Trust in science at an all time low

[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".