Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

[grey_beard]

No I didn't see this one. I didn't look particularly hard. I have access to the paper through my university, but they recent updated the system for it (and COMPLETELY SCREWED IT UP BY DOING SO) so I can't actually get the paper at the moment to look at it. The abstract looks promising though, and the journal has decent impact factor.

I like the quip that refers to the IT Helpdesk as the "Helpless Desk"...

 

[Seymour]

So, going back to climate change... one should note that there was a scientific consensus before climate change was politicized. It also used to be a bipartisan consensus in the US that climate change was real, but how the country should deal with it was seen as political.

Now that all proposals on the table (even the previously conservative ones, like cap and trade) are seen as political, the original problem is denied. It's hard to argue that a politically-motivated conclusion came first, since the politics post-date the apolitical (and bipartisan) consensus by a number of years.

 

[Xander]

So, first people want to criticize scientists for having political viewpoints, and now you want to poke fun at their wardrobe? If we are discussing their work as scientists, factors like these are irrelevant.

You misunderstand. I was poking fun at the concept that firstly you can classify a set of humans as "scientists" and declare they are all the same and secondly that scientists are some kind of ideal of virtue in terms of objectivity. They aren't. The same as engineers aren't always the best people with technology despite working in that sector.

The idea that a history professor knows more about history than a janitor is probable but jot guaranteed. The idea that he has better analysis skills is pure assumption based on the prior probability.

What you seem to be talking about here is values. Scientists have them just like everyone else, as do the organizations that sponsor their work. What a scientist ends up working on will be influenced by both his or her individual preferences, as well as the mission of any sponsor. If you are funded by the Heart Association, it stands to reason that you should be researching heart disease and its treatments. We can argue about the merits and utility of researching topic A vs. topic B, but bias on this level, if you want to call it that, is much different from bias in the conduct of an experiment itself. This is where proper use of scientific method will compensate, even for unconscious bias, say in formulation of a hypothesis. Some scientists may not be conscientious about this, but then they are not doing their job right.

Again you misunderstand.

If you are set to research a specific thing then you do not need passion, just wages. However if you are setting out a career based in a field then you need passion for that field.

Also there are many cases of scientists pursuing a course of research and claiming to have made ground only to be corrected later by someone who wasn't so invested in the solution (personally invested, not necessarily financially).

I have no objection to scientists per se and they are a boon. However they're not the messiah.

 

[Avocado]

Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else. If their science is good or bad, it is so independent of any of this. Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit. I can understand quite well how the rings of obviously irregular trees can be used to get quite reliable climate data, or even how trees in Canada can be used to approximate conditions in Europe. For that matter, I have seen boneless chicken used as a convincing stand-in for the flesh of young children. It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions. The correlation factor is the only evidence you have presented so far against the soundess of this particular study. Fortunately Mann is far from the only scientist studying climate change. That is part of science, too: results must be repeatable, and corroborated (or refuted) by the work of others.

Not to mention that if any more convincing and more supported hypothesis comes along, the consensus will support it within just a couple of years. The only reason consensus could be held this long is if it has survived multiple experiments and other hypothesis have failed.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

No it's not. They even specified what they meant by scientist by polling an orginization of scientists. Educationally there is also a big difference between the general average public and scientists.

Fair enough.

 

[Xander]

Isn't this kinda futile in a country which regularly buys heavy vehicles with powerful rear wheel drive, front engines and dubious weather?

Sometimes you're just asking for too much of a cultural change at once.

 

[Studmuffin23]

It is often joked in the UK that we sent the criminals to Australia and the religious nuts to the states.

This is one of the cleverest patriotic jokes I've ever read.

 

[Studmuffin23]

I think the biggest issue here is regarding the natures of science and religion; both seem to be grossly misunderstood by the two sides.

The social-religion of American churches? That's not religion; that's humanism presented in a spiritual wrapper.

The society-guiding-science of the academic community? That's not science; that's a political movement masquerading as truth (nothing humanity hasn't seen before)

Religion in it's true essence (NOT institutional religion, mind you) is indifferent toward the affairs of society and science, because it calls on mankind to give up their worldly pursuits and desires. Science can lay no charge against penitent monks and their renunciation of life, save for ridicule, which proves nothing.

Science in it's true essence consists of observations, not speculations. The academic community, which is one of the most politically-charged of human institutions (and therefore the least rational), has turned science into 95% speculation and 5% observation. To them, the former (theory) is indisputably true, whereas the latter (facts) can be negotiated to fit the former. Science is the reverse of that. The only reason that the word "science" is invoked in such debates is because it adds fictional authority to the argument.

However, the debate between academia and the public is not just religious. There are all sorts of politically-motivated scientific theories being shoved down the throats of uneducated people, which naturally makes them feel resentful and distrustful toward the intellectual realm altogether. It sort of reminds me of 19th century class warfare, with academia being the ruling classes and non-academics being the working classes.

To anyone interested, I would highly recommend Rupert Sheldrake's "Science Set Free", which sheds a lot of light on the public vs. academia war that's going on right now. Science and religion have nothing to do with it; it's a purely political struggle.

 

[Coriolis]

"THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist." Michael Mann

Coriolis, that quote from Dr. Mann is nothing more than an ad-hominem attack on climate skeptics. It's an irrational argument (again, the appeal to authority). He's doing much more than just sharing research information. He's the attack dog for the radical environmentalist movement.

The opinion of one scientist who apparently is not very good at his job? That's all you have? My comment on how scientist can contribute to political discussion still stands.

 

[Coriolis]

I think the biggest issue here is regarding the natures of science and religion; both seem to be grossly misunderstood by the two sides.

The social-religion of American churches? That's not religion; that's humanism presented in a spiritual wrapper.

The society-guiding-science of the academic community? That's not science; that's a political movement masquerading as truth (nothing humanity hasn't seen before)

Religion in it's true essence (NOT institutional religion, mind you) is indifferent toward the affairs of society and science, because it calls on mankind to give up their worldly pursuits and desires. Science can lay no charge against penitent monks and their renunciation of life, save for ridicule, which proves nothing.

Science in it's true essence consists of observations, not speculations. The academic community, which is one of the most politically-charged of human institutions (and therefore the least rational), has turned science into 95% speculation and 5% observation. To them, the former (theory) is indisputably true, whereas the latter (facts) can be negotiated to fit the former. Science is the reverse of that. The only reason that the word "science" is invoked in such debates is because it adds fictional authority to the argument.

However, the debate between academia and the public is not just religious. There are all sorts of politically-motivated scientific theories being shoved down the throats of uneducated people, which naturally makes them feel resentful and distrustful toward the intellectual realm altogether. It sort of reminds me of 19th century class warfare, with academia being the ruling classes and non-academics being the working classes.

To anyone interested, I would highly recommend Rupert Sheldrake's "Science Set Free", which sheds a lot of light on the public vs. academia war that's going on right now. Science and religion have nothing to do with it; it's a purely political struggle.

It is a political struggle, and politicians know it is easier to sway the public with ideology and even religious appeals than to make a solid case based on evidence and reason. This is what makes religion, especially institutionalized religion, such a powerful weapon in the hands of politicians.

As for the rest, it is full of assumption and unsubstantiated opinion that barely merits dispute. What you perceive as the influence of politics on the conduct of science is largely the influence of economics (i.e. availability of funding) on the conduct of science. Its influence is seen most strongly in what gets researched at all and what does not. Fortunately it takes much less funding to poke holes in a poor study than to conduct one deliberately biased to secure additional funding. Most spiritual paths I am aware of concern themselves quite significantly with society, urging followers to treat their fellow humans in some specific way, often embodied by some golden rule. Similarly I cannot imagine why scientists would trouble themselves with the affairs of monks, unless to extend to them advances in medicine and technology that can improve even their lives, should they choose to use them.

 

[Xander]

Science in it's true essence consists of observations, not speculations. The academic community, which is one of the most politically-charged of human institutions (and therefore the least rational), has turned science into 95% speculation and 5% observation.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

What has to be remembered is that there's very rarely the scientist reading to us from his notes and answering our questions directly. On fact, quite often, we only get snippets of the scientist revealing the "headlines" of their research before fantasy conclusions are displayed for our delight.

We are sold science twice. Once in the product we buy when the science is sound and once before by the media hounds when it is often barely formed.

Any scientific theory which reaches the general populace has been reviewed and postulated on by people who's job it is to make you listen to them. They get money for your attention and thus everything relayed must be attention grabbing.

Primary evidence, vaping.

Vaping has high levels of formaldehyde present. Higher than cigarettes! These scientists have shown this in their research!
Said scientists in Boston (I think) are appalled as the setting they used to produce this result was unusable by anyone wanting a throat left but was done to show that perhaps safety limits should be established.

These are the same people who report on e-cig batteries exploding. They fail to mention the person was using an unsuitable phone charger and considering how many people do that only a very few have issues. They fail to mention that the larger devices replicate how a torch works and thus if they are the spawn of Satan then so are torches.

They don't exist to inform you of information which is useful. They aren't benefactors of an educated society. They don't sell well to people who are rational, calm and wise beings. What they want is a herd of hyper sensitive, over reacting traditionalists.

It just makes sense that America is their favourite playground. It's just made for them.

 

[Lark]

Poll Results Show Disparity Between Scientists And American Public On Scientific Issues | IFLScience

There's been many news articles posted on this over the past several days.




This is incredibly depressing, angering, and in some cases, dangerous. I've known for a long time that there is a very unfortunate gap between what scientists view as valid, and what they general american public views as valid. I did not know it was this bad though, in some of the issues I am utterly flabbergasted and imbarrasted. The fact of the matter is, science is unbias and speaks for itself. There is no disagreeing with fact. There will always be some naysayers and a bit of disagreement on matters that are more opinion based, but on other matters there truly is a right or wrong answer. How someone can just flagerently ignore fact in favor of fringe low impact material, personal opinion, gut feelings, or simple dislike is absolutely beyond me.

I really don't know what we can do about this. There is talk about increasing STEM education, but I am not sure that will do quite enough. There are other root problems that might make it intractable. We do need to improve this though, because when the public disagrees with science, even when the science is factually and morally sound as it can be, even when the public is dead wrong it still effects it, and everyone else.

Discuss.

Said the Phrenologist, Mesmerist and Electrolist.

Lets retire for some healthy cups of radium and extra tar cigars. Fortifying.

 

[sprinkles]

It's ironic how people bring up bad examples of science but we only have these bad examples because science found they were bad and threw them out.

i.e. you only know these bad examples because science is too good to keep them.

 

[sprinkles]

Also if it weren't for science you'd be going to your barber surgeon for bloodletting still instead of using it as an example. Who do you think did the experiments to find that this wasn't the greatest of ideas?

Moreover, bloodletting, radium, mercury etc. aren't examples of bad science because they weren't ever scientific in the first place. In other words, proper experiments were not done with them. So science never truly accepted these methods but rather was the first thing to truly look at them and find that they are harmful.

So it's not an example of bad science but instead is an example of what good science saved you from.

 

[Tellenbach]

It's ironic how people bring up bad examples of science but we only have these bad examples because science found they were bad and threw them out.

It's because people (skeptics) raised questions. You don't get progress if scientists refuse to submit their work to public and professional scrutiny. In the end, climate science will just be another lump on the ash heap of pseudoscience (but it may take an ice age to do it).

 

[sprinkles]

It's because people (skeptics) raised questions. You don't get progress if scientists refuse to submit their work to public and professional scrutiny. In the end, climate science will just be another lump on the ash heap of pseudoscience (but it may take an ice age to do it).

Can we be done please

 

[Coriolis]

It's because people (skeptics) raised questions. You don't get progress if scientists refuse to submit their work to public and professional scrutiny. In the end, climate science will just be another lump on the ash heap of pseudoscience (but it may take an ice age to do it).

Scientists who do not submit their work to professional scrutiny do not get published, do not get promotion or tenure, do not get funded, and in short, are not successful. And those skeptics raising questions? Mostly other scientists who know better and can raise questions that are actually relevant and intelligent.

 

[Tellenbach]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] Climate scientists are notorious for hiding raw data and not divulging the methods used to derive their statistical results. Here's an opinion from a climate scientist on the problem:

"The [Wall Street Journal (WSJ)]highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre say is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. The WSJ's anecdotal treatment of the subject goes toward confirming what I've been hearing for years in climatology circles about not just Mann, but others collecting original climate data...

As concerns Mann himself, this is especially curious in light of the recent RealClimate posts...in which Mann and Gavin Schmidt warn us about peer review and the limits therein. Their point is essentially that peer review is limited and can be much less than thorough. One assumes that they are talking about their own work as well as McIntyre's, although they never state this...

Of their take on peer review, I couldn't agree more. In my experience, peer review is often cursory at best. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face. This is real peer review...

Your job is not to prevent your critics from checking your work and potentially distorting it; your job is to continue to publish insightful, detailed analyses of the data and let the community decide. You can be part of the debate without seeming to hinder access to it." Kevin Vranes, climatologist quoted in "The Hockey Stick Illusion"

 

[Xander]

Based on this thread, everyone I know is a scientist!

Must get them to start publishing... I could be editor and give up real work.

 

[sprinkles]

I wouldn't give data to witch hunters either if it were me. Can't get away from this so might as well give up and let idiots sort themselves out.

Give data and it'll be misused to paint you wrong. Don't give data and you're hiding something. Just fuck it because it doesn't matter either way.