3 ms·

whats it due to then in your opinion?

Ar-Curunir 3y ago
There are many reasons, including continuous attacks by politicians on scientists and the scientific endeavour, inaccessibility of modern research to the average person, (seemingly) diminishing returns from scientific research, to name just a few.
- kukkeliskuu 3y ago
  Do you think there is anything wrong within the scientific community, or do you think the diminishing trust is completely caused by outside forces?
  - Ar-Curunir 3y ago
    I think the scientific community is complicit in some of the issues I listed, but they're not 100% responsible.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Well scientists are shitty. For example, the entire masking bullshit could have been avoided if the science policymakers just said "hey we don't have any evidence, just dont be an asshole and put a mask on". That's not what happened, and they discredited themselves. Guess what. The public does know what the scientific method is, and they smelled a rat. Why should we trust scientists if they violate their own principles? > continuous attacks Yeah. These are often warranted. Scientists MUST be held to a higher standard because (unless they're funded by HHMI) they're using the public purse. > diminishing returns That's a real thing. It's not supposed.
dotnet00 3y ago
Poor science journalism. The joke that depending on the day of the week coffee is 'scientifically' either the best or worst thing in the world is what's killing trust in science. Most people aren't reading or hearing what scientists say directly, they're hearing cut up overly summarized tidbits or reading a clickbaiting journalist's interpretation of a paper that most of the time the journalists don't even consider to be worth linking to.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Notably, public university press departments are scarcely any better in this regard than for-profit popular science publications. These are journalists who should have direct access to the researchers and they still get stuff laughably wrong.
tety 3y ago
Post modernism. There’s a well established field of thought going past to at least the 60s that believes truth is relative, knowledge is subservient to language and therefore science is inherently biased and a tool of “power”. It’s extremely popular in the west, especially among the elite and in the universities
- Ar-Curunir 3y ago
  Post modernism is a relatively niche ideology. As someone working at a university, it's definitely not the dominant ideology amongst the decision makers. Maybe in some humanities departments, but not in the rest of the university, and especially not in the administration.
  - tety 3y ago
    I think you are underestimating the effect. Science had a religious like following, doctors were considered infallible, and so on The fact that it is a well established notion that pharmaceutical companies buy studies is a new phenomena (relatively to before post modernism set in) The extreme manifestations is anti-vax, and it’s usually not due to them coming out of a humanities department

There are many reasons, including continuous attacks by politicians on scientists and the scientific endeavour, inaccessibility of modern research to the average person, (seemingly) diminishing returns from scientific research, to name just a few.

kukkeliskuu 3y ago
Do you think there is anything wrong within the scientific community, or do you think the diminishing trust is completely caused by outside forces?
- Ar-Curunir 3y ago
  I think the scientific community is complicit in some of the issues I listed, but they're not 100% responsible.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
Well scientists are shitty. For example, the entire masking bullshit could have been avoided if the science policymakers just said "hey we don't have any evidence, just dont be an asshole and put a mask on". That's not what happened, and they discredited themselves. Guess what. The public does know what the scientific method is, and they smelled a rat. Why should we trust scientists if they violate their own principles? > continuous attacks Yeah. These are often warranted. Scientists MUST be held to a higher standard because (unless they're funded by HHMI) they're using the public purse. > diminishing returns That's a real thing. It's not supposed.

dotnet00 3y ago

Poor science journalism. The joke that depending on the day of the week coffee is 'scientifically' either the best or worst thing in the world is what's killing trust in science. Most people aren't reading or hearing what scientists say directly, they're hearing cut up overly summarized tidbits or reading a clickbaiting journalist's interpretation of a paper that most of the time the journalists don't even consider to be worth linking to.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Notably, public university press departments are scarcely any better in this regard than for-profit popular science publications. These are journalists who should have direct access to the researchers and they still get stuff laughably wrong.

tety 3y ago

Post modernism. There’s a well established field of thought going past to at least the 60s that believes truth is relative, knowledge is subservient to language and therefore science is inherently biased and a tool of “power”. It’s extremely popular in the west, especially among the elite and in the universities

Ar-Curunir 3y ago
Post modernism is a relatively niche ideology. As someone working at a university, it's definitely not the dominant ideology amongst the decision makers. Maybe in some humanities departments, but not in the rest of the university, and especially not in the administration.
- tety 3y ago
  I think you are underestimating the effect. Science had a religious like following, doctors were considered infallible, and so on The fact that it is a well established notion that pharmaceutical companies buy studies is a new phenomena (relatively to before post modernism set in) The extreme manifestations is anti-vax, and it’s usually not due to them coming out of a humanities department