5 ms·

If scientists want to educate the public, they should start by listening

timr 16y ago
"According to polling performed by the Pew Research Center, Republicans who are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change than those who have less education. These better-educated Republicans probably aren't ignorant; a more likely explanation is that they are politically driven consumers of climate science information. Among Democrats and independents, the relationship between education and beliefs about global warming is precisely the opposite -- more education leads to greater acceptance of the consensus climate science." I object to the terminology. Just because someone is cherry-picking information to support their chosen ideology doesn't make them "not ignorant". It makes them willfully ignorant. Part of the problem with American political discourse is that we don't do enough to marginalize non-factual arguments -- from both sides of the political spectrum. Pretending that people aren't "ignorant" if they're filtering facts through a political sieve doesn't address this problem. Everyone has freedom of expression in the US, but we should all be doing more to make it plainly clear that some types of content are inferior to others.
- spamizbad 16y ago
  The best terminology for this phenomena would probably be (neo-)Lysenkoism, where you have a field of science under attack for conflicting with political orthodoxy. I agree completely with your point that a college degree has limited impact on your scientific literacy. Taking baby-bio or physics for poets isn't going to give you the tools necessary to churn through scientific papers, nor will it give you perfect objectivity when evaluating scientific arguments, particularly volatile ones that challenge your own core beliefs.
- brandnewlow 16y ago
  Or maybe these Republicans went to college, saw how politicized the science departments were on their campuses, and instead of shrugging it off, realized that scientists are prone to mistakes and misleading just like everyone else, and so their claims should be taken with a grain of salt, just like those of everyone else. I fall into that camp. My time in college impressed upon me how human and fallible the academy is. I went in thinking "professors" had all the answers. Then I met enough people who were stealing funds, sleeping with students, lazily grading papers, exploiting free labor and jealously hording grant money, that I realized these were just people, prone to the same errors in judgment that everyone else deals with.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Or maybe these Republicans are personally invested in a particular ideology, and anything which threatens that ideology triggers the monkey brain's fear-of-other and must be destroyed. Much like you're trying to do by insinuating that all scientists/professors are lazy, greedy, exploitative thieves who shag their students.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    I realized these were just people, prone to the same errors in judgment that everyone else deals with. I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion. No one has ever claimed that scientists are all-knowing or super-human or somehow not subject to the cognitive defects endemic to all human brains. But just because scientists are human and make mistakes does not mean that their claims about scientific matters are wrong. I mean, my attorney is a human guy who makes typical human mistakes, but when it comes to giving me legal advice, he's a hell of a lot better than the average person. His expertise is beneficial even though he sometimes forgets things or gets confused or gets angry or suffers from status quo bias. All those problems mean that I should exercise some judgment while considering his advice, but statistically, his advice is still much better than what I could come up with on my own.
borisk 16y ago
Does it really matter? Most people can believe in witches, intelligent design and what not while doing their jobs good enough. Europe, Far East, Russia trust science way more, but it doesn't seem to lead to any significant advantage.
- sidww2 16y ago
  I'm not so sure. If we are talking about the advantage in terms of the advantage in enhancing scientific knowledge, then certainly things have changed since WWII but pre-WWII, if my knowledge of history is correct, the majority of advances in theoretical science and mathematics happened in Europe. Even today a large number of scientists working in America are foreign-born. Now I don't know how much people trusted science and the scientific consensus in Europe vs America back then but I wouldn't be surprised if Europe was more progressive back then either.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  Couldn't agree more. I've never really understood why anyone cares about who believes what when it comes to topics in science. You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree? I'm sort of amazed at the arrogance on display by those who seem bent on making sure everyone agrees with them. It seems like we would be served well by some degree of skepticism of the bishops and the scientific establishment (in all areas). It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. For my part I'm skeptical of the claims of biologists, mainstream economists, climatologists, and those who offer financial advice. I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. I might get made fun of behind my back for doubting these people but that's fine by me. I also didn't take any losses in the latest stock market crash because I saw it coming three years ahead of time and was safely in cash waiting for the market to figure out what I already knew. I take strong positions on economics because the outcome can really affect me and my family. I might be wrong of course but at least I'm going in with my eyes open.
  - Jach 16y ago
jufemaiz 16y ago
A fundamental problem that I see is twofold: First, we have a more educated populace globally (not just in the US) - this leads to more confidence in our own opinions, and when combined with "the university of Google" and trusting everything one reads on the internet you'll get echo-chambers of likemindedness repeatedly referring to each other. We tend to believe things that we hear over and over. Add in the lack of accountability within the media to appropriately question all claims from all sides in a scientific manner and you can easily become highly insular in your views and opinions. Secondly - science has moved on in ways unfathomable a century ago - a time where the wealthy could afford an education and those without could not (and hence trusted those with an education more, although you can also claim that corporations have also lessened the trust in anyone too). The sciences today are so incredibly complex that the scientific community has the option to either: a) dumb it down; or b) dumb it down. The problem there is that when you simplify science, you lose some of the details and open yourself up for cherry-picking critique. Add in the issue that most science is now not black-or-white (something that the conservative in everyone prefers) but rather is based on probability (yes, I know all about the black swan events that through out prior observations, however scientific method requires repeatability) - irrespective of whether or not the lifestyle that they currently live is based on such approaches. Add in the proud to be innumerate and scientifically illiterate and you've got some major problems. Mix in that science now looks like religion to the lay person, due to the complexity and lack of comprehension, and you're going to have big problems. What is the scientific community to do? I'm not sure. We need to change the perception of science in the community. We need to educate people on the scientific method (even though there are many in the hardcore religious groups who oppose it). Then we need to build a better grounding in science for the next generation and make it valued in the same way that the financial and legal sectors are. After all - they're all dependent on the discoveries for their own operations.

timr 16y ago

"According to polling performed by the Pew Research Center, Republicans who are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change than those who have less education. These better-educated Republicans probably aren't ignorant; a more likely explanation is that they are politically driven consumers of climate science information. Among Democrats and independents, the relationship between education and beliefs about global warming is precisely the opposite -- more education leads to greater acceptance of the consensus climate science." I object to the terminology. Just because someone is cherry-picking information to support their chosen ideology doesn't make them "not ignorant". It makes them willfully ignorant. Part of the problem with American political discourse is that we don't do enough to marginalize non-factual arguments -- from both sides of the political spectrum. Pretending that people aren't "ignorant" if they're filtering facts through a political sieve doesn't address this problem. Everyone has freedom of expression in the US, but we should all be doing more to make it plainly clear that some types of content are inferior to others.

spamizbad 16y ago
The best terminology for this phenomena would probably be (neo-)Lysenkoism, where you have a field of science under attack for conflicting with political orthodoxy. I agree completely with your point that a college degree has limited impact on your scientific literacy. Taking baby-bio or physics for poets isn't going to give you the tools necessary to churn through scientific papers, nor will it give you perfect objectivity when evaluating scientific arguments, particularly volatile ones that challenge your own core beliefs.
brandnewlow 16y ago
Or maybe these Republicans went to college, saw how politicized the science departments were on their campuses, and instead of shrugging it off, realized that scientists are prone to mistakes and misleading just like everyone else, and so their claims should be taken with a grain of salt, just like those of everyone else. I fall into that camp. My time in college impressed upon me how human and fallible the academy is. I went in thinking "professors" had all the answers. Then I met enough people who were stealing funds, sleeping with students, lazily grading papers, exploiting free labor and jealously hording grant money, that I realized these were just people, prone to the same errors in judgment that everyone else deals with.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Or maybe these Republicans are personally invested in a particular ideology, and anything which threatens that ideology triggers the monkey brain's fear-of-other and must be destroyed. Much like you're trying to do by insinuating that all scientists/professors are lazy, greedy, exploitative thieves who shag their students.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I realized these were just people, prone to the same errors in judgment that everyone else deals with. I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion. No one has ever claimed that scientists are all-knowing or super-human or somehow not subject to the cognitive defects endemic to all human brains. But just because scientists are human and make mistakes does not mean that their claims about scientific matters are wrong. I mean, my attorney is a human guy who makes typical human mistakes, but when it comes to giving me legal advice, he's a hell of a lot better than the average person. His expertise is beneficial even though he sometimes forgets things or gets confused or gets angry or suffers from status quo bias. All those problems mean that I should exercise some judgment while considering his advice, but statistically, his advice is still much better than what I could come up with on my own.

borisk 16y ago

Does it really matter? Most people can believe in witches, intelligent design and what not while doing their jobs good enough. Europe, Far East, Russia trust science way more, but it doesn't seem to lead to any significant advantage.

sidww2 16y ago
I'm not so sure. If we are talking about the advantage in terms of the advantage in enhancing scientific knowledge, then certainly things have changed since WWII but pre-WWII, if my knowledge of history is correct, the majority of advances in theoretical science and mathematics happened in Europe. Even today a large number of scientists working in America are foreign-born. Now I don't know how much people trusted science and the scientific consensus in Europe vs America back then but I wouldn't be surprised if Europe was more progressive back then either.
jswinghammer 16y ago
Couldn't agree more. I've never really understood why anyone cares about who believes what when it comes to topics in science. You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree? I'm sort of amazed at the arrogance on display by those who seem bent on making sure everyone agrees with them. It seems like we would be served well by some degree of skepticism of the bishops and the scientific establishment (in all areas). It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. For my part I'm skeptical of the claims of biologists, mainstream economists, climatologists, and those who offer financial advice. I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. I might get made fun of behind my back for doubting these people but that's fine by me. I also didn't take any losses in the latest stock market crash because I saw it coming three years ahead of time and was safely in cash waiting for the market to figure out what I already knew. I take strong positions on economics because the outcome can really affect me and my family. I might be wrong of course but at least I'm going in with my eyes open.
- Jach 16y ago

jufemaiz 16y ago

A fundamental problem that I see is twofold: First, we have a more educated populace globally (not just in the US) - this leads to more confidence in our own opinions, and when combined with "the university of Google" and trusting everything one reads on the internet you'll get echo-chambers of likemindedness repeatedly referring to each other. We tend to believe things that we hear over and over. Add in the lack of accountability within the media to appropriately question all claims from all sides in a scientific manner and you can easily become highly insular in your views and opinions. Secondly - science has moved on in ways unfathomable a century ago - a time where the wealthy could afford an education and those without could not (and hence trusted those with an education more, although you can also claim that corporations have also lessened the trust in anyone too). The sciences today are so incredibly complex that the scientific community has the option to either: a) dumb it down; or b) dumb it down. The problem there is that when you simplify science, you lose some of the details and open yourself up for cherry-picking critique. Add in the issue that most science is now not black-or-white (something that the conservative in everyone prefers) but rather is based on probability (yes, I know all about the black swan events that through out prior observations, however scientific method requires repeatability) - irrespective of whether or not the lifestyle that they currently live is based on such approaches. Add in the proud to be innumerate and scientifically illiterate and you've got some major problems. Mix in that science now looks like religion to the lay person, due to the complexity and lack of comprehension, and you're going to have big problems. What is the scientific community to do? I'm not sure. We need to change the perception of science in the community. We need to educate people on the scientific method (even though there are many in the hardcore religious groups who oppose it). Then we need to build a better grounding in science for the next generation and make it valued in the same way that the financial and legal sectors are. After all - they're all dependent on the discoveries for their own operations.