“Among both Democrats and Republicans, trust in scientists is lower than before the pandemic”

I think people are finally figuring out that the broad field of science is a quest for knowledge rather than the final truth about all knowledge.

It could also mean that many American's are just getting dumber, particularly amongst farther right leaning Republicans. Social media reinforces people's ideas. A clear example would be "flat earthers". A third of all Americans aged 18 to 24 are not sure the earth is round. The phenomenon is known as science denial, and it is picking up steam because 1) people are attracted to the idea of nefarious movements hidden from view, 2) politicians have espoused it, and 3) social media has reinforced it. Once people are into this mindset, studies have shown that it is nearly impossible for people to break out of it.

I hate to burst your bubble, but according to various statistics, only 17% of Gen Z (which includes the 18-24 year-olds you are referring to), identify as Republican, with 52% Democrat, and 31% independent. Even given a couple percentage error in the numbers, there are still roughly 3 times as many of that group that are Democrat vs. Republican. Additionally, it’s completely unlikely that all of the 17% are in your 1/3 that are flat-earthers, meaning it’s much more likely that more of the flat-earthers lean Democrat or independent than Republican. Young people today are taught more to be activists than to think.

Further, I would argue that the largest reason for distrust in scientists among groups older than that is that so many of the scientists (or at least the ones that play in the media) have prostituted themselves to money, fame or ideology, and happily politicize the science in service of those goals. The information coming out more and more about the completely unnecessary reaction to Covid would be exhibit A. Even many of our own government organizations have concluded that we were lied to about the likely origins of the virus, and that the damage to students from shutting schools down was completely downplayed. Those of us who were skeptical of the official story have been shown to not be the crackpots that we were declared to be, and that’s just one example. Climate catastrophism is another one, as is the supposed terrible things that were going to happen in short order due to fracking that have just not materialized to the disastrous extent predicted.

If scientists want to understand the lack of trust placed in them, they should try looking in the mirror, for one. They could also make sure that theory is not presented as fact by a complicit media, when they have often let that slide.

It strikes me that people are, by and large, not distrusting those who deal with Newtonian mechanics, genome research, Maxwell's equations or quantum physics. What they're distrusting is when scientists attempt to marry their portion of science--be it the study of origins, climatology, etc..--with a preferred political approach to "solving" the problem. The end result of such "politicized science" is that politics is exalted, and science is degraded.

You can see it in climatology ("it doesn't matter if China controls GHG emissions"), virology ("you mean 126nm particles form aerosols, and you're supposed to quarantine the sick?"), and a whole bunch more.

The majority of flat earthers are Republican. But that is neither here nor there. The politicization of science is happening on both sides of the fence. Even if you take Bert's climate science. The liberals are pushing climate science to drive an agenda and the conservatives are pushing other science to deny climate change. The problem is that people pick an agenda and they seek echo chambers to feed that agenda. Both side cherry pick science the way they feel to support their agenda.

What is your source for ascribing flat earthism to Republicans over Democrats?

I'd suggest we need a major step back in this regard, what do we mean by science? If we take a definition of science from Karl Popper as many Christians do it is a much narrower study than if we take an approach such as that advocated by followers of Thomas Kuhn (usually viewed as a philosopher of science, better viewed as a historian of science). A good case can be made for Irrealism from classical pramaticism based on Kuhn, though here we reach some epistemic curvature, yet Kuhn documents and accepts such curature. Meanwhile, many laymen treat science as if logical positivism is a live epistemological option. I'd say the entire "science denial" discussion is a strawman to avoid more complicated discussions. So what precisely does it mean to deny science?

Well, if we define "flat eartherism" as "denial of anthropogenic climate change", then it would be conservatives as flat earthers. If we defined it as "denial that submicron particles form aerosols and aren't stopped well by surgical masks", most of your flat earthers would be liberals. Kinda depends on who's counting what, IMO.

There are many more studies, I just don't have time to find them, I looked at this a while ago for a topic I was writing on. This one shows that supporters of Trump (which I am assuming are Republican) are more prone to believe flat earth.

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-a-survey-of-us-public-beliefs

The goal was not about flat earth, but just to show that in spite of data, facts and more information than we have ever had in history, the rejection of that information and the embracing of a flat earth (despite it being measured as round 250 years before Christ) is rapidly increasing. It does not surprise me that people doubt science, because you see dumb examples of it all around.

People who didn't want to wear masks or who didn't want the government telling them what to do, sought out information that supported there ideas. And those who supported masks and interventions sought out information that supported there ideas. Science can be manipulated to show what individuals want it to show.

The old paradigm is the brave scientist in search of truth no matter where--and against whom--it takes him. Think Galileo.

The new paradigm is the socially responsible scientist who openly admits to being willing to lie--indeed, is morally obligated to lie--if he thinks it will serve the greater good. Think much of the public messaging by scientists during the pandemic relating to masks, potential origins of virus, etc.

Erosion of social trust in science is the inevitable collateral damage of such commitments. Even if you fully agree with the latter philosophically, you can't erase the skepticism that arises with every convenient conclusion.

Interestingly, a piece just popped up on Reason today (‘The Science’ Suffers from Self-Inflicted Political Wounds) that speaks to the very topic we are discussing. It seems to also reference the same statistic that instigated this thread, so reading that may have inspired the writer.

https://reason.com/2023/11/20/the-science-suffers-from-self-inflicted-political-wounds/

I actually agree that politicization of science is done by both sides, although since 2020 it has been wielded very strongly by those in government, and used as a club against those who don’t accept the prevailing approved line of thought. This aligns with the time period referenced by Pew above, and the loss in trust is no coincidence.

If scientists want back the respect they once had, they would do well to publish all their results (so they can be checked/verified by others) and stay completely away from the political arena. If they stay in their lane and away from the vagaries of public opinion, we might once again start to trust them.