US Public's Trust in Science Shows Growing Partisan Gap (arstechnica.com) 219
The Pew Research Center has released the latest iteration of its surveys of Americans' views of science and scientists. From a report: On the most basic level, they see a drop in the public's opinion of scientists since the height of the pandemic in 2020. But, as always, the situation is more complex when the numbers are examined closely. In general, there was a drop in trust of almost every occupation during that time period, and in the case of scientists, this largely represents a return to pre-pandemic popularity. The exception is that nearly everyone is less likely to say that scientists should get involved in policy decisions, with Republicans feeling especially strong in this regard.
Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
I was modded a troll earlier today for pointing this out.
Moderation as yet another reality distortion field (Score:5, Interesting)
The trolls like to play games abusing the moderation system. I periodically (as in yesterday) receive a load of negative mods from a sock puppet, but at this point I can't care enough about Slashdot to worry about it. Lack of a viable economic model that could sustain actual improvements, but fixing the moderation system might be a project where I'd throw ten bucks...
On the story, my main reaction is that it's part of a decades-long project. I think the attack on public education in particular and scientific rationality in general really ramped up with William Bennett, the super-hypocrite who served as Reagan's Secretary of Education. (Last I heard, he was still alive and a big supporter of TFG.) But now America has wound up with a hyper-stratified education system where a tiny elite can actually learn lots of stuff, while most of the future voters are being treated worse than dogs in obedience schools. At least the dogs get tasty treats when they obey their training. But I started studying these problems even before that under the rubric of "the social construction of reality".
Pretty sure it's related, but I just got the book... Therefore I'm pre-recommending it because Pinker always writes well. This new one is just called Rationality and I've already determined that he's building on The Enigma of Reason by Mercier and Sperber. "Read 'em and weep"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're talking about Yaaallleee and HHHaaahhhvvaahhd, then yes, you need to be top 0.01% academically, or your daddy needs to be worth at least 50 million and willing to spend half of it on your degree. However, these places only serve a few tens of thousands of people each year, and those degrees are basically a luxury item. There are whole tiers of state universities that are desi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh! I know! Me! Pick me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents don't want the schools to teach anything worth learning, and that's a big problem in the whole system. If their kids decide to think for themselves then all sorts of bad stuff could happen - they might decide they don't like the parent's religion, they might not like the parent's political views, they might decide to question the right authorities instead of only questioning the wrong authorities. Terrible stuff out there they want to not be taught: evolution, homosexuality, equality of gender and races, vaccines, climate change, germ theory, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
germ theory
lol.
It's funny cause it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
The history of germ theory and its denial is interesting. At first it was all based on statistics making it easy to deny.
There was an outbreak of some disease that was traced back to certain wells in London and the theory that leaky cesspools were contaminating them, with the proposed fix to fix them, denial due to price.
There was the statistics that people, especially new mothers, died more close to the dissecting room, fixes like washing thoroughly and other sanitary measures was proposed, too hard, blood
Re: (Score:3)
Vienna was one place. Lister's ideas were already known but not really practiced. But Viena had two maternity wards in a major hospital, one run by doctors for patients with a higher class, and a second run by midwives for everyone else. The doctor run ward had a higher death rate. So the statistics were there but not really observed much except by one younger doctor, Semmelweis. But even then the causes were not known. Until a doctor died after cutting his hand while dissecting a corpse. Semmelweis
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying *I* want that, but that there's a big chunk of American population that do want that.
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
When they say scientists shouldn't be involved in policy decisions, I want to see the poll numbers how they feel about preachers being involved in policy decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To conservatives, they are the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked, it was the Right who dragged science into politics. But really, I wonde4r just whom or what do they think should be driving their policy decisions? Because Magickal thinking is just that. And I personally know a good many conservatives who would rather suffer and hang onto their thinking even when blatantly demonstrably wrong. Even when it harms them personally. I draw the line when it harms others.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out they have opinions. And it turns out this is a democracy, where people with opinions can both express them out loud, and with their votes.
This idea that scientists are supposed to be apolitical smalls like some dictator's fantasy of having a modern society built on the back of his enslaved scientists.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Scientists have always been involved in politics. It turns out they have opinions. And it turns out this is a democracy, where people with opinions can both express them out loud, and with their votes. This idea that scientists are supposed to be apolitical smalls like some dictator's fantasy of having a modern society built on the back of his enslaved scientists.
Um, no. Scientists in their professional lives are supposed to be apolitical. They can have private beliefs but they shouldn't be bringing those to their work. In their free time however, they should do as you suggest. Physics was 1st politicized in the US due to the prestige given to physicists after the development of nuclear weapons. Other fields were dragged into politics often after some bad behavior by a business utilizing their discoveries. So chemical engineers after an oil spill or chemists a
Re: (Score:2)
Well put. A wide range of experts is sought after by the narrators of the story (the fourth estate) when an expert witness adds credence to the story.
I, for one, just hope this doesn't discourage actors and entertainers from their proclivity to climb upon the orange crate... so much will be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a sneaking suspicion that you really would sleep better if you didn't see those poll numbers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When they say scientists shouldn't be involved in policy decisions, I want to see the poll numbers how they feel about preachers being involved in policy decisions.
So I am of two minds about this sort of thing. My major issue is AGW and I want to see effort put into real solutions to that problem. However, one team/side believes the science of the problem but not the science of the solution. The other side either believes either no science at all or believes in the science of the solution but not the science of the problem. So making blanket statements about one side believing in science and the other side not believing in science isn't really convincing to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Because no one wants to fall back to the science of consume less, reproduce less, etc. One solution is obvious - stop it with industry, no more fossil fuels, no more cutting down trees to make farmland, etc. But then you've got the problem after that - people freezing to death in the winter, too much population for the locally produced foods, etc. It's an apocalyptic aftermath. But it won't happen because wars will start before they allow such changes, but the wars themselves create a different apocalypti
It's our failure to teach youth critical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Clarifying things so you don't have to re-post:
This mistrust of science is, sadly, due in large part to an erosion of the US educational system over the past several decades. Today, many people who don't like what the scientists have to say about something (e.g., 'The world is heating up.') choose to simply ignore the scientists – even when they are simply stating facts. They choose not to believe inconvenient facts, which affects their opinion-forming processes, and is reflected in the voting booth and in their daily life-decisions.
So, we have children who grow up but have trouble believing the people who have dedicated their lives to making dispassionate observations (scientists), and to interpreting those observations as theories – models – of how things work. As children, most citizens of the US are not taught to think for themselves – that is to gather information and to form an independent opinion about it. Thus, they have a hard time believing scientists, and issues that are informed by science end up being politicized.
It doesn't help that a lot of TV news reporting has morphed into punditry and commentary, and doesn't go into detail into what has been reported. Such people as I've described then have very little chance of making an informed decision. Whenever the TV news brings up an issue where scientists are called upon to explain something or offer information, they get dragged into the arena of politics. The issue becomes politicized, even to the point where fact is ignored. This all results in a misinformed public.
The people's misinformed decisions and opinions are taken into the voting booth, and often sway the vote without the input of solid science. Some people (I know some) even mistrust scientists to the point of claiming that they are political operatives, pushing one 'side' or the other of an issue, and will vote against whatever most scientists say.
Misinformed voters then vote, and as a result we have more and more anti-science and anti-fact politicians making our laws. This is a bad thing. The solution would be for the parents to teach their children critical thinking skills, but many don't have a lot of training in that, so they don't really know what to do, even if they want to teach their kids critical thinking. So, it is left up to the schools, which as I said at the outset, don't get a chance to teach it.
I don't know the solution, but wanted to state the problem succinctly. Hopefully someone else will someday have some good ideas there.
Post exposes scientists (Score:2, Interesting)
Is No a solution? Is contrarian cool? (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the only fault they'd admit to is the one they don't understand, that they're biased. Most think they're liberal biased. And they're not.
So I agree with the rest of your post but I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you mean the media thinks it is biased to the left and it isn't? I mean, FOX sure, but are you really throwing MSNBC into that category too? I know a few journalists at MSNBC and CNN and they are to the left of Mao. They do try to keep that out of their reporting (but it is hard to say they are succeeding at that). However, they are very young and can't really defend their beliefs like someone older usually can.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nobody denies those things.
The problem is that when you demonstrate that they're not a factor in the current conclusion, the deniers literally just ignore you and keep bringing them up.
Their act of ignoring everything you disprove seems to have the effect of making other people ignore it too. It's creating forced gaps in our knowledge that aren't really there. It's fucking bizarre. It's some inverse form of the big lie.
If you pretend that the scientists don't talk a
Re: (Score:2)
The little ice age ended about the time as the industrial revolution started. I have never heard any scientists "lie" about the medieval warming period (happening?) and over millions of years the climate "drifts" but it is far from accurate to say it is unstable. As for Hurricanes, a lot of that is that we don't really have good records for Hurricanes before satellites became available (1960s or 70s). We only know about Hurricanes that made landfall and don't really have a good idea about how large or st
its about power (Score:5, Informative)
Re:its about power (Score:4, Interesting)
Decisions in the public space are always political (by definition of what politics is), and decisions thus should be made by people responsible to the public. And here lies the problem. People making decisions are labeling scientists either as decision makers, if the decision is unpopular but deemed necessary. Or they label scientists as being dishonest, if they want to make a decision which will garner applause, but has less desirable effects predicted in the long run.
In both cases, scientists lose in the public opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
I supported most coronavirus measures but I feel that "follow the science" was political scapegoating. Science can give us useful information, like, "imposing such-and-such restrictions will save X lives (with a wide margin of error)" Yet still the decision of whether to make that tradeoff is a political matter.
However, scientists themselves can be guilty of blurring this distinction when the believe their deeper understanding of the facts makes their moral judgment more grounded. (Which let's be
Re: (Score:2)
That front row seat is the reason that sometimes scientists (Doctors are necessarily scientists) sometimes get involved politically. If the science shows a certain path having a good chance of bad results, as humans, they are likely to get political over it.
Abortion isn't really a science thing, but was is observable is the damage that prohibition does.
Re: (Score:3)
No. There are actually people in politics that want to do what is good for the community and it's people.
How large part they are of the whole depends on the level and country. Basically it a function of accountability to the voters.
A small town council is a lot more accountable to the voters than a large country's central politicians.
But also things like the press freedom and the political system influence it. A multi party system will encourage people to vote the candidate they actually want instead of the
Re:its about power (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems to be an American and 3rd world thing. In the 1st world, it seems that America is one of the only countries where politicians get filthy rich being successful (and sometimes unsuccessful) politicians. Partially a result of basically legalized bribery and partially how money is speech.
And how are we supposed to make policy descisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
people want guidance that tells them what they want to hear.
life begins at conception (cue every sperm is sacred)
global warming is a chinese hoax
mask don't work, they make things worse
and many others...
Also, we have a not insignificant amount of the population that is absolutely unable to think critically. Also, as many have pointed out on these very pages, there is a distinct lack of curiousity. even worse, when there is "curiousity", it's curiosity which seeks out comforting information. Horse dewormer
Re: (Score:2)
"Also, we have a not insignificant amount of the population that is absolutely unable to think critically"
They are able to think critically. If they post on a non-political subject, they engage their brain wonderfully.
On a political topic, they seem to have a "Team" mentality.
Their brain is working, overtime even, to construct the most fantastic levels of nonsense to justify the position they support.
Facts, science, truth, evidence, rationality, basic morality: all go out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
But every topic is political these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, an unfertilized egg is definitely alive!
Re: (Score:3)
Also, an unfertilized egg is definitely alive!
As is sperm.
Re:And how are we supposed to make policy descisio (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to politics, people have an agenda first and look for evidence second. Scientists or other experts are only useful when they support one's forgone conclusions. When they don't, people fall back to the use of narrative, anecdote, and all manner of logical fallacy to push their agenda.
Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't create humans. I'm just observing how they operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbyists. Only people with enough money to outright bribe politicians directly should have any say over public policy. Did you not get the pamphlet in the mail?
Re:And how are we supposed to make policy descisio (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not that people think we're not allowed to use science, it's that they want to vote on things regardless of what the scientists say. Imagine a democracy where 65% of the people are Christians and the other 35% are Jewish, and there's nobody else, and they're having a vote about which days of the week things are allowed to happen (when I was a kid, stores weren't allowed to open on Sunday). You can scream all you want that science says you don't need to close stores on Saturday or Sunday, but nobody voting cares what you think.
It's a bit of a head scratcher for someone like myself to grasp, but democracy isn't about making the correct decision. It "works" in so much as it comes to a decision without violence. Stores close on Sunday because the majority says they do. In most cases it comes to the same decision that a violent altercation would decide: the majority gets its way.
The majority has always been religious, and they get their way, one way or the other. However, the religious groups that embraced science, or at least tolerated scientists, have typically done better in the world, technologically. Many times that technology has supported the spread of those religions. But those groups have also, paradoxically, reduced their birth rates to below replacement levels. Muslims are the fastest growing religious group in the world.
Science has only been tolerated so long as it gives the majority group what they want. People only bring out the "follow the science" mantra when it's on their side. Both sides are quite willing to throw science under the bus when it doesn't suit them: right-wingers with climate and vaccine denialism, and left-wingers with their denialism that X and Y chromosomes are a thing. Research into race and IQ is pretty much banned in universities at this point (and I don't disagree with that decision either).
The GOP is acting the way it is because of a blunt reality: they represent a minority living in a democracy and they know they're not going to get their way without resorting to some very un-democratic tactics. The fact that democracies also offer a significant amount of protection to minorities doesn't seem to have crossed their mind, of course.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel though. When you actually sit down and try to get at what's bothering people on the GOP side, and you get past all the bullshit racism, one of the big root causes of their pain is economic. Globalism (defined as outsourcing manufacturing to China, mostly) left them behind. Midwest wages stagnated, while people living on the coast got wealthier from money mostly derived from global financial markets. Wall street skimmed a lot of money off the top to pump up salaries on the east coast, and cheap capital fueled tech startups on the west coast that never had to turn a profit. But all of this is suddenly reversing. Cheap capital is gone, and manufacturing is seeing a massive on-shoring. Labor markets are pushing up wages for middle class jobs. People are leaving part-time service jobs to go into full-time manufacturing jobs again, with benefits and everything. This is going to reduce the income disparities we've seen increasing for the last 30 years. The MAGA group is going to get what they want, even if they're not very good at expressing it. The middle class will return, and with it, hopefully, less political polarization.
Re:And how are we supposed to make policy descisio (Score:5, Informative)
The left isn't denying X and Y are a thing. I'm sure if you hunt for the single most extreme Twitter opinion you might find something, but this is just another mindless variant of manufacturing balance.
X and Y are a thing. They strongly correlate but provably did not uniquely determine gender. Even if you're really hot on traditional gender roles you cannot deny the existence of androgen insensitivity or various forms of X and Y aneuploidy. You don't have to accept the dafter things from the kids (though why some people are so mortally offended is beyond me) but anyone who has the simplistic view that there's XX which are women and XY which is men is simply wrong. Biology is never that simple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The left isn't denying X and Y are a thing. I'm sure if you hunt for the single most extreme Twitter opinion you might find something, but this is just another mindless variant of manufacturing balance.
X and Y are a thing. They strongly correlate but provably did not uniquely determine gender. Even if you're really hot on traditional gender roles you cannot deny the existence of androgen insensitivity or various forms of X and Y aneuploidy.
Yes. Except I bet he calls that a "genetic disorder", not "third sex".
Re:And how are we supposed to make policy descisio (Score:5, Interesting)
Another problem is that gender is a language thing and varies a lot in various languages, with one Native American language having 9 genders IIRC. Googling seems to show most had 5.
English has mostly got rid of gender, whats left is based on sex and the idea that sex=gender along with some left overs like how ships are always female. Ships don't have chromosomes.
Language is interesting in the way it limits your thinking. It is much easier to think about things you can express in your language.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of this is cultural. No one passed a law saying stores should be closed on Sunday, it was just the way things were done. When a Jewish store closes early on Friday and stays closed on Saturday it makes a lot of people scratch their heads because it's considered unusual. At least in the more homogenous communities unused to differences. Possibly why some people despise multiculturalism because it is just going to let people think that unusual things are ok...
For democracy, most people love it as lo
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of this is cultural. No one passed a law saying stores should be closed on Sunday, it was just the way things were done.
There were a lot of laws that made stores being open a crime. They were called Blue Laws. In my town until the early 70's, it was illegal for a business to be open on Sunday. Then it was relaxed a little, and they could be open an hour or two after church services for the faithful to pick up their Sunday papers. Finally it all went away as nearby towns had stores open when they wanted to be open, and were not smote by the wrath of gawd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of it all is, that they themselves voted to bring that economic pain on themselves via "business-friendly" policies and politicians. After all, nobody wanted to be labelled as "socialist" (never mind that very few can actually define the big words they toss around).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
transparency and open debate.. is dead (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is when only certain *selected* 'scientists' are allowed to participate - because they agree with the political decision,
and anyone who questions that, or wants access to such things as data and open debate is hung, drawn, and quartered.
What we have in the world right now is NOT open scientific debate - it is partisan politically/financially controlled rhetoric.
This can clearly be seen in the case of people who questioned COVID vaccines ability to stop transmission (which is OBVIOUS to anyone wi
Or, what is the correct balance? (Score:2)
I was talking to my neighbor about the Covids. She feels that we should do whatever the science says will work. I pointed out that the science says that if everyone stays home - no one leaves, no exceptions - for two weeks, then Covid will go away (as will many other communicable diseases). Well, you see, that is completely impractical, and the politicians have to balance science and what is realistic. OK, so not just science....
Re: (Score:2)
It did lead to some oddities and double-think. "We have to stay home and never leave the home, so we pay a gig worker to go and get our food for us!" I've know people like that, one is even a close friend, and they seemed oblivious to the fact that they were in essence relying upon an underclass to accept the dangers so that they would not have to, as if the workers were expendable? For some I think this was just their excuse to be lazy and indulge themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was talking to my neighbor about the Covids. She feels that we should do whatever the science says will work. I pointed out that the science says that if everyone stays home - no one leaves, no exceptions - for two weeks, then Covid will go away (as will many other communicable diseases). Well, you see, that is completely impractical, and the politicians have to balance science and what is realistic. OK, so not just science....
Here is a really good example of the politicization of science. The OP believes what he is saying is what scientists say. Just one problem, no scientists ever said this. At all, never, not once. The media talking heads without a scientific background said it all the time along with, "believe the science" (ignoring that in science we don't believe anything, we prove things). So part of the problem (a big part) is that what science says is subtle and usually not what people think science says. There are
Science vs. Conclusions (Score:2, Troll)
It isn't so much science, its the conclusions that various people tend to draw from the science.
One example. Covid hit. Pretty clear there was a virus going around that was novel. One set of folks drew the conclusion to lockdown the world. One set of folks drew the conclusion that wasn't necessary in every case.
A second example. Schools and how to teach math. One crew thinks common core math is better than what the rest of us learned 20+ years ago. One doesn't, and thinks we are all plenty smart t
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't so much science, its the conclusions that various people tend to draw from the science.
I'd argue it's about the science itself. After all, a good chunk of the same people (in the US, at least) apparently seem to think basic mathematics - as in counting - is somehow unfairly biased against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Another set of folks said that it's doctors in hospitals murdering people to keep up the hoax.
Another set of folks said that it was just the flu.
Another set of folks said that it was a lab leak from China.
Another set of folks said that it was a biological weapon.
Another set of folks said that masks suffocate people.
Another set of folks said that the vaccines are killing people.
Another set of folks said that the vaccines are sterilizing people.
Another set of
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science vs. Conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)
One set of folks drew the conclusion to lockdown the world [due to covid]. One set of folks drew the conclusion that wasn't necessary in every case.
Sure, just proving that hindsight is 20/20. At the time, though, we had no information at all. We knew people were getting sick. And people were dying. A lot of people were dying. Mostly old people, but not exclusively, and the numbers of young(ish) that were dying meant we couldn't assume who the susceptible were. Lockdown-light was tried for a while, but senior care facilities in NY showed that was not enough to stop the spread and stop all of the dying.
There were major missteps with regards to Covid handling, but none of those mishaps can be laid at the feet of science. Most of the missteps were due to political forces trying to control and change the narrative that we were all seeing on TV and in our daily lives, pressure to suppress the science because it was happening at a politically inconvenient time for some elected representatives.
It was the politics of the groups that determined which side you would be on, not science or critical thinking. The politics determined that the lockdown was hurting one party so they turned their folks against lockdowns, not because the lockdown wasn't or couldn't work. Likewise the politics showed that the other side was getting hurt by the lockdowns, so there was incentive to push the lockdowns farther than was necessary and beyond scientific evidence.
The science itself never changed, it was the political groups which were trying to wrestle control from each other, trying to control the messaging and improve upon how covid helped them and mitigate how it hurt them. The science, however, didn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
The science itself never changed, it was the political groups which were trying to wrestle control from each other, trying to control the messaging and improve upon how covid helped them and mitigate how it hurt them. The science, however, didn't care.
The science book was torn up and thrown out the window at the very beginning of the pandemic by the very people trusted to provide scientifically informed information to the public.
Widely held scientific beliefs about masking informed by studies conducted over many decades, diet, exercise, infection induced acquired immunity... All tossed into the waste bin to be replaced with politically motivated gobbledygook.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the science of educations probably will show that if every child gets a personal tutor that the outcomes will be greatly improved. Impractical of course. So often the hard part is figuring out the best you can do with the resources you have, while trying to do better than was done in the past. Which comes into direct conflict with the group that firmly believes that what was done in the past is always the best way because change is bad. A mix is going to work I feel; new math is fine, especia
Re: (Score:3)
There were some who could look at the epidemiology and make a deliberative argument for why extensive lockdowns were bad policy.
But that isn't what we got from the people that decided against lockdowns. Instead what we got was "Screw your science, and fuck you, too. We ain't all in this together. The gub'mint ain't going to tell me nuthin'. The public good can kiss my ass - but pull that damn mask off first. I'm gonna do it
Re: (Score:2)
For example where I live in Europe almost all small business got locked down while large businesses were allowed to keep working. You know like a manufacturing hall with an assembly line where dozens of people work in closer proximity. For some reason there masks and tests and vaccines were sufficient protection, while for smaller businesses, where perhaps two or three people come within 2 meters of distance once in a while,
Re: (Score:2)
A second example. Schools and how to teach math. One crew thinks common core math is better than what the rest of us learned 20+ years ago. One doesn't, and thinks we are all plenty smart the way it is.
My kid had common core math. Maximally stupid. I draw no conclusins that we were all plenty smart the old way, but common core? Seems to have set up the present day postmodern concept that 2 + 2 equals 5 if you want it to. https://knologist.com/what-is-... [knologist.com]
From the (Score:2)
My Body My Choice crowd. But only when it comes to vaccines of course.
Re: (Score:2)
But only when it comes to vaccines of course.
But vaccines are for the protection of the public. Not just yourself.
Abortion, on the other hand, seeks to give women a means to eliminate unwanted offspring. Who otherwise could be dumped on society as maladjusted teenagers. With all the resulting fallout that follows.
So..... (Score:2)
Science for Sale (Score:2)
Science gets a bad reputation because we're no longer getting information from the source. Instead, we get science from every pundit who has a political or philosophical axe to grind. Facts can be misused in all kinds of creative ways, but people don't like being manipulated if/when they finally realize what's going on. Because of this hack/dogma->science association, people have become skeptical to the point of incredulity when presented with scientific evidence.
It certainly doesn't help that we've crea
Spin Spin Spin (Score:2)
The drop in trust could be due to the incredible amount of immediacy presented with the science. Whether that is from the media, research teams trying to get sustained funding, or politics, is unknown.
I don't think the general public disbelieves in science per say. They just hate it when scientist say we should give up our primary mode of transportation, ignore the issues with food stability (fertilizer and GMOs be damned), ignore grid stability, demand 100% renewable everything. And if we don't, we'll all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm unsure your agenda here but you injecting spin by making claims that don't actually exist and demonstrating why people have lost trust in the scientific process. Scientists aren't saying we need to give up our primary mode of transportation nor any of the things you're stating.
Even the leftiest of the lefty politcians aren't saying that. That is just lazy GOP talking point that try to claim like AOC wants to ban beef because she points out that raising cattle is a very environmentally dirty process. Th
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, when someone says, "Scientists say" or "Science says" in casual, they usually mean "What I watched on youtube", or they are referring to something they read in an article, or what they saw on the news. It doesn't matter if it exists in a factual matter or not. It only matters that the person associates it with science. Very few outside of the fields actually reads the studies or papers from the source. Hence the first line of the post. I'm simply presenting a reasoning for why trust is dow
Re: (Score:2)
"Scientist" in that context means what they read and hear. Which links back to the first sentence of the post.
As an electrical engineer I've been following battery development for decades. Once a month there's "a new breakthrough" that will "revolutionize" battery storage. Lately, they're all the rage on youtube [youtube.com]. Current tech (lithium) has certainly advanced a lot in the last decade, but it's been via incremental changes that are not pure fantasy once outside the laboratory. Hence, whenever someone wants to
bread and circuses (Score:2)
less educated people have been shat on for decades. The MBAs have "optimized" their wages ever lower since around the 50s despite productivity gains.
When the most educated people around you are actively working against you why not be suspicious of any university product except, perhaps, the football team.
Since when do you trust science ? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not how it works, that's not how anything works.
You don't trust science, you test science. You continuously test science because it breaks. Science is at pest tentative and always a process of finding a better way to view and understand the universe, it's never about answers.
To borrow from Richard Feynman
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
If you are getting upset about people questioning science and not accepting the results you have grown to love you should get your ass out of the field or move to some place quiet and secluded without television radio or internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since when do you trust science ? (Score:4, Funny)
Science is at pest
"Freud. Cleanup on aisle seven."
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really how it works though.
At some point you have to stop testing and re testing and actually do something or make a decision.
At this point I'm going to trust the laws of thermodynamics of I want to build a that engine.
Re:Since when do you trust science ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as an engineer, It's far too easy to see the gap between the science and the practical. Even in very very clean things like electromagnetics or Newtonian physics You have to go out ans see what's going on.
Just take your example of thermo about as strong a set of laws as you will find, you still need steam tables to build a Rankine cycle engine. Well at least if you want it to work well.
Biology good luck.
Which brings us around to the intersection of money, irrationality and science. All you need to remember is at one point Tetraethyl lead was considered safe as an anti knock gasoline additive, and sugar was healthy and a needed part of the daily diet.
Re:Since when do you trust science ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's having an open mind...and then there's letting your brain fall out of your skull.
A lot of scientifically and technically minded people don't get irked with people questioning assumptions, or being asking to show their work, and generally using the process of inquiry to get to a more substantial result. What we get pissed about is folks not accepting results - even basic facts - that have been demonstrated over and over and over, no matter how many ways we try to communicate them. If the scientific community is expected to tolerate people who question science, is it really that unreasonable to expect the questioners to listen to, digest, and accept the answers being provided?
It may be elitist to say "just trust us - we know better than you." It is NOT elitist, or exclusionary, or heavy-handed to say "we know this is true because X, Y, and Z. We have tested it using A, B, and C. We're a little unclear about J and K, but that doesn't invalidate X, Y, and Z. Now please stop saying the Earth is flat."
Re: (Score:3)
Thereâ(TM)s a difference, though, between a microbiologist questioning a geneticistâ(TM)s science on mRNA vaccines versus an art history major or a pillow salesman doing the same. Science is open for anyone to question, yes. But it takes time and effort to work through the prerequisites to be competent to ask the right questions, to whom, and in what context.
Take working scientists out of the question altogether and thereâ(TM)s also a big different between an educated layman waiting a few w
Scientists do better than most other professions (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a chart [pewresearch.org] showing confidence in different professions. Scientists and the military are at about 30%, religious leaders 12% ... down to elected officials 2%. It would be interesting to see more professions listed.
I'm not seeing a downside here (Score:2, Flamebait)
Pandemic Foibles (Score:2)
There were some missteps during the pandemic.
The biggest was the CDC's communications. I remember at one point they issued guidance, then came out the next day saying it was a mistake and the opposite was true. I might be fudging the details a bit in my mind, but that only reinforces the point. Early in the pandemic they were hedging about masks to try and avoid a run on supplies for healthcare providers, then they changed course.
The lesson is that the CDC and other public agencies pushing for science to
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing was that there were policies being pushed by left leaning politicians,
Our leftist governor tried (but failed) to shut down the rifle ranges.
There is nothing better for social distancing than unpacking a .50 cal Barrett at your bench.
Re: (Score:2)
There were some missteps during the pandemic.
The biggest was the CDC's communications.
There is only one way to avoid any and all missteps - The "Thoughts and Prayers" Method. Mans solutions are tainted by Satan, and will always be wrong.
If we believe, God will protect his faithful. Then anyone who dies just wasn't faithful enough. Perfect system. It's in God's hands, not mans, and god is perfect, all happens because of his loving will. No one who took the mark of Satan - the vaccines - shall see God in heaven, and they have reaped their reward for following the hell tainted edicts of man
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. "Thoughts and prayers": an easy way for people to feel good about doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. "Thoughts and prayers": an easy way for people to feel good about doing nothing.
Glad I didn't Poe you.
I'm on Facebook because I'm required to by my work. Then my relatives and old school friends found me. And I'm always struck by the "Thoughts and prayers", and "Sending Good Vibes your way" BS.
True it does nothing, but it seems almost like a subset of the weird "manifestation" trend where people think about something and meditate on it, what they are thinking about will happen. Enough to drive a skeptical thinker batty!
when politicians & mainstream media (Score:2)
Politicization (Score:2)
If science weren't so politicized, this wouldn't be an issue, at least not to the extent that it is; and I'm pointing my finger here at the entire political establishment. There are a *lot* of current policies that include "bad" or outdated science. I'll leave which ones as an exercise to the reader. FFS, let scientists actually do science, engineers actually do engineering, and politicians get out of the way. Of course scientists and engineers should be involved in setting public policy, but politics (
The (d)evolution of western society (Score:2)
False Dichotomy (Score:2)
Policy is not science and science is not policy (Score:2, Interesting)
The last thing the world needs is for people to confuse policy and science more than it already is.
Scientists make predictions based on objective evidence.
Policy makers use science as an input to (hopefully) make informed judgments on a course of action.
What scientists personally believe ought to be done about a topic they should do the world a favor and keep to themselves or at least not express publically. If they want to make policy then they should run for office.
Nothing erodes legitimacy of science mo
Even Scientific American (Score:2)
Scientists can never make up their mind. (Score:2)
Well, which day is it? Why are you they so flip-floppity? Why can't they tell us what the day is once and for all?
For that matter, what can't they decide what the soup-of-the-day is? We need to know what soup is from now on.
not just science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it have to stay the hell away as possible from politics.
Because politics operate by popularity and agendas, not the seek for truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Politicians lie, yet they get away with it. There needs to be consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't stay away from politics: you ignore it but it's still there. So much of your life is affected by it, it's not avoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you don't need to just ignore it, you need to actively protect science from it.