The difference between what you think something really is and what it actually is gets support when reality is measurably resisted.
If reality is actually its perception, then reality can change. If what we think reality is changes, then it is actually ambiguous. There is no “settled science” then, which defines the resistance conservatives have to climate change, for example.
Climate change is a really serious, measurable thing, and it reduces to a philosophical argument. Positivists say it shouldn’t, but it does anyway. The measurable difference is the harm done, which supports or resists the arguable ambivalence that derives from the ambiguity of a philosophical discussion.
Use of the scientific method is famous for being “the promise and the peril” (like the picture of The Scream). Hawking recently said, for example, things can change so fast we need to be sure and have the intelligence to use it (the changing reality) properly. Marx and Engels essentially said the same thing when they wrote about capitalism and the incentive to destroy the environment.
Being driven to continuously expand the profit margin explains the philosophical aversion conservatives have to the scientific method. Conservative identity tends to be more like the aristocratic identity of objective reality Ayn Rand describes, doing things just because the fates determine it and not because there is any objective moral measure to freely will the results on demand.
The problem with resisting support of the scientific method is that testing the hypothesis is positive, not negative. Supporting the probable harm done (the risk variance) is the measure of what reality actually is, and isn’t that the way capitalism works, lacking the moral intelligence necessary to null the hypothesis and resist the probable detriment by default.
Yielding to the harm done to confirm it exists with objective symmetry isn’t science. It’s insanity!
Should we not be “fully employed” to resist the probability of climate change–and resist both inflation and deflation for that matter? President Obama and Senator Sanders say we can, yielding to the numbers, supported on demand, expanding the quality of life, added at the margin of a natural existence.