liberals support science. But, many liberals will turn on science if it supports something they oppose, like nuclear power, GMO foods, vaccines, or the harm\* of organic foods Liberal California rejected a proposition requiring the labeling of GMO foods. Which, btw, was spearheaded by the then CEO of Whole Foods, who I was surprised to discover was a conservative. There were a lot of economics involved, especially from the organic agriculture community. It was not a liberal vs. conservative issue at all. Disagreeing on the risks of nuclear power is also not a science vs. anti-science thing. If the opposition centered around power plants exploding like bombs, then you’d have something, but I’m not sure I’ve seen that claim for decades, if not longer. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/165 "2021-01-16T20:57:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Clearly not all conservatives deny facts - look at Mitt Romney. But the large number of conservatives denying the results of the election must mean something. Yes. It means people that are lying to them and they believe the liars. Just as liberals sometimes believe ideological allies that lie to them. Climate change is contrary to their ideology. They don’t believe it any more than liberals believe things that are contrary to their ideology. > [@Voyager](#): > > Liberal California rejected a proposition requiring the labeling of GMO foods. Liberal california might not be as liberal as you think. Liberal california also reject affirmative action 3 times over the last 30 years. It is against the state constitution to use racial preferences. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/166 "2021-01-16T21:07:08Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In the study of gender, race, and a lot of other phenomena that have both biological and sociocultural components, there are always a lot of popularizers and hucksters claiming that some specific study of physiology “scientifically proves” some hypothesis about the causes of behavior. It’s not “anti-science” to criticize the problems with such claims. Yes, this is true. And it’s hard to disentangle the causes of behavioural differences when we’re raised differently, treated differently etc. But it’s my impression that there is a fairly substantial bias against biological explanations in this area. > [@Voyager](#): > > No one should have faith in science. Some people choose to reject the scientific method as a philosophical position, and there’s not much you can do to argue with that. > [@Voyager](#): > > Disagreeing on the risks of nuclear power is also not a science vs. anti-science thing. If the opposition centered around power plants exploding like bombs, then you’d have something, but I’m not sure I’ve seen that claim for decades, if not longer. Objecting to nuclear power does seem to be an emotion based thing. Compare the number of people killed by nuclear power with those killed in dam collapses, yet there has never been the same kind of objections to hydroelectric power. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/167 "2021-01-16T21:10:30Z")
On nuclear power, I worked on Naval reactors and did a lot of research on it for a class years ago. I remember going into wall of text mode about this on this site over a decade ago. Nuclear waste is dangerous, but it politics, not science that limited nuclear power. Even leaving off the vast strides in making plants safer with less dangerous waste, nuclear makes sense. A few points: It is the only thing we have that can completely replace fossil fuels Per kilowatt-hour, it generates less radioactive waste and has killed fewer people than coal. On abortion: Catholics have always been against abortion in principle, but widespread Protestant objection to it are relatively new: > **[The 'biblical view' that's younger than the Happy Meal](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/)** > > In 1979, McDonald's introduced the Happy Meal. Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception. Ask any > **[How a conference call sparked America's abortion obsession – video explainer](https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2019/aug/01/how-a-conference-call-sparked-americas-abortion-obsession-video-explainer)** > > Not so long ago white evangelical Christians were not interested in the politics of abortion; now they are on the frontline fighting against it. Leah Green investigates how it all changed ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/168 "2021-01-16T21:47:55Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > But it’s my impression that there is a fairly substantial bias against biological explanations in this area. There could be, but I would hesitate to place such a broad and vague allusion to alleged “bias” in the same category with concrete examples of actual science denial and rejection. In my view, science denial is fairly narrowly defined as refusal to acknowledge the scientific validity of well-established and well-supported mainstream theories. I don’t even require equating that scientific validity with “truth” in any kind of absolute or transcendent sense. You can be a Young-Earth Creationist in your personal religious beliefs, but as long as you recognize and admit that young-earth models are not consistent with the observed data according to scientific standards (even if you are mentally whispering to yourself “because God deliberately faked that data in the geological record in order to test our faith in His holy Word!”), I won’t call you a science-denier. So, for example, someone who claims that vaccines cause autism, or that COVID-19 is all a hoax, or that climate change is all a hoax, or that the earth is flat, or that cell phones are emitting ionizing radiation that is causing brain tumors, is denying science. Someone who is merely predisposed to skepticism about explanations of social differences between male and female behavior based on studies of physiological differences between male and female brains is not necessarily denying science. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/169 "2021-01-16T22:04:43Z")
Perhaps there is a difference. Or at least a range of views between outright denial and demanding extraordinary evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/170 "2021-01-16T22:33:01Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Or at least a range of views between outright denial and demanding extraordinary evidence. It’s a spectrum all the way along, because the successful functioning of science to some extent depends on skepticism, suspicion and second-guessing. Science, like mathematics, requires people to be constantly nitpicking all the ambiguities, anomalies, and logical flaws that they can find anywhere in its proposed results. As time passes, the relation between observation and theory becomes more solidly understood, and eventually crystallizes into “scientific fact”. Which is how perfectly legitimate initial skepticism of a particular theory in one decade can becomes crankish denialism of the same theory in another. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/171 "2021-01-16T22:40:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > As time passes, the relation between observation and theory becomes more solidly understood, and eventually crystallizes into “scientific fact”. Which is how perfectly legitimate initial skepticism of a particular theory in one decade can becomes crankish denialism of the same theory in another. That’s what we hope happens, at any rate. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/172 "2021-01-17T08:05:02Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Objecting to nuclear power does seem to be an emotion based thing. Compare the number of people killed by nuclear power with those killed in dam collapses, yet there has never been the same kind of objections to hydroelectric power. Which comes from bad risk assessment. It is the same as people being afraid of flying rather than the much more dangerous act of riding in a car. And coal kills a lot more people than either nuclear or hydro power. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/173 "2021-01-17T11:26:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It is the same as people being afraid of flying rather than the much more dangerous act of riding in a car. I’m not sure that’s true, isn’t the risk per hour pretty similar? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/174 "2021-01-17T14:06:05Z")
Waste storage was always the bigger issue to me than threat of accident. But my opposition has declined considerably as I’ve become _more aware of the science_. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/175 "2021-01-17T23:52:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This may be an instance of the “American exceptionalism” that you noted, but the researchers seem to think otherwise. I know I’ve lightened up on a lot of issues over the last 22 years or so. I went from staunchly pro-death penalty to mildly anti-death penalty for example. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2021, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/176 "2021-01-18T00:39:23Z")
The old saying: a conservative is somebody who hasn’t had anything really bad economically or healthwise happen to anyone close to them … yet. Which implies the slings and arrows of craptacular fortune make us more appreciative of a supportive community & systems rather than the pure Darwinian ideal: every man for himself, women and children second, and Devil take the hindmost. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2021, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/177 "2021-01-26T21:54:32Z")
How did you do that? I frequently have a tldr with a wall of text following and then people complain about the wall of text. but if i don’t include the wall of text, people say I don’t back up what I say. The fog of wall might help. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2021, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/178 "2021-01-26T22:26:03Z")
The spoiler blur? It’s in the menu above where you write your reply. Click on the cog icon and you get options for **Hide Details** , **Blur Spoiler** and **Build Poll**. **Hide Details** would work much better for your purpose. Like so: > **Summary** > > Big > > Wall > > Of > > Text > > Here ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2021, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/179 "2021-01-26T22:50:41Z")
Oh, and you can change the word that’s visible, too: > **Long winded explanation** > > In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second… ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2021, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/180 "2021-01-26T22:53:50Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > car. > > I’m not sure that’s true, isn’t the risk per hour pretty similar? I’d have to look it up, but I doubt it, since there were many years with zero fatal commercial crashes in the US. In any case, since you spend many fewer hours in a plane than in a car, the risk to you is still less. And the risk per mile traveled is way less. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2021, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578/181 "2021-01-26T23:07:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > In any case, since you spend many fewer hours in a plane than in a car, the risk to you is still less. Well yeah, but we’re talking about people being afraid of flying. It’s the risk per journey you worry about, not the fact you spend more time driving in your life. Even so, they should only be equally worried. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-in-conservative-fears-about-higher-education/929578.md?page=10)