News Trust in science at an all time low

[yobarnacle]

Certainly the media and the UN has extravagantly hyped certain alarmist agendas.

But from some fields we see unscientific 'issues' raised and "necessary immediate drastic actions to resolve" called for by the 'scientific organizations' and 'consensus' scientists.

My hackles go up. WHEN did science EVER before have 'issues'? Or "calls for drastic action".

Like I said in an earlier post, if the rhetoric isn't scientific, probably neither is the science. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

My hackles go up. WHEN did science EVER before have 'issues'? Or "calls for drastic action".

Well if there is a consensus amongst scientists that there is a problem facing society then there is an issue. Whilst we can draw discrete lines between the world of science and the world of politics it would be remiss of us to ignore the important interfaces of evidence based policy decision and social responsibility of scientists.

 

[yobarnacle]

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.

Stereotyping people certainly isn't scientific.
People are individuals and unique don't you know?
Besides, conservatives are not a homogenous group, have NO universal philosophy, nor are they science haters most of them, in my experience.
They DO tend to resent someone, or any group, trying to 'BULLY' them!
Instills in them a desire to cut funding for anybody THAT ignorant of basic psychology. :)

 

[yobarnacle]

Well if there is a consensus amongst scientists that there is a problem facing society then there is an issue. Whilst we can draw discrete lines between the world of science and the world of politics it would be remiss of us to ignore the important interfaces of evidence based policy decision and social responsibility of scientists.

I would never restrict any american from a right to a political opinion or interest. Profession doesn't limit other interests or avocations. Religious leaders definitely are not reticent about getting involved in politics. Why should scientists NOT have the same right? Of course they do.

But! BIG BUT!

Science and scientists need to be MORE responsible, more carefull, less precipitous than most, because of the WEIGHT their opinion carries.

When they aren't, their credibility suffers, the weight of their opinion diminishes, and they and ALL science/scientists lose respect.

The public does not set out to discredit science. The public is NOT stupid. Insufficiently fact based science, especially predictions, EARN their distrust. :)

 

[SixNein]

Stereotyping people certainly isn't scientific.
People are individuals and unique don't you know?
Besides, conservatives are not a homogenous group, have NO universal philosophy, nor are they science haters most of them, in my experience.
They DO tend to resent someone, or any group, trying to 'BULLY' them!
Instills in them a desire to cut funding for anybody THAT ignorant of basic psychology. :)

Classification is not intended to be science but an aid to communication.

Did my breaking the term down into subgroups indicate that they were homogenous with a universal philosophy?

Most people regardless of politics would probably resent being bulled.

And my experience with conservatives is quite different. I live in a state that just passed a law with a deceleration that evolution is controversial.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would never restrict any american from a right to a political opinion or interest.

I know you don't mean it this way but this reads as an implication that you would potential restrict the rest of us from a right to political opinion or interest

Profession doesn't limit other interests or avocations. Religious leaders definitely are not reticent about getting involved in politics. Why should scientists NOT have the same right? Of course they do.

But! BIG BUT!

Science and scientists need to be MORE responsible, more carefull, less precipitous than most, because of the WEIGHT their opinion carries.

When they aren't, their credibility suffers, the weight of their opinion diminishes, and they and ALL science/scientists lose respect.

The public does not set out to discredit science. The public is NOT stupid. Insufficiently fact based science, especially predictions, EARN their distrust. :)

Yes I agree but a point that is definitely worth mentioning is that most scientists are not educated in public communication of science. Indeed the fact that this hasn't been a far bigger issue in the scientific community has exhasibated many problems of science in society; GM crop adoption in Europe is an obvious example, not enough was done to combat the pseudo-science and media panic because most seemed to naively think that reason would prevail. But reason cannot prevail in the face of bad information. This is why I applaud the current head of the UK Royal Society Dr Paul Nurse for his emphasis on scientists and science institutions having a greater appreciation and practice of public communication of their field.

 

[SixNein]

I would never restrict any american from a right to a political opinion or interest.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to restrict any American from the right to a political opinion or interest. But just because someone has an opinion doesn't necessarily mean its worth much consideration.

All opinions are not fair and balanced regardless of what the news media says. In fact, I suspect that the fair and balanced presentation of ideas that clearly aren't balanced is one of the factors behind the lack of trust in science.

 

[yobarnacle]

Classification is not intended to be science but an aid to communication.

Did my breaking the term down into subgroups indicate that they were homogenous with a universal philosophy?

Most people regardless of politics would probably resent being bulled.

You allocated two groups to include all conservatives, both being science haters.

That's neither science NOR communication. It's ignorance, lack of respect for opposing points of view, lack of respect for people in general, and hate propaganda.

Something it is NOT, is an opinion with any value. LOL :)

Not trying to pick a fight with you. Only suggesting, dialogue is better than monologue! :)
Respect is a mutual courtesy. Disrespect EARNS disrespect. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

All opinions are not fair and balanced regardless of what the news media says. In fact, I suspect that the fair and balanced presentation of ideas that clearly aren't balanced is one of the factors behind the lack of trust in science.

Completely agreed. This idea doesn't seem to just permeate media but also education. The problem is there's been a bit of an overshoot from the encouragement of the idea that everyone has an equal right to hold and express their opinion and everyone's opinion is equal in standing. To be fair most people do understand and practice this in everyday life but only in more obvious situations e.g. taking their doctor's advice regarding medicine over their mechanic's.

 

[yobarnacle]

e.g. taking their doctor's advice regarding medicine over their mechanic's.

LOL. Considering that medical mis-diagnosis and error-in-prescribing kills more than 250,000 people in the USA annually (the third largest cause of death after heart desease and cancers), people might be WISER to consult their mechanic! LOL

I know you don't mean it this way but this reads as an implication that you would potential restrict the rest of us from a right to political opinion or interest

Of course not. But politics are national. We do not have and hopefully NEVER have a global government. I would hope citizens of other countrys have human and political rights. I'm very concerned about erosion of OUR rights in the USA.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

LOL. Considering that medical mis-diagnosis and error-in-prescribing kills more than 250,000 people in the USA annually (the third largest cause of death after heart desease and cancers), people might be WISER to consult their mechanic! LOL

Er no, the third largest is Chronic lower respiratory diseases which kills ~137,000 per year. Medical mis-diagnosis may play a part in all diseases but it is not on a serious problem to the extent you are describing, neither is error-in-prescription.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Furthermore whilst I assume your point was flippant you seem to be forgetting the millions of successful medical treatments that occur in the United States every year. Your country may not have the best healthcare system in the world but it certainly isn't as bad as your post here indicates.

 

[yobarnacle]

be back later and prove my statistics. Wife calling me. Bye for now. later. :)

 

[SixNein]

You allocated two groups to include all conservatives, both being science haters.

That's neither science NOR communication. It's ignorance, lack of respect for opposing points of view, lack of respect for people in general, and hate propaganda.

Something it is NOT, is an opinion with any value. LOL :)

Not trying to pick a fight with you. Only suggesting, dialogue is better than monologue! :)
Respect is a mutual courtesy. Disrespect EARNS disrespect. :)

Around half who hold conservative positions believe that the economy should be preferred over the environment.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx

The lowest levels of belief that Darwin's theory is supported by the scientific evidence is found among those with the least education, older Americans (many of whom say they are unsure about the theory in general), frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Th...e-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

 

[mheslep]

Around half who hold conservative positions believe that the economy should be preferred over the environment.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx

Which is a policy position having little to do with 'trust in science'.

 

[russ_watters]

...and even if it were, I guess the other half isn't a big enough group to be counted!

 

[SixNein]

Which is a policy position having little to do with 'trust in science'.

I think your being a little naive. Most people would care less about science if it never said anything to conflict religious or economic beliefs.

 

[SixNein]

...and even if it were, I guess the other half isn't a big enough group to be counted!

But they are a subgroup of the conservative movement. I don't think its possible to generalize the whole movement of conservatism.

I suppose I could look up some statistics on conservatism and climate science. But is there really a need? We can't discuss it anyway.

At any rate, I believe climate science and evolution are the main factors behind the lack of trust in science.

 

[yobarnacle]

I will NEVER post what I can't back up. :)

but won't let me post a link until I've posted 10 posts. I'll post the urls as soon as it let's me. :)



According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. Starfield has documented the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm in the following statistics:

 

[SixNein]

I will NEVER post what I can't back up. :)

but won't let me post a link until I've posted 10 posts. I'll post the urls as soon as it let's me. :)



According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. Starfield has documented the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm in the following statistics:

You are referring to this:
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/iatrogenic.pdf

I find the paper quite questionable. The 250,000 figure is made up of some questionable data. For example, the paper counts 80,000 from infections, and it counts another 106,000 from NON-ERROR adverse effects of medications. How many high risk patients do these numbers represent?

The paper also claims the number they provide is lower than IOM estimates; however, one quick search reveals:

Health care in the United States is not as safe as it should be--and can be. At least 44,000 people, and perhaps as many as 98,000 people, die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented, according to estimates from two major studies.

http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/1999/To-Err-is-Human/To%20Err%20is%20Human%201999%20%20report%20brief.pdf

 

[yobarnacle]

Well, you can find all kinds of statistics. Thankyou for helping me verify I WASN'T inventing doctors the 3rd most common killer.

Actually, it was a bromide in response to letting your mechanic advise you on your health. Not meant to be serious. :)

 

[yobarnacle]

I believe some people are trying to make science into something it's not.
I'll explain.
In journalism, a report should answer the following:
Who, what, when, where, why, and how.
Science primarily deals with WHAT and HOW things work. But some WHEN and WHERE.
Philosophy tries to answer the question WHY. The MEANING or relative importance.
From this WHY we derive morals and ethics.
Religion includes a philosophy, but in addition is the only discipline to ask WHO. Who created everything.

Historically, in recent centuries, people were educated in all three disciplines, and knew the difference and limitations of each.

Because many modern scientists have ignored or eliminated religion from their lives, there is a tendency to expect science to serve as all three.

Science cannot also be philosophy and religion too. For one thing, science is amoral. Science has no process or method for determining right and wrong.

Perhaps because conservatives tend to respect traditional ideals, including practicing religion, I suspect it's MORE clear to them, when science tries to be something it's not, attempts to be more than just science. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I believe some people are trying to make science into something it's not.
I'll explain.
In journalism, a report should answer the following:
Who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Have you ever met a journalist and spoken to them about what they do? This is hopelessly naive. Amongst the journalist I know and regularly see I doubt any of them would say this with a straight face. Journalism is about finding a story and selling it. Almost always it is spun to comply with an agenda, be told in a way that is entertaining/more likely to be read and simplified so that the public can understand. This is why if you read a news paper story then go and find the original peer-reviewed research it is talking about there will be huge differences.
Science primarily deals with WHAT and HOW things work. But some WHEN and WHERE.

Philosophy tries to answer the question WHY. The MEANING or relative importance.
From this WHY we derive morals and ethics.
Religion includes a philosophy, but in addition is the only discipline to ask WHO. Who created everything.

Historically, in recent centuries, people were educated in all three disciplines, and knew the difference and limitations of each.

Because many modern scientists have ignored or eliminated religion from their lives, there is a tendency to expect science to serve as all three.

Science cannot also be philosophy and religion too. For one thing, science is amoral. Science has no process or method for determining right and wrong.

Perhaps because conservatives tend to respect traditional ideals, including practicing religion, I suspect it's MORE clear to them, when science tries to be something it's not, attempts to be more than just science. :)

Actually science can play a huge role in your moral system. Yes you can use moral philosophy to decide on your values but you will be informed by science and you can construct moral and social systems from science and measure the outcomes.

I also disagree with your notion that philosophy deals with "why", this is a massive oversimplification to the point of being in error but I'm short on time this morning so will have to respond later.

 

[Bobbywhy]

“A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."
"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329,0,2248977.story

 

[yobarnacle]

I also disagree with your notion that philosophy deals with "why", this is a massive oversimplification to the point of being in error but I'm short on time this morning so will have to respond later.

i'll give an example in classic philosophy.
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg.
Classic answer, the chicken.
WHY?
because the chicken is reality, the egg merely potential. Reality always takes precedence over posibilities.

In every philosophical question, it eventually boils down to why. Why requires a judgement call. :)

Science is incapable of moral judgement. You can apply moral judgement to science, but not derive it from science. Example: Atomic energy. Good or bad. Science doesn't determine is it good or bad. It IS, it exists.
Philosophy decides if the use of atomic energy is good or bad, depending on WHY it's used. To treat cancer patients to make well, or make atom bombs to kill. :)

 

[yobarnacle]

Have you ever met a journalist and spoken to them about what they do? This is hopelessly naive [end quote]

Sorry I can't post the link, but you should be able to find it easy enough.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search In journalism, the Five Ws is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the complete story on a subject.[2] The maxim of the Five Ws is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of five questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[3]

Who is it about?
What happened?
Where did it take place?
When did it take place?
Why did it happen?
The principle underlying the maxim is that each question should elicit a factual answer — facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete.[4] Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

Hart states that "Some authorities add a sixth question, “how”,
to this list, but “how to” information generally fits under what, where, or when, depending on the nature of the information."[3]

In British education, the Five Ws are used in Key Stage 3 (age 11-14) lessons.[5]

[edit] HistoryThis section focuses on the history of the series of questions as a way of formulating or analyzing rhetorical questions, and not the theory of circumstances in general.[6]

The rhetor Hermagoras of Temnos, as quoted in pseudo-Augustine's De Rhetorica[7] defined seven "circumstances" (μόρια περιστάσεως 'elements of circumstance'[8]) as the loci of an issue:

Quis, quid, quando, ubi, cur, quem ad modum, quibus adminiculis.[9][10]
(Who, what, when, where, why, in what way, by what means)
Cicero had a similar concept of circumstances, but though Thomas Aquinas attributes the questions to Cicero, they do not appear in his writings. Similarly, Quintilian discussed loci argumentorum, but did not put them in the form of questions.[9]

Victorinus explained Cicero's system of circumstances by putting them into correspondence with Hermagoras's questions:[9]


WOW! Modern education apparently really IS lacking in broad based pertinent skills and understanding! :)
I'm glad I was educated in an era when it wasn't about brainwashing, societal reform, and dumbing down! LOL

 

[SixNein]

I believe some people are trying to make science into something it's not.
I'll explain.
In journalism, a report should answer the following:
Who, what, when, where, why, and how.

I'm in a biology and mathematical research program. And one of the researchers in it told me a funny story about a journalist. There was a problem with some disease caught by ticks during one summer. So a journalist comes to interview him about it. The researcher gives a in-depth discussion about these ticks, the diseases they carry, and what people can do about it. So during the news broadcast, his story came up. They condensed the entire interview into one sentence: "Dr so and so says: Keep the ticks off you." lol

Ryan_m_b is right, journalism is about selling advertisement.

 

[yobarnacle]

I'll maintain my position, that people trained and educated in all three of the "inquiring mind" disciplines, philosophy, religion, and science, are BETTER educated, and better qualified, than those with a narrow educational base in only one discipline. :)

 

[yobarnacle]

I'm in a biology and mathematical research program. And one of the researchers in it told me a funny story about a journalist. There was a problem with some disease caught by ticks during one summer. So a journalist comes to interview him about it. The researcher gives a in-depth discussion about these ticks, the diseases they carry, and what people can do about it. So during the news broadcast, his story came up. They condensed the entire interview into one sentence: "Dr so and so says: Keep the ticks off you." lol

Ryan_m_b is right, journalism is about selling advertisement.

That is funny. I'll agree with Ryan, a lot of news stories I read recent years, if you throw out the buz words and slogans, the meat of the story ends up "chit happens". LOL

The "dumbing down" of society, is NOT funny though!

 

[SixNein]

i'll give an example in classic philosophy.
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg.
Classic answer, the chicken.
WHY?
because the chicken is reality, the egg merely potential. Reality always takes precedence over posibilities.

Biological answer: The egg.

The chicken has evolutionary ancestors. =P

 

[yobarnacle]

Maybe I should say something about myself. I have a bachelors in math. I am retired, after 43 years at sea. I am licensed as MASTER MARINER. I speak english and spanish fluently, and stuggle along in 6 to 8 other languages. I belong to no political party, but vote for the best candidate in my perception.
I'm christian. I guarantee you, there ARE NO ATHIESTS aboard ship during a huricane at sea!
LOL

 

[SixNein]

I'll maintain my position, that people trained and educated in all three of the "inquiring mind" disciplines, philosophy, religion, and science, are BETTER educated, and better qualified, than those with a narrow educational base in only one discipline. :)

Science and religion conflict. Religion uses the literacy device dues ex machina in its literature, and the device is a big part of religion. The problem is science doesn't require dues ex machina in its explanations of physical phenomenon. So these two subjects are destined to be on a collision course.

 

[yobarnacle]

Biological answer: The egg.

The chicken has evolutionary ancestors. =P

Not in philosophy. Nothing was said about the egg being fertle. It MIGHT eventually become a chicken, and an equal probability, will become a rotten egg, or somebodies breakfast. What's REAL is more important than maybes! :)

 

[chiro]

Or hardwired through evolution.

I'm just curious for you evolution guys (and gals): what are the requirements currently theorized for something to evolve? Is it only this idea of the dominant species wins and everything loses or is there a lot of other stuff missing from this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm just curious for you evolution guys (and gals): what are the requirements currently theorized for something to evolve? Is it only this idea of the dominant species wins and everything loses or is there a lot of other stuff missing from this?

Yes there's an entire field you're missing out! Evolutionary biology is a complex and very varied field, a lot has changed since the field's inception over 150 years ago. That said there are only two things required for evoluton to occur:

- Reproduction with modification
and
- Environmental attrition

You might be interested in our introduction to evolution
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950

 

[chiro]

Yes there's an entire field you're missing out! Evolutionary biology is a complex and very varied field, a lot has changed since the field's inception over 150 years ago. That said there are only two things required for evoluton to occur:

- Reproduction with modification
and
- Environmental attrition

You might be interested in our introduction to evolution
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950

Thankyou Ryan_m_b for this :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thankyou Ryan_m_b for this :)

No worries that intro contains links links to other sites which go into more detail if you're interested.

 

[chiro]

No worries that intro contains links links to other sites which go into more detail if you're interested.

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just make my one question as brief as possible.

The question is does this evolution biology think that things involve in absolute competition, absolute collaboration or somewhere in-between and not just for for one isolated group like one species, but for the entire ecosystem and biology of the planet?

In other words, what is the extent of the competition and the colloboration currently theorized to be?

If you have a recommended book or website to read that would be fantastic, but if not and you know of current discussions or people working on this or providing open ideas that would be great as well.

If the answer is simply that we don't currently know then that would be great to know that as well. I imagine though that at least one person or group of researchers out there has probably thought about this (I imagine quite a few though have done so practically).

 

[SixNein]

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just make my one question as brief as possible.

The question is does this evolution biology think that things involve in absolute competition, absolute collaboration or somewhere in-between and not just for for one isolated group like one species, but for the entire ecosystem and biology of the planet?

In other words, what is the extent of the competition and the colloboration currently theorized to be?

If you have a recommended book or website to read that would be fantastic, but if not and you know of current discussions or people working on this or providing open ideas that would be great as well.

If the answer is simply that we don't currently know then that would be great to know that as well. I imagine though that at least one person or group of researchers out there has probably thought about this (I imagine quite a few though have done so practically).

Here is a good article on this topic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just make my one question as brief as possible.

Feel free to post questions in the biology forum if you like.

The question is does this evolution biology think that things involve in absolute competition, absolute collaboration or somewhere in-between and not just for for one isolated group like one species, but for the entire ecosystem and biology of the planet?

In other words, what is the extent of the competition and the colloboration currently theorized to be?

The answer as always is a mixture. There's two avenues that would be good to point you down if you're interested in things like this. Firstly within species you have collaboration in the form of altruism (as SixNein has mentioned) which is a facinating area of study, of particular note is kin selection which is prevelant in many eusocial species wherein an organism sacrifices its own reproductive fitness for a relative's.

The other avenue is interaction between species, for that it would be good to read into the various forms of symbiosis and how they can evolve. What's quite interesting in this case is how symbiosis can evolve into parasitism.

I know there's a lot of wiki links there but it should be a good place to look into some basic terms before moving onto something like a textbook. Enjoy!

 

[russ_watters]

There also is a problem of clarity when it comes to liberal anti-science ideas. Two examples that should be simple:

1. When the Catholic church convinces an African country not to distribute condoms, resulting in thousands of people dying of AIDS, that's a clear-cut case of a religious anti-science stance. We know it and the Church knows it.

2. When Greenpeace convinces an African country to reject GM food, resulting in thousands of people dying of starvation, that's...what? A pseudo-scientific anti-science stance? Ignoring science in favor of anti-corporatism? Naturalistic science over man-made science? A little of each?

So while religious conservatives who are anti-science almost certainly know they are anti-science, I think the issue is a lot fuzzier on the other side of the aisle. That would show up in a poll as a Greenpeace activist saying "yes" they trust science even while manipulating it or fighting against it while the religious conservative just answers "no".

 

[SixNein]

2. When Greenpeace convinces an African country to reject GM food, resulting in thousands of people dying of starvation, that's...what? A pseudo-scientific anti-science stance? Ignoring science in favor of anti-corporatism? Naturalistic science over man-made science? A little of each?

Europe isn't exactly accepting it either. And I'm not sure how successful GM will be for the poor since it is being heavily protected by patents.

I personally have two main concerns with GM crops:
1. Seed contamination (And the simple lack of information on how widespread it is occurring)
2. Resistant weeds. See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html

#2 This is the problem that Greenpeace has been bitching about.

 

[Galteeth]

That would show up in a poll as a Greenpeace activist saying "yes" they trust science even while manipulating it or fighting against it while the religious conservative just answers "no".

Science doesn't tell us what crops people should use. Nor does it tell people anything about whether to use condoms. This is the crux of the problem. Science is a method of investigation of natural phenomenon. Using science, technology like condoms and GM crops, can be developed. But science can't tell people what to do. THIS is where people get confused. They think that trusting the method of science to produce reliable conclusions about nature is equivalent to accepting any policy wherein the conclusions of science were used in some way. Which is an absurd equivalence, but it's one you're accidentally making! (Nothing personal, this is a super common fallacy.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Science doesn't tell us what crops people should use. Nor does it tell people anything about whether to use condoms. This is the crux of the problem. Science is a method of investigation of natural phenomenon. Using science, technology like condoms and GM crops, can be developed. But science can't tell people what to do. THIS is where people get confused. They think that trusting the method of science to produce reliable conclusions about nature is equivalent to accepting any policy wherein the conclusions of science were used in some way. Which is an absurd equivalence, but it's one you're accidentally making! (Nothing personal, this is a super common fallacy.)

I would argue that you're making a fallacy yourself by simplifying the issue. Science can tell us the ramifications of what we are discussing here i.e. what are the physical and social implications of plentiful food and condom use? At some point you have to inject some value judgements to decide whether or not health is something you desire but so what

 

[chiro]

While I think science is one of the best ideas we have got in our current development, it is important that people don't twist it or use it in a deceptive manner to achieve things that are either outright deceptive or not sound.

Human beings have a tendency to choose what information suits their needs and to use that in a way that suits their needs. Religious people are extremely guilty of this, but they are not the only group.

The greatest thing about science IMO is the transparency: in a good piece of science you make absolutely everything available to the rest of the community and then they can take that recipe and 'bake the cake themselves' to see if it comes out as a cheesecake or instead as a ice-cream cake.

The next thing on top of this is (and this is going to sound rather heartless but I think it needs to be said) is that we need to lose the 'human' element.

I don't mean that we need to lose compassion or similar values but rather lose the distortion and the urges that we use to distort the data in any form we wish to achieve the results we 'want' and 'expect' to achieve.

You can't make good decisions when you either bury your head in the sand to either a) avoid the data by pretending it's not there or b) just avoid the problem intentionally to achieve some pre-determined conclusion for a pre-determined action.

Many people would think that this kind of thinking would reduce us to robots, or computers, or something similar but for me I actually welcome this kind of change. Really important decisions require someone without biases, but still enough empathy, compassion, and real understanding (not some narcisist, sociopath or psychopath or other similar kind of personality) to make decisions.

To do this as a society we need to be honest not only about the faults of others but also of ourselves. It means that we have to admit that we are wrong when we are wrong and be willing to tell potentially the world that we screwed up. It means indirectly that we have to tell the world that 'yes, I am human, I made a bad call, I screwed up and this is what I did wrong' and unfortunately this is something that in some societies (if not all) is not practiced. Everyone wants to win, and nobody wants to lose.

It reminds me of a scene in the movie 'Margin Call' (which is one I recommend others to watch as well) which says two things (and I paraphrase here): 'If everything works out, then nothing will change. If it all works out then we get called a bunch of pussies. If it doesn't work out, then people are going to crucify us'

This is a great scene and it emphasizes what I mean about winners and losers, and the truth is so startling that personally it should be what they should teach in school rather than the absolute rubbish they do currently.

So with this said, are people of all backgrounds and classifications willing to take the leap? To realize that a) humans make mistakes b) it's good to make mistakes and c) the winner/loser paradigm/mindset needs a change? is a huge task.

I personally don't see science being used to it's absolute full potential that it can offer us as human beings unless the above is addressed (not only for religious people, but for everyone).

 

[Galteeth]

I would argue that you're making a fallacy yourself by simplifying the issue. Science can tell us the ramifications of what we are discussing here i.e. what are the physical and social implications of plentiful food and condom use? At some point you have to inject some value judgements to decide whether or not health is something you desire but so what

But it is relevant. Since the "trust" here is getting confused by scientists, it's not hard to see why it would confuse lay people.

Ok, clearly science can tell us that condom use will prevent or significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission.
Distributing condoms in Africa would almost certainly reduce the spread of HIV.
Now you are saying, ok, well given that, surely the policy of distributing condoms is a good idea. And I'm not disagreeing with you. But you skipped a step there. You went from the facts to a policy based on those facts.
Those value judgements that are used seem trivial to you. But they're not for say, people who have a religious objection to condom use. By making an equivalence of facts with value judgements, you are getting to the core of why "mistrust" in science is on the rise.
Now, religious objections to condom are seriously misguided and irresponsible granted, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Let's do a different example. Ok, we can agree that chimpanzess and humans have a common ancestor right? Scientific fact. Also, the same areas of the brain are activated in both species after a close family member dies, so it's logical to conclude that chimps feel something akin to grief. Therefore, science says we shouldn't do experiments on chimps.

See what i did there. That's the problem. I am muddling the issue. I take scientific evidence, make a value judgement based on that evidence, then say that my value judgement is backed by science. But it's a linguistic trick and a disingenous one. While I can use facts to form my values or argue my case, i can't fairly equate "trust in science that humans and chimps have a common ancestor" with "trust in science that we shouldn't experiment on chimps." One injects a value, and I think lay people have a hard time distinguishing between statements of fact or theory and statements of principal and policy based on facts or theory.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But it is relevant. Since the "trust" here is getting confused by scientists, it's not hard to see why it would confuse lay people.

Ok, clearly science can tell us that condom use will prevent or significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission.
Distributing condoms in Africa would almost certainly reduce the spread of HIV.
Now you are saying, ok, well given that, surely the policy of distributing condoms is a good idea. And I'm not disagreeing with you. But you skipped a step there. You went from the facts to a policy based on those facts.
Those value judgements that are used seem trivial to you. But they're not for say, people who have a religious objection to condom use. By making an equivalence of facts with value judgements, you are getting to the core of why "mistrust" in science is on the rise.
Now, religious objections to condom are seriously misguided and irresponsible granted, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Let's do a different example. Ok, we can agree that chimpanzess and humans have a common ancestor right? Scientific fact. Also, the same areas of the brain are activated in both species after a close family member dies, so it's logical to conclude that chimps feel something akin to grief. Therefore, science says we shouldn't do experiments on chimps.

See what i did there. That's the problem. I am muddling the issue. I take scientific evidence, make a value judgement based on that evidence, then say that my value judgement is backed by science. But it's a linguistic trick and a disingenous one. While I can use facts to form my values or argue my case, i can't fairly equate "trust in science that humans and chimps have a common ancestor" with "trust in science that we shouldn't experiment on chimps." One injects a value, and I think lay people have a hard time distinguishing between statements of fact or theory and statements of principal and policy based on facts or theory.

Perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough, I understand all this and agree with it but my point is that this is not a criticsm of science. Furthermore when you say "science can't tell us what crops to use" that is an oversimplified linguistic trick. We can use science to accumulate facts about our situation such as societal health, food availability, economic concerns etc and judge that if we grew crops X instead of Y we could increase these metrics in a positive way. Now obviously there is going to be some ethical decision as to whether or not these things are desirable and yes there may be major conflicts but it's not right to say that science can't tell us what we should do because it ignores the fact that science tells us how to get to where we want. Either way this discussion is going a bit off topic and I get the impression we're arguing pedantic points.

 

[chiro]

It would probably a good idea for people who engage in some social contract to specifically outline what they know and what they speculate. You can make this feasible without making it too bearucratic by making the information publically available (like at say a public library or through a government website of sorts).

Doing this would mean that they would have to inform the people as an obligation to their social contract of what they have actually found vs what they are extrapolating or speculating either from what they have found or even as a combination of what others have reported to be found.

The judgement call of course is always left to the end user and if the end user disregards things or other similar things, then that is their business.

It used to be that the aristocracy and ruling class made sure that the peasants were illiterate, didn't know mathematics, science, logic or anything that could otherwise help them make sense of the world to know that they were getting screwed over big-time and also for the use that they could not construct a good argument.

Nowadays things have changed with the access people have to information of all kinds, but in some ways things haven't changed that dramatically.

It is also important to remember that a lot of people on this forum are highly educated people and that we are not necessarily in a majority. I am also not talking about formal education in isolation, but education in a general sense that is made of observation, personal learning and experiences and everything inbetween: not just formal learning you do that is part of some assessment-based scenario.

 

[chiro]

Perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough, I understand all this and agree with it but my point is that this is not a criticsm of science. Furthermore when you say "science can't tell us what crops to use" that is an oversimplified linguistic trick. We can use science to accumulate facts about our situation such as societal health, food availability, economic concerns etc and judge that if we grew crops X instead of Y we could increase these metrics in a positive way. Now obviously there is going to be some ethical decision as to whether or not these things are desirable and yes there may be major conflicts but it's not right to say that science can't tell us what we should do because it ignores the fact that science tells us how to get to where we want. Either way this discussion is going a bit off topic and I get the impression we're arguing pedantic points.

Science, like the financial system thrives in a situation where trust is present and there is a level of confidence in the system both in terms of it's integrity and also in it's ability to benefit the people who use it.

twofish-quant said in a previous response of his to my own response in another old thread that (and I paraphrase here) that 'In finance, when things go badly, they get really bad.'

I think that a relationship between science and the financial system is a good one because both are based on a high level of intrinsic integrity (and thus confidence) and both are far reaching with regard to the impact that they have on society.

When people lose faith in the system underlying exchange of goods and services (trade), then countries stop trading with each other and this causes chaos. When people lose faith in their own country with regard to the currency, things get chaotic and people end up going from a very orderly existence to a situation not unlike the Mad Max kind of movies. If you think that this can't happen, take a look at what is happening in Greece right now with the riots. Think about what happened when Hurricane Katrina hit and what happened with the social order over there at that time.

If science ends up in the same kind of situation we will have even more chaos and like the financial one, it too will have a huge effect across all sectors of society.

In this vein, it is important that we not only place confidence in the scientific method like you are advocating, but that we also work to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency and clarity with regards to intrinsic functioning and all of this has a direct correspondence with confidence and trust of not just science, but any system that uses or encompasses it.

Unfortunately because there are misuses of scientific knowledge and processes, I do see that we could get the same kind of thing happening that we do get in some areas of the financial system which will open up all kinds of problems.

At the same time, it is good to have situations that expose corruption, misuse, intentional deception, and other similar activities that help create the scene for a system that has even stronger characteristics of integrity and clarity simply due to the fact of how important this mechanism is for maintaining social cohesion and a well functioning society.

I am not sure personally that everyone realizes how important the enforcement of these principles are in the greater scope of social cohesion, although I imagine a great majority of scientists take their oath, jobs, and responsibility seriously. The thing is it takes only a few bad apples and a disaster or two to not only upset the apple-cart but to derail it completely.

 

[mheslep]

Europe isn't exactly accepting it either. And I'm not sure how successful GM will be for the poor since it is being heavily protected by patents.

I personally have two main concerns with GM crops:
1. Seed contamination (And the simple lack of information on how widespread it is occurring)
2. Resistant weeds. See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html

#2 This is the problem that Greenpeace has been bitching about.

Science doesn't tell us what crops people should use. Nor does it tell people anything about whether to use condoms. This is the crux of the problem. Science is a method of investigation of natural phenomenon. Using science, technology like condoms and GM crops, can be developed. But science can't tell people what to do. THIS is where people get confused. They think that trusting the method of science to produce reliable conclusions about nature is equivalent to accepting any policy wherein the conclusions of science were used in some way. Which is an absurd equivalence, but it's one you're accidentally making! (Nothing personal, this is a super common fallacy.)

These responses are very similar in form to intelligent design arguments. Cast dispersion on motivations (they're in it for the money); cite off topic problems (weeds are about over use of herbicides); strawman (proponents want to use science to tell us what to do).

Now, these may indeed be valid objections to an agenda of some group or business, but they are all non responsive to the scientific point, in this case whether or not GM provides superior food yields and thus health over time. Russ has chosen an excellent counter example.

 

[SixNein]

These responses are very similar in form to intelligent design arguments. Cast dispersion on motivations (they're in it for the money); cite off topic problems (weeds are about over use of herbicides); strawman (proponents want to use science to tell us what to do).

Now, these may indeed be valid objections to an agenda of some group or business, but they are all non responsive to the scientific point, in this case whether or not GM provides superior food yields and thus health over time. Russ has chosen an excellent counter example.

I didn't say GM plants didn't provide higher food yields. I simply stated concerns.

This report explores the impact of the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the United States Department of Agriculture. The most striking finding is that GE crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008).

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/GE-crops-and-pesticide-use.pdf

This little problem is simply left out of the GM crop cost vs benefit equation.

But as far as the claim on all of those hungry people, I remain a skeptic until its demonstrated. I'm curious how seed contamination will play out in patent courts.