

If scientists want to educate the public, they should start by listening - RiderOfGiraffes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062502158_pf.html

======
timr
_"According to polling performed by the Pew Research Center, Republicans who
are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific
consensus on climate change than those who have less education. These better-
educated Republicans probably aren't ignorant; a more likely explanation is
that they are politically driven consumers of climate science information.
Among Democrats and independents, the relationship between education and
beliefs about global warming is precisely the opposite -- more education leads
to greater acceptance of the consensus climate science."_

I object to the terminology. Just because someone is cherry-picking
information to support their chosen ideology doesn't make them "not ignorant".
It makes them willfully ignorant.

Part of the problem with American political discourse is that we don't do
enough to marginalize non-factual arguments -- from both sides of the
political spectrum. Pretending that people aren't "ignorant" if they're
filtering facts through a political sieve doesn't address this problem.
Everyone has freedom of expression in the US, but we should all be doing more
to make it plainly clear that some types of content are inferior to others.

~~~
brandnewlow
Or maybe these Republicans went to college, saw how politicized the science
departments were on their campuses, and instead of shrugging it off, realized
that scientists are prone to mistakes and misleading just like everyone else,
and so their claims should be taken with a grain of salt, just like those of
everyone else.

I fall into that camp. My time in college impressed upon me how human and
fallible the academy is. I went in thinking "professors" had all the answers.
Then I met enough people who were stealing funds, sleeping with students,
lazily grading papers, exploiting free labor and jealously hording grant
money, that I realized these were just people, prone to the same errors in
judgment that everyone else deals with.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_I realized these were just people, prone to the same errors in judgment that
everyone else deals with._

I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion. No one has ever
claimed that scientists are all-knowing or super-human or somehow not subject
to the cognitive defects endemic to all human brains.

But just because scientists are human and make mistakes does not mean that
their claims about scientific matters are wrong. I mean, my attorney is a
human guy who makes typical human mistakes, but when it comes to giving me
legal advice, he's a hell of a lot better than the average person. His
expertise is beneficial even though he sometimes forgets things or gets
confused or gets angry or suffers from status quo bias. All those problems
mean that I should exercise some judgment while considering his advice, but
statistically, his advice is still much better than what I could come up with
on my own.

------
jufemaiz
A fundamental problem that I see is twofold:

First, we have a more educated populace globally (not just in the US) - this
leads to more confidence in our own opinions, and when combined with "the
university of Google" and trusting everything one reads on the internet you'll
get echo-chambers of likemindedness repeatedly referring to each other. We
tend to believe things that we hear over and over. Add in the lack of
accountability within the media to appropriately question all claims from all
sides in a scientific manner and you can easily become highly insular in your
views and opinions.

Secondly - science has moved on in ways unfathomable a century ago - a time
where the wealthy could afford an education and those without could not (and
hence trusted those with an education more, although you can also claim that
corporations have also lessened the trust in anyone too). The sciences today
are so incredibly complex that the scientific community has the option to
either: a) dumb it down; or b) dumb it down. The problem there is that when
you simplify science, you lose some of the details and open yourself up for
cherry-picking critique. Add in the issue that most science is now not black-
or-white (something that the conservative in everyone prefers) but rather is
based on probability (yes, I know all about the black swan events that through
out prior observations, however scientific method requires repeatability) -
irrespective of whether or not the lifestyle that they currently live is based
on such approaches. Add in the proud to be innumerate and scientifically
illiterate and you've got some major problems. Mix in that science now looks
like religion to the lay person, due to the complexity and lack of
comprehension, and you're going to have big problems.

What is the scientific community to do? I'm not sure. We need to change the
perception of science in the community. We need to educate people on the
scientific method (even though there are many in the hardcore religious groups
who oppose it). Then we need to build a better grounding in science for the
next generation and make it valued in the same way that the financial and
legal sectors are. After all - they're all dependent on the discoveries for
their own operations.

------
borisk
Does it really matter? Most people can believe in witches, intelligent design
and what not while doing their jobs good enough. Europe, Far East, Russia
trust science way more, but it doesn't seem to lead to any significant
advantage.

~~~
jswinghammer
Couldn't agree more.

I've never really understood why anyone cares about who believes what when it
comes to topics in science. You can't advance in a career in the sciences
without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who
cares if a bunch of people don't agree?

I'm sort of amazed at the arrogance on display by those who seem bent on
making sure everyone agrees with them. It seems like we would be served well
by some degree of skepticism of the bishops and the scientific establishment
(in all areas). It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what
we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility.

For my part I'm skeptical of the claims of biologists, mainstream economists,
climatologists, and those who offer financial advice. I don't take a strong
position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me
in any way. I might get made fun of behind my back for doubting these people
but that's fine by me.

I also didn't take any losses in the latest stock market crash because I saw
it coming three years ahead of time and was safely in cash waiting for the
market to figure out what I already knew. I take strong positions on economics
because the outcome can really affect me and my family. I might be wrong of
course but at least I'm going in with my eyes open.

~~~
ewjordan
_I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the
outcome doesn't affect me in any way._

You're just fine with having the next generation of schoolkids taught that
"God Did It (or maybe aliens)" is the only acceptable explanation for the
origin of life, then? Because this fight started with religious zealots trying
to prosecute teachers for going against scripture, and it's hard to have any
doubt that the clowns pushing Intelligent Design would do something similar if
people stopped smacking them down. It might not matter to you whether
evolution is right or not, but that's not what the fight is about - the fight
is about whether or not scientists should have to poll the idiocracy and make
sure they won't offend them before reporting their findings.

And yes, I'm arguing slippery slope, maybe - but the argument in favor of
worry is a lot more compelling when we've just finished clawing our way up
from the bottom.

 _It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't
know and don't proceed with much humility._

Absolutely. And with climate science, I'd tend to agree with you, we don't
know all that much and might want to be careful about how much we trust the
preliminary findings - the data appears to be messy, incomplete, and difficult
to work with, and the field started out so highly politicized that it's hard
to know who to trust.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not even in the same ballpark - evidence is
plentiful, it all agrees with the theory, and consensus is overwhelming (and
one big difference between bio and climate science is that biologists don't
tend to go into biology because of political leanings, so there's far less
selection bias amongst researchers).

~~~
jswinghammer
I think that I am fine with that because I'm not sure it matters. The truth is
the truth and it has a nasty habit of winning out even if it takes hundreds of
years. Theories and ideas go into and out of favor over time. The battle
between rationalism and empiricism has raged basically nonstop since Aristotle
and continues today with each side gaining and losing ground with each
generation of thinkers.

I'm amazed by the continuing influence of Marx and other socialist
philosophers even though we have theories rooted in Platonic arguments and
empirical observation that are fairly one sided in their analysis of the
subject. It disturbs me greatly that schools teach Keynesian economics and
that Paul Krugman has more distribution than what a blog would provide him.
I'm disturbed by the success of the Neocons and their apparent love for war.

All that being said I move on with my life. I realize that the best I can is
argue my case and if I fail then that's fine. Ideas aren't as important as
life and the people in it.

