News Trust in science at an all time low

[bobsmith76]

This is bad news

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...ervatives-trust-of-science-hits-all-time-low-

 

[jduster]

For conservatives only (not liberals, moderates, independents, etc.), your source mentions.

 

[Haborix]

This seems a little silly to me. Is it really science they are upset with? I would say no. I'm more inclined to believe that the politicization of science is what conservatives don't like (global warming and what not). My explanation would be that science is a bystander caught in the political cross-fire. When science is used to influence government policy and create new laws it may be seen as some group of individual deciding what is best for the whole. I'm repulsed by the idea of elitism just as I suspect many are, but it's nonsensical for me to say I dislike science because someone happened to inform their decisions with it.

I am not convinced this really explains what happened because conservatives and liberals agree totally on the method of ruling. I look forward to reading others thoughts. This is all my opinion and I apologize for any incoherence.

-Eric

 

[Evo]

I've always figured that it is the rise of religious ferver among conservatives, IMO.

 

[bobsmith76]

I think fox news and rush limbaugh have a lot to do with plus other right wing pundits that deny global warming. since we have a right wing media that's eager to publicize false accounts of fraudulent science to prove the bogus assertion that global warming is false that will decrease conservatives trust in science.

Evo, to prove that it's a result of religious fervor you would at least have to prove that church attendance has been on the increase since 1974 and I don't think there is such a phenomenon.

 

[AngeliqueN]

When science is misrepresented in the media, these types of effects are evident. Although I am nearly sure that religion may play a role in this, however its not the sole cause or instigator of this lack of trust within the sciences from the public.

 

[chiro]

I've always figured that it is the rise of religious ferver among conservatives, IMO.

Evo, you've got to stop doing your Agent Smith thing! It's out of control! You're going to crash the matrix! ;)

 

[Hurkyl]

Just look how people treat statistics.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just look how people treat statistics.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Science doesn't depend on the trust of people.

 

[jim hardy]

For me it's Al Gore getting nobel prize.. He never passed a physics course in his life.

 

[Evo]

Evo, to prove that it's a result of religious fervor you would at least have to prove that church attendance has been on the increase since 1974 and I don't think there is such a phenomenon.

It doesn't have to mean more people attending church. It's the same people deciding that they should have more influence on laws and how the country is run based on their beliefs, IMO. If they believe science goes against their beliefs, then get their beliefs taught. IMO.

 

[lisab]

IMO, that article is more a reflection of the change of what constitutes a "conservative".

My dad is an old-school conservative: son of a Republican state senator, red-neck raised, served in the military, traditional values (Mormon raised, in fact). He was blessed with a truly analytical mind, and became an engineer. Ah but he's an atheist...so by today's standard, he has no place in the Republican party.

He isn't blind to this, and hasn't voted Republican since Bush I, btw.

 

[Pythagorean]

I have an old (he's old, not our relationship) friend that is very conservative. I eventually found out he was a democrat, though I always assumed he was a republican. Apparently, he used to be GOP, but he feels the party has lost its identity (or at least the one he was familiar with) in the last couple decades.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, that article is more a reflection of the change of what constitutes a "conservative".

Well conservatism in America has been going through changes constantly through history. There has never really been any strict definition of a conservative. There are social conservaitves, fiscal conservatives, neoconservatives, etc...some of these groups will accuse the others of not being "true" conservatives as well.

He isn't blind to this, and hasn't voted Republican since Bush I, btw.

He hasn't voted Republican because they don't accept atheists? Also, if so, have atheists ever really been accepted by the GOP? IMO both parties have their strict partisan views that at the high levels one must toe in order to be elected. You could probably not say you are skeptical of global warming as a Democrat and expect to be elected/remain in office for example.

 

[Andre]

trust in science at an all time low

Better be prepared for a lot worse.

So what should be the relationship between science and politics? Obviously science should support decision making by reality analyses using the scientific method. And it's not that science should justify desired policy.

Please have a look at this thread, which should clarify the following.

There is only one scientific truth, which is not always in line with desired policy. If you happen to disagree with that, it's easy to do the right thing, attempting a Popperian falsification. However if you happen to support the desired (feel good?) policy, you're likely tempted defending the scientific basis for it, as described in that thread, trying to make it unfalsifiable (like this post) and thus remove it from the sciencific realm. It becomes dogma.

No matter how desireable the policy, if the natural reality turns out to be different in the end, the defending science will hit the dirt, especially when the error is leading to economical impoverishment without any benefits. And of course the political side that just happened falsifing it (regardless of being good or bad), is the first to drop all confidence in that science.

 

[AlephZero]

Science doesn't depend on the trust of people.

True, but technology (which depends on science) depends for its acceptance on the trust of the people.

You can make an argument that science without technology is an intellectual activity worth doing for its own sake, but unless it's applied to something it is no more than that.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, the validity of science may not rest on people's trust... But funding does.

 

[Andre]

Well, the validity of science may not rest on people's trust... But funding does.

leading to scenarios of: how much funding do you need to prove this?

 

[skippy1729]

Regardless of their political or religious beliefs, the general public views science through the filter of the sensationalist, largely ignorant media. Parallel universes, the God particle, the theory of everything, dark energy, dark matter, wormholes, artificial intelligence; these terms are tossed around like they were facts of life. None of them have been directly observed; some of them will NEVER be observed. The very names of some of them (God particle, Theory of Everything) are understandably inflammatory to a religious person. They translate to: "We know more than you do. In fact, we know everything!". That isn't science, that is arrogance. The true motive for these sexy names is to maintain interest and keep the funding going. Nothing wrong with that. There are two groups who have faith in things that they do not understand. Not all scientists are in the first group and not all the religious in the second, but to the extremists of both camps:


When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way

Stevie Wonder

 

[phoenix:\\]

True, but technology (which depends on science) depends for its acceptance on the trust of the people.

You can make an argument that science without technology is an intellectual activity worth doing for its own sake, but unless it's applied to something it is no more than that.

Well, the validity of science may not rest on people's trust... But funding does.

Science will always be funded by ambitious entities that wish to push the bounds of their current state. Whether it is a government entity, private investors, or some private company, science research will always be funded in terms of the business. Universities will also be funded via government, and the conservatives cannot change that unless they wish to decline the U.S. further and have its technology outpaced by the Middle East.

Conserving the old ways of doing things leaves you stagnant while the rest of the world advances. That is why I made the statement of science not needing peoples trust, as it has no use of it, either people use it and see advances made, or don't and remain stagnant and see their country-folk flee to other advanced societies.

 

[AlephZero]

Science will always be funded by ambitious entities that wish to push the bounds of their current state. Whether it is a government entity, private investors, or some private company, science research will always be funded in terms of the business. Universities will also be funded via government, and the conservatives cannot change that unless they wish to decline the U.S. further and have its technology outpaced by the Middle East.

History doesn't support your optimism.

At school level, America continues to slip in the international rankings and now comes below 20th in maths and science. In terms of higher education, it is slipping even faster. Just a generation ago, the US had the highest proportion of graduates in the world. Now it is 16th.

Most [American] people cannot get secure, well-paid jobs any longer. The top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in 2010. The remaining 99% were either treading water or seeing falling incomes. This includes those with an undergraduate or vocational degrees, whose incomes have not budged in real terms since 2001. Only post-graduates and those with PhDs have seen income growth since then. Income mobility, once America's greatest exception, is not wallowing at sub-European levels.

Apple may now be worth more than any company in the world. But the future flow of ideas, and the spread of R&D, is globalizing. So too is American-educated talent. The Washington of earlier decades would have stapled green cards to foreign graduate degrees. Nowadays, having received a subsidised technical education, the world's brightest students are put on a plane and sent back home. Fear trumps hope. As US commentator Fareed Zakaria remarked, "Every visa officer today lives in fear that he will let in the next Mohamed Atta. As a result, he is probably keeping out the next Bill Gates".

Unsurprisingly, much of the action is therefore shifting with the IQs, whether that is to Singapore, Canada, Germany, or China. Roughly 3/4 of US private R&D comes from manufacturing companies, which now account for barely 10% of the US labour force. In spite of the recent shift towards "reshoring", the trend is still eastwards...

Source: Financial Times, weekend Mar 31 / Apr 1 2012.

 

[Tosh5457]

I have an old (he's old, not our relationship) friend that is very conservative. I eventually found out he was a democrat, though I always assumed he was a republican. Apparently, he used to be GOP, but he feels the party has lost its identity (or at least the one he was familiar with) in the last couple decades.

Good for him. Like Ron Paul says, GOP lost its way. It used to be an anti-war party, now look at the warmongering party it has become. It used to be fiscally conservative, and see how today they care about that - huge debt and they want to continue the wars and cut taxes! And in respect to economy, it's a pro-huge corporations and pro-rich party, since they're almost all bought by corporate lobbies.

On the topic, well, I guess it all has to do with evolution theory...

 

[Gokul43201]

For me it's Al Gore getting nobel prize.. He never passed a physics course in his life.

I guess it's a good thing then that they didn't give him the Physics Prize!

 

[phoenix:\\]

History doesn't support your optimism.

We can only do so much. If kids aren't interested, then they aren't interested because of a lack of foresight. They'd much rather pay-attention to more common, self-limiting interests, that down the line, won't support them in any way, shape, or form. I believe that will be the downfall of the U.S. if PARENTS don't begin to whip their kids into shape instead of being their friends.

 

[Dotini]

I'd like to comment that trust in authority of all kinds, not just science, is at an all time low.

For instance, I cite the case of "Curveball", when the leadership of the United States fixed intelligence to support policy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

At the time, I and many people sensed this, knew it was wrong, yet were helpless to prevent the march to demented and disastrous war. Since then, I have stopped voting and stopped protesting.

Similarly, the self-styled geniuses of Wall Street along with the elite in academia, regulation and legislation, have succeeded in making the 1% incredibly wealthy to the immediate disadvantage of the 99%.

Is it any wonder that the common Joe and Jill would retreat into sex, booze, drugs and entertainment in lieu of lionizing "the best and the brightest"?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'd like to comment that trust in authority of all kinds, not just science, is at an all time low.

Just to confirm, you realize that the people who are driving the trust in science down are the people who implicitly trusted the Bush administration when we went to war in Iraq?

 

[bobsmith76]

The whole premise seems a little silly to me, though I'm no expert. But I mean, how exactly does one measure "trust" in science?

The fact that people answer "no" to the question do you trust science and the fact that significantly more conservatives said no in 2012 than in 1974 at least alerts us to some sort of phenomenon, whatever that phenomenon may be.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The 93% number is so massaged and cherry picked that it is misleading to the point of dishonesty.

First, it has almost nothing to do with income. Imagine if in 2010, everyone got the same amount of money as in 2009, except one person at the top 1% who got one penny more. Then the 93% number becomes 100% - and nobody's life is any different.

Second, it makes the assumption that the Top 1% in each year represents the exact same people as the year before. This is known to be incorrect. The smaller the number (Top 0.5%, Top 0.1%) the more incorrect this is.

Third, it's comparing measured numbers to estimated numbers.

Fourth, the time period is cherry-picked. Let's look at this in terms of income, not something overly massaged, but otherwise take the numbers from the original paper (you have read that, no?). In the period 2009-2010, inflation-adjusted average income went up from $50,414 to $51,550 (Table A0). The Top 1% went up from 913,451 to $1,019,089 (Table A6). This is where the 93% comes from.

Now, suppose we took the period not from 2009-2010, but 2007-2010. This includes the recession plus the recovery. Now the average income went from $61,056 to $51,550 and the Top 1% from $1,435,002 to $1,019,089. This tells a very different story - when you consider the downturn plus recovery, the average person experienced a 15% income loss, but the Top 1% experienced a loss of almost twice as much: 29%.

I think "misleading to the point of dishonesty" is not unfair. I don't blame the researchers: I blame the Left for picking this number instead of a number of more useful and honest numbers, and I blame the media for reporting this number uncritically.

So here's a scientific study that has been, frankly, perverted by the Left to score a cheap point. I don't think "cheap" is unfair - it relies on uncritical acceptance by the listener, which is pretty much the definition of "cheap". It tries to fool rather than persuade. It's not the first time, and I think what you are seeing is an entirely natural reaction on the part of the Right.

The irony is that the Left actually does have a valid point, but because it chooses to fool rather than persuade, the point and its credibility are both lost.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The irony is that the Left actually does have a valid point, but because it chooses to fool rather than persuade, the point and its credibility are both lost.

I think this is true for both the left and the right. I've always thought the right had a decent point about incentives and the welfare state but that it was too often dressed up in just plain misleading arguments (the entire book 'Losing Ground', for instance, 'welfare queens', etc).

The problem is the goal of rhetoric isn't to spread the truth- its to persuade people and move the terms of the debate. Anytime people are attempting to actually push for policy, the discussion fills with more noise than signal.

 

[Office_Shredder]

...

Did I miss something that changed the topic?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Science doesn't depend on the trust of people.

Firstly it does: whilst you may always be able to point to some sort of funding if there is a widespread mistrust of science then it's funding will be greatly affected. Secondly the biggest problem is the prevention of technological adoption due to mistrust. In Europe thanks to bad handling of science education and little effort to combat mass media pseudo-science we have little access to genetically modified crops. This is not a huge problem for us (though I'm sure it will increasingly be so) but has meant that GM crops designed in Europe that would benefit other parts of the world are banned for export.

This kind of thing is a huge problem. We need to get rid of the perception that I think your comment highlights that science is something separate or removed from society. It is exactly the kind of idea that makes people think of scientists as arrogant men in ivory towers with no connection to the real world. It's all very well to scoff and say "we don't need public support for our discoveries and inventions to be correct and to work" but that attitude doesn't help in ensuring that the alternative medicine industry doesn't get a foothold in healthcare or that future energy demands are met or that persecution of minorities due to their differences isn't prevented.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did I miss something that changed the topic?

My point is that the Left has recently (last few years) taken to manipulate scientific data in a way designed to fool and confuse rather than to educate and enlighten. My thesis is that the dip in trust in science you are seeing from the Right is a predictable response.

 

[lisab]

The 93% number is so massaged and cherry picked that it is misleading to the point of dishonesty.

I'm not following...where is 93% mentioned? I don't see it in the OP link or in any post. Am I missing something?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Message 22.

 

[lisab]

Message 22.

Thanks.

Although I somewhat agree with your thesis, keep in mind that quote is from Financial Times of London. It's a shaky proposition to assign the American terms "left" and "right" to European entities, IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The discussion at hand is public trust of science, perhaps we should all endeavour to avoid straying too far from that topic. There's little need to turn yet another thread into a left vs right debate.

 

[Gokul43201]

Agreed. I'll delete my post.

Edit: Done.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Agreed. I'll delete my post.

Edit: Done.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's good reason not to trust scientists sometimes. It carries over to "science" depending on how you define it. In the purist sense, there should be no doubt that the idea of science is trustworthy. On the other hand, the actual practice of science is carried out by people, who are not. So if you define "science" as the actual societal interactions that emerge from the purist ideal of "science", it's not always trustworthy or well-meaning. It can often used be used as a marketing tool in medicine. In other cases, it may be well-meaning, but negligent.

Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Of course, I think most scientists that advocate for science actually intend the purist definition: what science is supposed to be about; but a subculture of laymen are more likely to think of the science culture when they say "science", not the ideal of empirical evidence backing up claims.

 

[Galteeth]

There's good reason not to trust scientists sometimes. It carries over to "science" depending on how you define it. In the purist sense, there should be no doubt that the idea of science is trustworthy. On the other hand, the actual practice of science is carried out by people, who are not. So if you define "science" as the actual societal interactions that emerge from the purist ideal of "science", it's not always trustworthy or well-meaning. It can often used be used as a marketing tool in medicine. In other cases, it may be well-meaning, but negligent.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Of course, I think most scientists that advocate for science actually intend the purist definition: what science is supposed to be about; but a subculture are laymen or more likely to think of the science culture when they say "science", not the ideal of empirical evidence backing up claims.

This. I think people often interpret "Do you trust science?" As "Do you trust scientists?" The former is sort of an odd question, the latter is overly broad.Edit: For example, as a subset of people who might self identify as scientists, I don't find economists particularly trustworthy or useful in general.

 

[Andre]

Maybe, not trusting science could have other causes, like consistently failed highly visual prediction, think weather forecast, but also in certain circles, the tension with woo woo.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ryan, the point was made by several people that the decline is coming from people who self-identify as conservatives. It will be difficult to discuss the reasons for this decline without dealing with this fact.

 

[Devils]

This is bad news

http//www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/29/study-conservatives-trust-of-science-hits-all-time-low-

"Just 35 percent of conservatives said they had a "great deal of trust in science" in 2010, a 28 percent decline since 1974"

Here in Australia, like the rest of the world, this isn't an issue. How can you not have trust in science like food preservation, providing clean water, or TV remote controls?

Evolution isn't even remotely on the political radar here.

 

[yobarnacle]

Hi. What is the litmus test to differentiate REAL science, from politics POSING as science?

Does politics ever POSE as science?

I think so, Yes. Politics wants to adorn itself with the credibility of science.

The litmus test? Actually two tests.

Ethics. Political and traditional scientific ethics are poles apart.

2nd simple test, is the rhetoric scientific?

When someone says stupidities like "the science is closed. The debate is over. The theory is irrefutable",
I say, please announce your TRUE identity and agenda. You are NO scientist!

The loss of confidence in science, is the fault of agendists impersonating scientists.
Some actual scientists, have lent their name and credentials to agenda driven psuedo-science.

Lawyers have the BAR, to enforce ethics among their profession, well, lawyer ethics, such as they are.

The scientific community can't 'disbar' a scientist for becoming a political activist. More is the pity. Because ALL science and scientists suffer credibility loss as a result. And the public also suffers when science can't be trusted. IMHO

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hi. What is the litmus test to differentiate REAL science, from politics POSING as science?

I agree with some of what you say, especially about certain scientists lending their name to pseudo-science, I'd include doctors in that list as well. Your point here is critical, your average person has little or no way to tell if what they are hearing is science, pseudo-science or political lies/half-truths/spin of science. The way to combat this is to increase science education (that is education of scientific theory rather than various processes that science has discovered and invented) and for real scientists to get out there and get noticed on TV, in print and online.

 

[yobarnacle]

I agree with some of what you say, especially about certain scientists lending their name to pseudo-science, I'd include doctors in that list as well. Your point here is critical, your average person has little or no way to tell if what they are hearing is science, pseudo-science or political lies/half-truths/spin of science. The way to combat this is to increase science education (that is education of scientific theory rather than various processes that science has discovered and invented) and for real scientists to get out there and get noticed on TV, in print and online.

I agree that would be helpfull.

The paradigm for scientific funding has changed, unfortunately.
Rather than rely on the publics interest, insatiable desire for new technology, and gratitude for a greater understanding of how nature works, some fields of science have discovered generosity is greatly improved at gun point. Fear is a great motivator.

Witness the "Doom Science" steadily increasing since the 1960s.

Ethical scientists understandably don't want to be a target for the 'alarmists' vitriol.
Fear is also being directed against colleagues to be silent, comply, or else.
It's a "survive" until the storm weathers over tactic for most. Keep your head down and work on best you can, and hope for the best.
IMHO

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I agree that would be helpfull.

The paradigm for scientific funding has changed, unfortunately.
Rather than rely on the publics interest, insatiable desire for new technology, and gratitude for a greater understanding of how nature works, some fields of science have discovered generosity is greatly improved at gun point. Fear is a great motivator.

Witness the "Doom Science" steadily increasing since the 1960s.

Ethical scientists understandably don't want to be a target for the 'alarmists' vitriol.
Fear is also being directed against colleagues to be silent, comply, or else.
It's a "survive" until the storm weathers over tactic for most. Keep your head down and work on best you can, and hope for the best.
IMHO

You've lost me there. Are you sure you aren't confusing science with reporting of science? They are very, very different things.

 

[SixNein]

I've always figured that it is the rise of religious ferver among conservatives, IMO.

I would divide conservatives into two groups:

1. Social conservatives who hate science on religious grounds.
2. Fiscal conservatives who hate science that might effect profit.

 

[SixNein]

Science doesn't depend on the trust of people.

But how much science gets studied in the US probably does depend on the trust of the people.