May I say as a scientist that leaning on "science" as the basis for moral judgements is absolutely bonkers, and points to the quasi-religious worship of expertise that's currently popular in the West.
The whole point of science is that its conclusions are tentative and subject to revision, while the whole point of a moral judgment is that it's actually true. The whole point of science is that it's giving us a mechanistic model for how things work, not what we should do with that information.
I could study the mechanism of a poison to make an antidote for people who are poisoned, or because I want to more effectively poison people. Science will give me information that would serve either end. It will absolutely not tell me toward what end my poison discovery should be directed.
I would be interested to know how many scientists think that science is the basis for moral judgement.
The survey responses are probably mostly just vibes (how do I feel about science?) But to be fair, science can help clarify whether a certain action tends to align with a given moral value (though it can’t generate or replace the values themselves). For example, if one of my values is to avoid harming conscious creatures, science might help me understand which creatures to consider “conscious”, and scientific information about their nervous systems might inform me about the kinds of behaviors that might cause them harm. Yes, this is a very different approach to morality than yours or mine.
As always, another interesting study. This one quote really caught my attention: "For a sizable share of other Christians, faith does not play a central role in how they make moral decisions."
Seems like a reflection of a personal subjective vs objective theological paradigm being acted out.
Stephen Covey in his "7 Habits", published late 1980s, approached the question of how people make choices a little differently, or maybe a variation supported by Ryan's statistics. In an early chapter, he set categories of what motivates different people: fame, power, money, etc. The two groups that stood out were the people who simply followed the dictates of their church and the people whose prime incentive was to stay a step ahead of their enemies. He observed that people who make decisions that way delegate their autonomy. They also underperform in careers, educational attainment, marital stability, and other outcomes. The people who fared best were the logicians, people who set a principle then made their actions conform to that. Science had very little to do with this. Because of this observation, he directed the rest of his best-seller to setting principles, gaining experience, creating goals that guide actions, and systems to fulfill goals.
I'd make two comments that bring into question some of the assumptions of this post:
1. Not every one has the same definition of "logic and reasoning". I would surmise that many Christians of various stripes include their moral framework in the category of "reasoning". Our moral frameworks are shaped by our religious (or non-religious) understandings. Logic is not the same as reasoning, but one pattern of reasoning.
2. The credibility of "science" has taken a significant hit since the Covid pandemic. The "we're following the science" line from govt has been shown to be less than trustworthy. The current decline in vax uptake is, in my opinion, a downstream result of degraded trust in "science" and also "government".
I think that the relative importance of "life experience" in different cohorts' moral decision making is explained by people having life experience, as you allude to. If I were born in the 2000s--so I'm only in my mid-20s--it's not like I have a lot of life experience to draw on in seeing how moral decision pan out long run. Trusting in "science" or "religion" can then be a proxy for trusting in the codified life experience of others. In a secular age, the secular priests of trusting in "the science" will be more popular.
Before drawing any big conclusions from this I'd want to tease out exactly what "science" means to those strong-on-science types. In the media "science" means DNC tallking points. Real scientists in most fields don't agree with the standard elite views, especially on gender and social justice The public voices of "science" are ferociously orthodox DNC bots.
What might mean more is a look at what's happening in the nation under the MAHA movement attached to the RNC. Vaccinations are down; Pneumonia is up. COVID, though less dangerous now is up. Measle infections are up.
And measles in particular are already beginning to cause greater economic costs to the nation.
Thanks to a Common Health Coalition report, the U.S. now has economic numbers tied to declining MMR vaccination rates.
A 1% annual decline in MMR vaccination rates would lead to:
More suffering. Specifically, more than 17,000 measles cases, 4,000 hospitalizations, and 36 preventable deaths each year.
Major economic costs. On average, one measles case costs the U.S. health system $76,000. With the projected number of cases over 5 years, the estimated cost would be $1.5 billion. This breaks down to:
$41 million in medical costs (i.e., medical bills)
$947 million in outbreak responses (e.g., contact tracing, community outreach, surveillance)
$510.4 million in lost productivity and missed work costs
Childhood immunization is as essential to health system stability as it is to community health.
Source: Common Health Coalition
Importantly, this isn’t inevitable. It can be stopped. This report included solutions highlighting that everyone, from health insurers to health departments to clinicians, has a role to play.
What this means for you: As vaccine rates continue to decline, costs will be borne by you, your state, and your health insurance companies. Continue to urge your insurance company to cover routine childhood immunizations at no cost.
For those advocating for immunizations with local, state, or federal decision-makers, be sure to include economic costs. This can be compelling to those who prioritize budgets and resource allocation, since framing immunization as a cost-saving investment (rather than just a health measure) can be persuasive.
Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. YLE reaches more than 425,000 people in over 132 countries with one goal: “Translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below:
May I say as a scientist that leaning on "science" as the basis for moral judgements is absolutely bonkers, and points to the quasi-religious worship of expertise that's currently popular in the West.
The whole point of science is that its conclusions are tentative and subject to revision, while the whole point of a moral judgment is that it's actually true. The whole point of science is that it's giving us a mechanistic model for how things work, not what we should do with that information.
I could study the mechanism of a poison to make an antidote for people who are poisoned, or because I want to more effectively poison people. Science will give me information that would serve either end. It will absolutely not tell me toward what end my poison discovery should be directed.
I would be interested to know how many scientists think that science is the basis for moral judgement.
The survey responses are probably mostly just vibes (how do I feel about science?) But to be fair, science can help clarify whether a certain action tends to align with a given moral value (though it can’t generate or replace the values themselves). For example, if one of my values is to avoid harming conscious creatures, science might help me understand which creatures to consider “conscious”, and scientific information about their nervous systems might inform me about the kinds of behaviors that might cause them harm. Yes, this is a very different approach to morality than yours or mine.
As always, another interesting study. This one quote really caught my attention: "For a sizable share of other Christians, faith does not play a central role in how they make moral decisions."
Seems like a reflection of a personal subjective vs objective theological paradigm being acted out.
Stephen Covey in his "7 Habits", published late 1980s, approached the question of how people make choices a little differently, or maybe a variation supported by Ryan's statistics. In an early chapter, he set categories of what motivates different people: fame, power, money, etc. The two groups that stood out were the people who simply followed the dictates of their church and the people whose prime incentive was to stay a step ahead of their enemies. He observed that people who make decisions that way delegate their autonomy. They also underperform in careers, educational attainment, marital stability, and other outcomes. The people who fared best were the logicians, people who set a principle then made their actions conform to that. Science had very little to do with this. Because of this observation, he directed the rest of his best-seller to setting principles, gaining experience, creating goals that guide actions, and systems to fulfill goals.
I'd make two comments that bring into question some of the assumptions of this post:
1. Not every one has the same definition of "logic and reasoning". I would surmise that many Christians of various stripes include their moral framework in the category of "reasoning". Our moral frameworks are shaped by our religious (or non-religious) understandings. Logic is not the same as reasoning, but one pattern of reasoning.
2. The credibility of "science" has taken a significant hit since the Covid pandemic. The "we're following the science" line from govt has been shown to be less than trustworthy. The current decline in vax uptake is, in my opinion, a downstream result of degraded trust in "science" and also "government".
I think that the relative importance of "life experience" in different cohorts' moral decision making is explained by people having life experience, as you allude to. If I were born in the 2000s--so I'm only in my mid-20s--it's not like I have a lot of life experience to draw on in seeing how moral decision pan out long run. Trusting in "science" or "religion" can then be a proxy for trusting in the codified life experience of others. In a secular age, the secular priests of trusting in "the science" will be more popular.
Before drawing any big conclusions from this I'd want to tease out exactly what "science" means to those strong-on-science types. In the media "science" means DNC tallking points. Real scientists in most fields don't agree with the standard elite views, especially on gender and social justice The public voices of "science" are ferociously orthodox DNC bots.
Since this is a stats page, can you provide any documentation to back up your "claim"?
What might mean more is a look at what's happening in the nation under the MAHA movement attached to the RNC. Vaccinations are down; Pneumonia is up. COVID, though less dangerous now is up. Measle infections are up.
And measles in particular are already beginning to cause greater economic costs to the nation.
Thanks to a Common Health Coalition report, the U.S. now has economic numbers tied to declining MMR vaccination rates.
A 1% annual decline in MMR vaccination rates would lead to:
More suffering. Specifically, more than 17,000 measles cases, 4,000 hospitalizations, and 36 preventable deaths each year.
Major economic costs. On average, one measles case costs the U.S. health system $76,000. With the projected number of cases over 5 years, the estimated cost would be $1.5 billion. This breaks down to:
$41 million in medical costs (i.e., medical bills)
$947 million in outbreak responses (e.g., contact tracing, community outreach, surveillance)
$510.4 million in lost productivity and missed work costs
Childhood immunization is as essential to health system stability as it is to community health.
Source: Common Health Coalition
Importantly, this isn’t inevitable. It can be stopped. This report included solutions highlighting that everyone, from health insurers to health departments to clinicians, has a role to play.
What this means for you: As vaccine rates continue to decline, costs will be borne by you, your state, and your health insurance companies. Continue to urge your insurance company to cover routine childhood immunizations at no cost.
For those advocating for immunizations with local, state, or federal decision-makers, be sure to include economic costs. This can be compelling to those who prioritize budgets and resource allocation, since framing immunization as a cost-saving investment (rather than just a health measure) can be persuasive.
Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. YLE reaches more than 425,000 people in over 132 countries with one goal: “Translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below:
© 2026 Your Local Epidemiologist
4140 Oceanside Blvd, Suite #159 - 1400
Oceanside, CA 92056
-----------------
Letting people suffer and die needlessly by considering science to be a Democrat or Republican thing IS IMMORAL.
There are a couple of things Ryan's posts do not and probably cannot cover.
1. What difference does an individual morality base as opposed to a community moral base make in actual health care events in the nation.
2. How has religious polarization affected our health care.
These two questions have some sort of interconnected algorithm, but my statistical background and lack of data cannot tie them together.