5 ms·

The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

15 points by pjdavis 17y ago

gizmo 17y ago
> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity, medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse? People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  I honestly think that the only possible reason for this has to be either ignorance or religion. If you demonize one section of science far enough, you're probably self-indoctrinated to believe that all science is bad. Consider someone who believes that climate change is not happening and that the entire scientific community is in on this giant scam. Once you extend a conspiracy theory to such a large level, the only way you can rationalize your beliefs is to demonize the entire population of practicing scientists because they have to be "in on it." Of course, were you to then be asked if science has been a good thing, you'll answer in the negative, even though you would never survive without air conditioning, processed food, and your precious Range Rover.
  - gizmo 17y ago
    Maybe it's much simpler than that. When people hear the word scientist, they think "men in white lab coats". If that's what they think scientists are, then all the responses make some sort of sense. The depressing thing is that people who believe in conspiracy theories are generally reasonably smart people, who have nuanced opinions on a lot of topics, and are often well educated. In order to believe in a conspiracy theory you have to have at least a passing understanding of whatever accepted truth it is you don't believe in. That puts those people leagues ahead of the ignorant-and-proud-of-it.
- Robin_Message 17y ago
  I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.
  - gizmo 17y ago
    The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing. The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.
      - Retric 17y ago
        Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago. PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.
        philwelch 17y ago
        I'm not talking about western style poor, I'm talking about post-nuclear war style dead, or post-nanotech style grey goo that used to be people. That's why I said "existential threat" (i.e. threats to our existence), not "existential angst". I don't disagree that science is a net win, but there's some chance that we will use science to extinct the human race or make the earth uninhabitable, in the long run.
biohacker42 17y ago
... finds that some of science's conclusions are widely mistrusted, and hints at a widening partisan divide. Obviously. Lets face it, the majority of kids don't actually think through and convince themselves of everything they are thought. Partly because kids are like little fact sponges for facts that come from adult authority. And partly because they don't have to think to pass exams. The earth goes around the sun. Sure thing Mr. Teacher, I can see the sun going around the earth but I still believe what ever you say. And that's not fake, that's really how it works most of the time. I'd guess only about 15% or less actually think it through. But now in some regions, for some groups there are competing authorities and they say the earth is 6000 years old. Sure Mr. Preacher, what ever you say. Fact is, public education is a mass product, a government provided mass product/service. It's crap. More often then not we get smart kids despite public school, not because of it. What public school does reasonably well is teach you the three Rs. You want anything more? Educate yourself. Solutions: 1. Improve, and I mean really improve, public education in this union of states which covers most of a continent. 2. Do nothing. Wait for this strange modern day cult of anti-Darwinists to run its course and peter out. 3. Give them more rope to hang themselves. Radically shrink the size and role of the feds and increase the economic competition between the states. Problems: 1. Extremely difficult will take centuries. 3. Counter to the strong natural tendency of governments to grow and grow and grow. 2. Requires no effort - is most likely scenario. A humble suggestion. Stop trying to save the anto-evolutionists from themselves. Why not ignore these real life trolls? Please point out where they are doing real world damage that matters? And no, it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with.
- ori_b 17y ago
  > it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with. The problem is that it's not just their kids that it hurts. It affects the textbooks and lesson plans of schools across the state and country (especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks). If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed - I don't think children should be punished for the failings of their parents - but I would be less concerned about it. But it doesn't just hurt their children. It hurts everyone's children, and undermines the innovation economy that the USA has built. Our largest export is brains and ideas - we don't manufacture all that much in the USA anymore. We should be doing what we can to protect our most important resource - our education.
nice1 17y ago
I think scientists are partly responsible for their loss of credibility by bowing to leftist pressure and endorsing slogans like "global warming", "global cooling", "the population bomb" and other such nonsense.
- Retric 17y ago
  The problem is how the media presents science. When 1 whack job PDH with 3 assistants and a new theory is given just as much air time if not more as what 100,000 PHD's think on the average story people can't tell what the trends really are. It's a breaking story when Bubba and his 6 month study of 50 people says soda might cause or prevent cancer, but it is old news by the time the results of a 10 year 50,000 people study disprove that link.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  I looked up "the population bomb"[1] and it seems to be another Malthusian crisis book. The funny thing is that you criticize scientists for this. Ehrlich is an entomologist. The Wikipedia article states that demographers and a large section of the scientific community widely panned the book. Honestly, if you get your view of the scientific community from Neil Cavuto on Fox News, you're kidding yourself into believing that you're actually getting science. Similarly, pick up any recent scientific publication on climatology. Now, notice that there are no slogans. Instead, there are peer reviewed studies which present hypothesis, experiments, and conclusions. True science is not "political," and if you believe it is then you are simply the byproduct of the media. Scientists themselves say that the media doesn't cover science well -- so perhaps you shouldn't judge scientific opinions based on it? [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    This response is solid, however I don't think the OP suggested that "True science is political." (Although it's hard to tell when people don't express themselves clearly.) There have been many scientists to have admitted that they have kept their mouth shut when they oppose the status quo for fear of losing jobs or failing to gain funding. The concept of "a few bad apples" is certainly not new.
tel 17y ago
Did the Ars rewrite add anything to the Pew Report besides some thin speculation and ambiguous wording? No wonder scientists don't like journalists.
- rjprins 17y ago
  It's not so much as adding, as making it readable and interesting.
calcnerd256 17y ago
If the scientific community's portrayal in the media only tells the story of one side of a controversial issue, that is going to make the public think that the entire community agrees with that stance. How often are things portrayed as "scientific fact" or some other such when they are still widely debated within the scientific community? Each of those issues erodes the public's trust of the entire community, even those that are adamantly declaring, "We don't know yet" about the issue.

15 points by pjdavis 17y ago

gizmo 17y ago

> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity, medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse? People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.

Locke1689 17y ago
I honestly think that the only possible reason for this has to be either ignorance or religion. If you demonize one section of science far enough, you're probably self-indoctrinated to believe that all science is bad. Consider someone who believes that climate change is not happening and that the entire scientific community is in on this giant scam. Once you extend a conspiracy theory to such a large level, the only way you can rationalize your beliefs is to demonize the entire population of practicing scientists because they have to be "in on it." Of course, were you to then be asked if science has been a good thing, you'll answer in the negative, even though you would never survive without air conditioning, processed food, and your precious Range Rover.
- gizmo 17y ago
  Maybe it's much simpler than that. When people hear the word scientist, they think "men in white lab coats". If that's what they think scientists are, then all the responses make some sort of sense. The depressing thing is that people who believe in conspiracy theories are generally reasonably smart people, who have nuanced opinions on a lot of topics, and are often well educated. In order to believe in a conspiracy theory you have to have at least a passing understanding of whatever accepted truth it is you don't believe in. That puts those people leagues ahead of the ignorant-and-proud-of-it.
Robin_Message 17y ago
I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.
- gizmo 17y ago
  The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing. The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.
    - Retric 17y ago
      Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago. PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        I'm not talking about western style poor, I'm talking about post-nuclear war style dead, or post-nanotech style grey goo that used to be people. That's why I said "existential threat" (i.e. threats to our existence), not "existential angst". I don't disagree that science is a net win, but there's some chance that we will use science to extinct the human race or make the earth uninhabitable, in the long run.

biohacker42 17y ago

... finds that some of science's conclusions are widely mistrusted, and hints at a widening partisan divide. Obviously. Lets face it, the majority of kids don't actually think through and convince themselves of everything they are thought. Partly because kids are like little fact sponges for facts that come from adult authority. And partly because they don't have to think to pass exams. The earth goes around the sun. Sure thing Mr. Teacher, I can see the sun going around the earth but I still believe what ever you say. And that's not fake, that's really how it works most of the time. I'd guess only about 15% or less actually think it through. But now in some regions, for some groups there are competing authorities and they say the earth is 6000 years old. Sure Mr. Preacher, what ever you say. Fact is, public education is a mass product, a government provided mass product/service. It's crap. More often then not we get smart kids despite public school, not because of it. What public school does reasonably well is teach you the three Rs. You want anything more? Educate yourself. Solutions: 1. Improve, and I mean really improve, public education in this union of states which covers most of a continent. 2. Do nothing. Wait for this strange modern day cult of anti-Darwinists to run its course and peter out. 3. Give them more rope to hang themselves. Radically shrink the size and role of the feds and increase the economic competition between the states. Problems: 1. Extremely difficult will take centuries. 3. Counter to the strong natural tendency of governments to grow and grow and grow. 2. Requires no effort - is most likely scenario. A humble suggestion. Stop trying to save the anto-evolutionists from themselves. Why not ignore these real life trolls? Please point out where they are doing real world damage that matters? And no, it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with.

ori_b 17y ago
> it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with. The problem is that it's not just their kids that it hurts. It affects the textbooks and lesson plans of schools across the state and country (especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks). If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed - I don't think children should be punished for the failings of their parents - but I would be less concerned about it. But it doesn't just hurt their children. It hurts everyone's children, and undermines the innovation economy that the USA has built. Our largest export is brains and ideas - we don't manufacture all that much in the USA anymore. We should be doing what we can to protect our most important resource - our education.

nice1 17y ago

I think scientists are partly responsible for their loss of credibility by bowing to leftist pressure and endorsing slogans like "global warming", "global cooling", "the population bomb" and other such nonsense.

Retric 17y ago
The problem is how the media presents science. When 1 whack job PDH with 3 assistants and a new theory is given just as much air time if not more as what 100,000 PHD's think on the average story people can't tell what the trends really are. It's a breaking story when Bubba and his 6 month study of 50 people says soda might cause or prevent cancer, but it is old news by the time the results of a 10 year 50,000 people study disprove that link.
Locke1689 17y ago
I looked up "the population bomb"[1] and it seems to be another Malthusian crisis book. The funny thing is that you criticize scientists for this. Ehrlich is an entomologist. The Wikipedia article states that demographers and a large section of the scientific community widely panned the book. Honestly, if you get your view of the scientific community from Neil Cavuto on Fox News, you're kidding yourself into believing that you're actually getting science. Similarly, pick up any recent scientific publication on climatology. Now, notice that there are no slogans. Instead, there are peer reviewed studies which present hypothesis, experiments, and conclusions. True science is not "political," and if you believe it is then you are simply the byproduct of the media. Scientists themselves say that the media doesn't cover science well -- so perhaps you shouldn't judge scientific opinions based on it? [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
- jpwagner 17y ago
  This response is solid, however I don't think the OP suggested that "True science is political." (Although it's hard to tell when people don't express themselves clearly.) There have been many scientists to have admitted that they have kept their mouth shut when they oppose the status quo for fear of losing jobs or failing to gain funding. The concept of "a few bad apples" is certainly not new.

tel 17y ago

Did the Ars rewrite add anything to the Pew Report besides some thin speculation and ambiguous wording? No wonder scientists don't like journalists.

rjprins 17y ago
It's not so much as adding, as making it readable and interesting.

calcnerd256 17y ago

If the scientific community's portrayal in the media only tells the story of one side of a controversial issue, that is going to make the public think that the entire community agrees with that stance. How often are things portrayed as "scientific fact" or some other such when they are still widely debated within the scientific community? Each of those issues erodes the public's trust of the entire community, even those that are adamantly declaring, "We don't know yet" about the issue.