When forming attitudes about embryonic stem cell research, people are influenced by a number of things. But understanding science plays a negligible role for many people.
“More knowledge is good – everybody is on the same page about that. But will that knowledge necessarily help build support for the science?” says Dietram Scheufele. “The data show that no, it doesn’t. It does for some groups, but definitely not for others.”
Along with Dominique Brossard and Shirley Ho, Scheufele used national public opinion research to analyze how public attitudes are formed about controversial scientific issues such as nanotechnology and stem cells. What they have found again and again is that knowledge is much less important than other factors, such as religious values or deference to scientific authority.
“Highly religious audiences are different from less religious audiences. They are looking for different things, bringing different things to the table,” explains Scheufele. “It is not about providing religious audiences with more scientific information. In fact, many of them are already highly informed about stem cell research, so more information makes little difference in terms of influencing public support. And that’s not good or bad. That’s just what the data show.”On the other hand, a value system held by a much smaller portion of the American public works in just the opposite direction. The attitudes of individuals who are deferential to science – who tend to trust scientists and their work – are influenced by their level of scientific understanding.
I’m only surprised by how polite the authors managed to be.
You seem militant and angry, MM.
>>You seem militant and angry, MM.
My intials also stand for “Mister Mellow”. Sometimes, they even call me Mellow Yellow.
#58 – Mr. Mustard,
Can you point to any comment I’ve ever made about the religious beliefs of Atheists that was derogatory?
Absofuckinglutely Mooseturd!!
Here are some offensive comments you’ve made about atheists right here on this thread, two right in the same post where you asked me that.
I was working my way backwards. I’m tired I’m done. You won’t see that all the comments below are offensive anyway because you believe your are being perfectly respectful while in fact you are a condescending asshole on this topic.
#47 Those who have never sought him, yet are militant in their belief that He does not exist are beyond pitiful. Just pathetic.
#53 Atheists don’t “not believe in God”. They have a strong, heartfelt belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Once you are able to grok the difference between “belief” and “non-belief”, I think (believe?) that your eyes will be opened to the real issue here.
#58 some hatemongering Atheist fuck
you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I have to take shit about Jim Jones and Ted Haggard. So if you don’t like being lumped with the pain-in-the-ass Atheist gadflies and the mass murderers, make up a new name for yourself.
#60 worshipers at the altar of Atheism start up with their “I’m smart, you’re a stupid sheeple” nonesense, braying their beliefs to the high heavens like a donkey in heat, and then deny that they’re believers. Pffft.
#61 It’s to get atheists to ‘fess up to what they really are, True Believers.
Most of them don’t have the common sense of Dawkins; they’re just convinced lock, stock, and barrel that God does not exist.
God bless you, Scottie. May he save your mortal soul.
Let’s all get real here:
Very few people support evolution because of the “science” and they don’t support science because of the “facts.”
Most people don’t know crap about science. Religious people aren’t unique in that regard.
I, personally, have a pretty good college science education and I support stem cell research.
Why? Not because of the facts. I could probably come up with about six “facts” on the subject if I tried hard.
I support stem cell research because some seemingly credible leaders support it and I’ve read three or four articles. I’ll bet that’s why most of you also support it.
So, I don’t smugly judge those who oppose it.
They are just listening to their leaders like I am.
>> # 9 julieb said,
>> Atheism is not dogmatic.
He. He. You need to hang out on this board more.
#66–Greg–I wonder if you are slicing and dicing too thin?
Evolution “should be” accepted based on anyone’s understanding of science and fact==its well established and subject to common sense and observation.
The benefits of stem cell research are predicted, not established and hence more subject to expert testimony?
I favor stem cell research on a generally pro-science basis==science should study “everything” for the possible benefits that accrue. The only argument against it is that it destroys a human life. My own “values” don’t count fertilized eggs/zygotes as being worth protection of any kind. While fully “human” they are no where near people. People have value in my mind, not a collection of undifferentiated cells.
So, logically/value wise we are weighing the possibility of releaving disease (whether it happens or not)balanced by “nothing.”
With your educational background, I’ll even bet you actually think more independently than you suggest.
#67 gregallen “You need to hang out on this board more.”
I don’t know. I’ve been hanging around here for quite a long time. A few years at least.
Atheism is not a political system. Atheism is not a belief system.
Humanism is a belief system.
Judaism is a belief system.
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods. It says nothing about what one might believe in. An atheist could be a liberal, a fascist, a communist, a republican, an American, etc.
I think we have here a deliberate attempt to feign misunderstanding of the definition of atheist in an attempt to discredit the position.
“Very few” people believe in evolution, greg? You know better than that.
Ignorance is not virtuous. Don’t trade your credibility for the sake of winning an argument.
#69 – julieb,
An atheist republican??!!? With today’s republican party platform? A fascist maybe or a communist maybe. But, a republican?
I guess there may be one somewhere, but why?