News Trust in science at an all time low

[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.

 

[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.