4 ms·
There is something very important that is missing from this post and from most of the discussions of this issue. Who are these scientists? What exactly do they
by bluekeybox 15y ago
There is something very important that is missing from this post and from most of the discussions of this issue.
Who are these scientists? What exactly do they say? How do we know that what we hear that "scientists say" is not actually what the media wants us to hear? Most people never talk to scientists directly. Everything they hear is through the media. Most people are not stupid and understand that what the media says is not always to be trusted (not necessarily because the media is corrupt or because it intentionally tries to mislead, but simply because the way the media works is that it focuses on the most popular and controversial topics to receive the most views).
TL;DR: The perceived distrust of scientists by the public could well be a distrust of media reporting of most issues in general, not necessarily a lack of belief in the scientific method.
- rauljara 15y agoWhile I have seen plenty of news reports that mangle scientific findings, in all the internet debates I've witnessed on vaccines and global warming, I've never seen someone attack the scientific conclusions on the basis that they're being misreported by media. The attacks I've run across have generally been ad hominem (accusing the scientists of being motivated by something other pursuit of truth), with some direct questioning of evidence / methodology. You present an interesting idea, but I believe the reason this issue is missing from the debate is that there just aren't very many people who feel that way. Or if there are, they are remarkably unvocal about it.
- bluekeybox 15y ago> I've never seen someone attack the scientific conclusions on the basis that they're being misreported by media Well I've seen examples of bad, exaggerated, sometimes completely misleading media reporting of scientific findings nearly everywhere. Now I have a scientific background and I can tell that those reports should be taken with a grain of salt, but how can people without such background filter out the signal from the noise? I bet that many people assume that a reporter publishing something in "The Daily Galaxy" is actually the scientist. How would they ever trust him or her?
- rauljara 15y agoAh. This makes more sense. In this comment you seem to be arguing that some mistrust of science is caused by poor reporting. Which I wouldn't disagree with. From your first comment, I thought you were saying that there was no mistrust of science, just of reporters, from this line "The perceived distrust of scientists by the public could well be a distrust of media reporting of most issues in general, not necessarily a lack of belief in the scientific method." Apologies if I had misunderstood.
- bugsy 15y ago"ad hominem (accusing the scientists of being motivated by something other pursuit of truth...)" Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth? Seems you are saying those who might think that are engaging in name-calling rather than simple observation of known facts. If this is your assertion (it is, but I'm giving you a chance to back down), please justify with evidence your claim that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth.
- rauljara 15y agoYou clearly do not understand ad hominem. An example of an ad hominem attack: "You are on the internet, therefore you are wrong." The premise "you are on the internet" is clearly true. That the conclusion has anything to do with the premise is the fallacy. A similar fallacy would be to say that because prominent global warming skeptic Frederick Seitz's institute received $630,000 from Exxon Mobil, his ideas should be dismissed. That would be a fallacy. His research should be dismissed because it is either un-replicable or based on poor methodology.
- bugsy 15y agoWow, um, not sure now if you're trolling. The example you give is a non-sequitor not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is a name-calling attack. A non-sequitor is where the conclusion does not follow from the premise. But none of this addresses the issue of my previous response, it's a distraction. If you wish to proceed further, kindly address the previous points: "Is it your assertion that scientists are not motivated by something other than the pursuit of truth?"
- IvarTJ 15y agoAll fallacies are non-sequiturs. From Wikipedia An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Ad Hominem is not always a fallacy. For instance, it would not be possible to assess a person for a position without considering that person's characterstics. Sometimes we neither have the resources to assess a claim based on anything other than the characteristics of the one who made it.
- frankydp 15y agoMost peopele are stupid. If you subtract the microenviroment of the valley and the university system.
- bluekeybox 15y agoIt is not stupid to act stupid when one may be stupid. Let's just put it that way.