Who is more anti-science, liberals or conservatives? There are at least two very different ways to think about this question: 1. Whose beliefs are more out of touch with science? and 2. Whose level of (dis)trust in science is more well-justified?
In a prior blog post (Are Conservatives More 'Anti-Science' Than Are Liberals?), I reviewed recent evidence suggesting that: 1. There are modest tendencies for conservatives' beliefs to be more out of touch with science than liberal beliefs, though the differences are typically far more modest than many of my liberal colleagues generally believe; and 2. There is plenty of evidence of liberal beliefs distorting their views of science.
This entry focuses on a related yet different issue: Who trusts science more and whose level of (dis)trust is more well-justified?
Who Trusts Science More: Liberals or Conservatives?
The answer is liberals. There does indeed seem to be good evidence that conservatives trust science less than do liberals and that such trust has been declining for decades. The graph above (from Gauchat, 2012) shows that trust in science: 1. was about the same for liberals and conservatives in 1974; but 2. Is currently higher among liberals than among conservatives because it has been steadily declining among conservatives. One might assume that this lower trust reflects ignorance among conservatives. But if one made that assumption, one would be wrong. In fact, the study showed that the more highly educated conservatives were, the more they distrusted science.
Also, please note that the Con/Lib difference is not absolute. Conservatives do not completely mistrust science and liberals do not completely trust it. The Con/Lib difference is a single point on the scale, the difference between about 4 (conservatives) and 5 (liberals). As Joachim Krueger so aptly pointed out it in his Psych Today blog, Conservatism as Disease, my liberal colleagues routinely treat lib/con differences as evidence of conservative pathology. So let's turn the tables by asking the following question: Which is more well-justified, conservative skepticism about science or liberal blind faith in it? (Ok, I admit, the term "blind faith" is a bit over the top, but no more over the top than ways conservatives are routinely characterized -- or, some would argue, caricaturized -- in the "scientific" psychology literature).
Whose Level of (Dis)Trust is More Well-Justified?
Science is like democracy. I agree with Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst of all methods of government (except for all the others). Similarly, science is a terrible way of learning about the world; it just beats all the others. That said, it is important to understand and recognize science's many flaws, weaknesses, and limitations and for that awareness to lead us to be justifiably tentative and skeptical about "scientific" claims and conclusions.
So whose level of trust in science is more well-justified? My answer: Conservatives. Deep skepticism and even mistrust in science and its conclusions are entirely well-justified. If science reveals some "truth," then it should show up again and again and again and again, so that, at some point, it becomes (to paraphrase the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould) perverse to believe otherwise. Until that time, however, it is not at all perverse to believe otherwise.
There are zillions of reasons to distrust science, only a few of which are listed here:
- Questionable research practices.
- Failure to published failed replications.
- Corporate research sponsorship of for-profit interventions
- Careerist and self-serving interests among scientists
- Political bias among scientists
- Dysfunctional peer review practices
This is not to suggest that your (or my) personal opinions,subjective experiences, and 
miscellaneous beliefs are better than science. Most of the time, they probably are not. Its just that, absent relentless replication by researchers other than those discovering some new phenomenon or creating some new intervention, medication, etc. "science" does not deserve all that much credibility, either. See my prior blog entries on Unicorns of Psychology for how some very famous psychological studies have proven influential and almost impossible to dislodge from "received wisdom" despite, in some cases, repeated failures to replicate. Even replication is not a magic bullet -- successful replications may suffer from similar flaws, limitations, or biases. But certainly, absent replication by other researchers, a huge, healthy dose of skepticism is usually warranted.
My next blog post will simply be a compendium of scientific resources for those interested in delving deeper into the scientific reasons that skepticism in "science" is entirely well-justified.
For now, though, score one for conservatives' (compared to liberals) relatively greater mistrust and skepticism about science. Such skepticism is entirely well-placed.
References
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974-2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187.
My prior posts have addressed a number of these problems in science. One can gain entry to all of them at:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser