• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
I refuse (and have for several years now) to debate or discuss the issue of climate change against those who think it is a farce. I kind of slipped with that in the beginning because I didn't want to watch the thread become only that, but alas it did. It is a waste of energy and they don't have arguments to stand on anyway. I stand by this and still refuse to do so.

Nevertheless, I find it painfully ironic that this thread is being hijacked by climate change deniers to push their issues, when the premise of the thread was discussing the issue of the general public disagreeing with the scientific consensus and views of the scientists who have worked on these very topics. Honestly, I also find it to be really sad.

The above that Tellenbach just posted was exactly the kind of thing I just got done talking about too. Notice how it goes nowhere. Look at the comments on the article for the relevant public opinions and a demonstration on how facts do jack all to effect them on either side. There's people commenting about how the author of the article is an idiot and pretty much wrong time and time again so it is rather plain that the article itself does practically nothing except stir up more shitposting. It's not like the readers can do anything about it, most aren't scientists, most can't verify the truth of the article in any way, and it is more simply polarizing than it is informative. Also it totally doesn't have an agenda and there's no agenda going on here and I'm a space penguin from another dimension here to conquer the earth.

Edit:
Also I might have actually been interested in what it had to say if I could trust it but I pretty much can't trust hardly anything these days because you never can tell.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
The above that Tellenbach just posted was exactly the kind of thing I just got done talking about too. Notice how it goes nowhere. Look at the comments on the article for the relevant public opinions and a demonstration on how facts do jack all to effect them on either side. There's people commenting about how the author of the article is an idiot and pretty much wrong time and time again so it is rather plain that the article itself does practically nothing except stir up more shitposting. It's not like the readers can do anything about it, most aren't scientists, most can't verify the truth of the article in any way, and it is more simply polarizing than it is informative. Also it totally doesn't have an agenda and there's no agenda going on here and I'm a space penguin from another dimension here to conquer the earth.

Edit:
Also I might have actually been interested in what it had to say if I could trust it but I pretty much can't trust hardly anything these days because you never can tell.

When it comes to climate change, I defer most of my opinions on it to that of the experts in the field. I feel most should do this as well. I'm in grad school, and am a scientist, but I'm working on a PhD in organic chemistry... not exactly related to climate science. When it comes to certain types of medical, biological, or pharmacy science issues, then yes I will do some or a lot of the interpreting myself since that is within my area and ability to understand. I would be a fool though to think I can well understand and interpret climate research well. I'm not versed or qualified for it. I can try, but it doesn't mean I'll be right with it. The most logical and fair thing to do is to listen to individuals to work in it, or have the credentials and ability to understand it. I mean, part of their job is to inform the public on what is what, why on earth would a common person reject it? It doesn't make any sense to me. I might be smart, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I can do everything. It's also a reason why I don't debate the nitty gritty details of it like I will with pharmaceutical debates, GMO debates, or others similar things; I don't have the knowledge, qualifications, or ability to do so in a productive manner.

I really feel this is where a lot of the problem comes from. People thinking they have the ability and skills to say what is credible or not. The fact of the matter is, most don't.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
When it comes to climate change, I defer most of my opinions on it to that of the experts in the field. I feel most should do this as well. I'm in grad school, and am a scientist, but I'm working on a PhD in organic chemistry... not exactly related to climate science. When it comes to certain types of medical, biological, or pharmacy science issues, then yes I will do some or a lot of the interpreting myself since that is within my area and ability to understand. I would be a fool though to think I can well understand and interpret climate research well. I'm not versed or qualified for it. I can try, but it doesn't mean I'll be right with it. The most logical and fair thing to do is to listen to individuals to work in it, or have the credentials and ability to understand it. I mean, part of their job is to inform the public on what is what, why on earth would a common person reject it? It doesn't make any sense to me. I might be smart, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I can do everything. It's also a reason why I don't debate the nitty gritty details of it like I will with pharmaceutical debates, GMO debates, or others similar things; I don't have the knowledge, qualifications, or ability to do so in a productive manner.

I really feel this is where a lot of the problem comes from. People thinking they have the ability and skills to say what is credible or not. The fact of the matter is, most don't.

Yeah I'm more about computer sciences and applied physics and electronics than all this climate stuff so I can identify. I can kind of see how it would work and I know what I think but I'm not going to go around telling people that I know this and that for sure because I don't.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
'Professional' == 'getting paid to do it' vs. 'Professional' == 'accredited by having earned an advanced degree in a relevant field' vs. 'Professional' == 'dog-whistle to indicate one who agrees with our current fad' ?
"Professional" as in their work passes muster when vetted by colleagues in their field: it merits publication in peer-reviewed journals; they get tenure or seniority in their workplaces; and their work is funded by a variety of funding agencies (reflecting diversity of goals and perspectives, and not just being in the pay of one sponsor).
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"Professional" as in their work passes muster when vetted by colleagues in their field: it merits publication in peer-reviewed journals; they get tenure or seniority in their workplaces; and their work is funded by a variety of funding agencies (reflecting diversity of goals and perspectives, and not just being in the pay of one sponsor).

Provided of course, that the peer review is done in good faith; that the colleagues aren't doing a circle-jerk of mutual promotion (as happens in real estate via levering, and which has been alleged in the case of Climate Science, by other researchers; and tenure isn't either a blind chase for money given by government agencies with an agenda to promote).

You might enjoy, for example, the food fight over what each side in this debate calls the other, here:

‘Denier,’ ‘Alarmist,’ ‘Warmist,’ ‘Contrarian,’ ‘Confusionist,’ ‘Believer,’ | Yale Climate Connections

One of the problems, touched on in this thread, is the role of the press in all this: but the press seems given to bombastic sensationalism: which leads to clickthroughs and ad revenue, but when the predictions touted fall short, it is not always journalism which is discredited, but science.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I refuse (and have for several years now) to debate or discuss the issue of climate change against those who think it is a farce. I kind of slipped with that in the beginning because I didn't want to watch the thread become only that, but alas it did. It is a waste of energy and they don't have arguments to stand on anyway. I stand by this and still refuse to do so.

Nevertheless, I find it painfully ironic that this thread is being hijacked by climate change deniers to push their issues, when the premise of the thread was discussing the issue of the general public disagreeing with the scientific consensus and views of the scientists who have worked on these very topics. Honestly, I also find it to be really sad.

If you're talking about me, have the grace to do so directly to me.

I find it painfully ironic that you are trying to call it science: when it is in fact only computer modeling, based on fragmentary data, which does not go back long enough, at high enough resolution, even to back test the basic models.

The links I gave, were to articles which contained further links, to discussions of some of the raw data used, and the protocols used to massage that data prior to its input into the models.

Why you feel that is not germane, or should be dismissed with a mere ad hominem, is beyond me.

However, it appears that you and I *do* in fact agree on one major element -- which is that the press, which is supposed to inform the public, is not doing a very good job here; I believe that the constant search for ratings, page-views, and click throughs -- leads to unwarranted exaggeration or sensationalism; and when the claims are exposed, it is not journalism which suffers, but the reputation of science.

(Incidentally, [MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION]'s prior post, to which I believe you were responding, is in fact quoting from a popular newspaper. Which is rather ironic, considering...)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
However, it appears that you and I *do* in fact agree on one major element -- which is that the press, which is supposed to inform the public, is not doing a very good job here; I believe that the constant search for ratings, page-views, and click throughs -- leads to unwarranted exaggeration or sensationalism; and when the claims are exposed, it is not journalism which suffers, but the reputation of science.
As interesting as the war is, this is the real kernel of the problem here. The press does not exist to inform you. It is an entertainment medium designed to look like information. There are some hard facts in it but most of the serious articles represent a viewpoint expressed with the primary purpose of getting you to part with your money. They sell you this stuff, ergo it needs to be marketable.

I'd wager that only the most dry and specialised of reporting mediums (something like "telegraph poles for you") would include actual raw information for the "delight" of it's specialised audience. Everyone else, it's about the numbers.

Anyone put any stock in a tobacco company who tells you that it's scientists have proven that smoking has health benefits which can outweigh the risks (should any such claim be made and I would not be shocked if it were)?

It is because of these issues where the media gets involved and starts pointing fingers that common Joe has no real faith any more. It would be the same if they got into religion.... Actually I have a cunning plan..... :devil:
 

Rambling

New member
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
401
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If the raw data is available, then by definition it will support your conclusions.
If there are legitimate reasons to adjust the data, explain them as well as the original and massaged data.

The way that fraud *is* detected, is when results cannot be replicated, or data is fudged: refusal to supply the data means that the theorem purportedly derived from that data are
(the drum roll, please) "non-falsifiable".

Which is, you know, what "scientists" claim their entire grounds for superiority over quacks, frauds, and charlatans, resides in.

Or, as the late Nobel physicist Richard Feynman (PhD in theoretical physics from MIT at age 21) said,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

With this I agree. [MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION] has only been using climate change as an *example* of the thread topic I think. He seems to have been unreasonably castigated for stating what is a fairly standard and recognised set of scientific views.

On the point of the thread I would add to what has been said already:

There's lies, damned lies and statistics...in other words how the raw data is analysed to find trends and how reliable those trends are as interpreters of the data is very poorly understood by the general public.

Add to that the desire of the media for a 'new slant' or an exciting headline, their ability to cut and paste interviews losing the half of the original quote which they choose to disregard, and balance is soon lost. Combine that with the problem that research needs to produce new results which are worthwhile to businesses within a certain time frame to continue to be funded...and you begin to scratch the surface of the problem..
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Using publications to make a point about verifying data when you can't verify the publication is problematic. Whether the scientists themselves do it right or not is irrelevant to this topic because they might as well be in a completely different secret world for how moot it is when the public isn't guaranteed to get the right information, can't verify whether it is right or not, and even if it is right they don't actually know what it means to begin with.

Discussing it is essentially a complete waste of time.

Edit:
Moreover this topic is still about what scientists view vs. the public. Two different views, and how different they are. Whether the views are correct or not is entirely irrelevant. Whether the scientists are doing it right or not is also entirely irrelevant. The OP article doesn't actually say the scientists are more right, just that they're more different.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
As interesting as the war is, this is the real kernel of the problem here. The press does not exist to inform you. It is an entertainment medium designed to look like information. There are some hard facts in it but most of the serious articles represent a viewpoint expressed with the primary purpose of getting you to part with your money. They sell you this stuff, ergo it needs to be marketable.

I'd wager that only the most dry and specialised of reporting mediums (something like "telegraph poles for you") would include actual raw information for the "delight" of it's specialised audience. Everyone else, it's about the numbers.

Anyone put any stock in a tobacco company who tells you that it's scientists have proven that smoking has health benefits which can outweigh the risks (should any such claim be made and I would not be shocked if it were)?

It is because of these issues where the media gets involved and starts pointing fingers that common Joe has no real faith any more. It would be the same if they got into religion.... Actually I have a cunning plan..... :devil:

We also can't truly trust data that we don't gather ourselves.

Think of knowledge as a large machine and all the people are sensors which pass information to the CPU. Sensors which aren't verifiably calibrated can't be depended on. You can't depend on the sensor telling you if it is correct or not because it might not know it has a problem. Similarly, data from sources you aren't familiar with is basically useless for anything except general ideas.

Making assumptions that all the sensors have done their job correctly leads to things like lost airplanes and Hubble telescopes that don't work right after they've been put into space.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
We also can't truly trust data that we don't gather ourselves.
What, then, do you do when you go to the doctor? Ask him/her to show you the medical journal papers and studies behind his/her diagnoses and prescriptions? Even that wouldn't be good enough, since you would not have conducted the reported clinical trials yourself. We cannot go through life trusting only those data we gather ourselves.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
What, then, do you do when you go to the doctor? Ask him/her to show you the medical journal papers and studies behind his/her diagnoses and prescriptions? Even that wouldn't be good enough, since you would not have conducted the reported clinical trials yourself. We cannot go through life trusting only those data we gather ourselves.

You don't go to the doctor for data, you go for a diagnosis/prognosis. There's a difference.

To make this comparison would have to be like the doctor running the tests but giving you the raw results to interpret and diagnose yourself.

That's what a lot of people seem to be thinking - that they can interpret the data. That essentially they could walk into a doctors office and diagnose their own self, or moreover tell the doctor what is right. And why shouldn't they, hmm? Why can't you just test yourself and give the doctor your results and tell them what's what? They should trust you, shouldn't they?

Or maybe not because it's their profession and people's lives depend on getting things right. You think it's ok to just trust people because you're maybe not the one who gets blamed if it turns out wrong.

This is so easy to say when it's all about meaningless opinions and worthless conversations which achieve nothing.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I go to a doctor because I trust the doctor's interpretation of the data.

I trust a source for the same reason.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
I go to a doctor because I trust the doctor's interpretation of the data.

I trust a source for the same reason.

If I'm not mistaken we go to doctors for practical reasons such as "I'm sick and I need to be looked at so I have to trust somebody"

Looking at journals which don't actually concern you is another story. You can afford to be discerning. What purpose does it serve to form hard opinions on things you'll never actually do anything about? Do you get points for it or something?
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Also most people don't like to think they're being misled so of course you think you can trust your sources. Almost everybody does. But trust is not equal to rightness.

Edit:
And it doesn't feel good to trust someone only to find out you shouldn't have. I've been burned too many times and had too many real world problems due to somebody/something giving me the wrong input to such an extent that it's easier to find out for myself than to vet someone else enough that trusting them becomes low risk. I've been made to look like an idiot, lost money in damages, and possibly caused problems for others by giving bad advice that I thought was good.

I don't want to make any more hard choices than I have to and at this point I'd rather be unsure than wrong.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't want to make any more hard choices than I have to and at this point I'd rather be unsure than wrong.
If uncertainty leads to indecision, the default of taking no action can be very wrong, whether in a matter of one's personal health, or a matter of global health or public safety. It all depends on how long a view one takes, and how concerned one is about people beyond oneself.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
If uncertainty leads to indecision, the default of taking no action can be very wrong, whether in a matter of one's personal health, or a matter of global health or public safety. It all depends on how long a view one takes, and how concerned one is about people beyond oneself.

I don't recall mentioning taking no action as a default rule. I do what I feel is necessary and take responsibility for it. I play majan so I know all about acting on incomplete information. Some times you have to make choices. I just won't pretend to be more informed than I actually am.

On the other hand I've played with programming and robot logic so I know how important accuracy can actually be because this is a great field for seeing exactly how problematic even the tiniest of errors can be. I barely even trust myself if I don't pore over something and recheck it many times. In fact I don't trust myself which is why I recheck things because too often I've left something off because I was tired or in a rush. I'll believe I did it right when I prove it to myself.

Edit:
Also if I seem hard on people, I'm even harder on me.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I don't want to make any more hard choices than I have to and at this point I'd rather be unsure than wrong.
A small drive-by like notation...

If you are wrong you can change and become "more right". If you make no decision then you have effectively halted. Whilst that is wise if it is used to consider moving forward, it is often unwise to over-extend this pause as you are eroding the very materials you have to move forward. Most directly, time.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
A small drive-by like notation...

If you are wrong you can change and become "more right". If you make no decision then you have effectively halted. Whilst that is wise if it is used to consider moving forward, it is often unwise to over-extend this pause as you are eroding the very materials you have to move forward. Most directly, time.

Yeah but again I wasn't referring to making decisions. I was referring to the emotional attachment which is given to information - often needlessly.

I accept things provisionally quite often because some information is better than none. I just try not to get attached to it. To me trust is an emotional attachment which leads to bad feelings when it is violated. So no I'm not going to throw my chips in with something to the extent that I feel wrecked if it turns out wrong even if I have to accept it provisionally.

It's all about not getting so entrenched that I develop confirmation bias for my pet idea which I can't bear to be wrong because I've vested so much faith in it.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yeah but again I wasn't referring to making decisions. I was referring to the emotional attachment which is given to information - often needlessly.

I accept things provisionally quite often because some information is better than none. I just try not to get attached to it. To me trust is an emotional attachment which leads to bad feelings when it is violated. So no I'm not going to throw my chips in with something to the extent that I feel wrecked if it turns out wrong even if I have to accept it provisionally.

It's all about not getting so entrenched that I develop confirmation bias for my pet idea which I can't bear to be wrong because I've vested so much faith in it.
I do agree that emotional attachment to information is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. I don't see trust as an emotional matter, though, at least not in relation to the information one uses in making decisions. By "trust" here I mean more of a confidence level. There is very little we can know with 100% certainty, but we can often have some idea of how reliable information is based on its source, our familiarity with the topic, and whatever internal consistency checks we are able to do on it. Not foolproof, but helps one to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
 
Top