

The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions - pjdavis
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/public-trusts-scientists-not-their-conclusions.ars

======
gizmo
> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive
> impact on society

And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity,
medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse?

People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our
entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.

~~~
Locke1689
I honestly think that the only possible reason for this has to be either
ignorance or religion. If you demonize one section of science far enough,
you're probably self-indoctrinated to believe that _all_ science is bad.
Consider someone who believes that climate change is not happening and that
the entire scientific community is in on this giant scam. Once you extend a
conspiracy theory to such a large level, the only way you can rationalize your
beliefs is to demonize the entire population of practicing scientists because
they have to be "in on it." Of course, were you to then be asked if science
has been a good thing, you'll answer in the negative, even though you would
never survive without air conditioning, processed food, and your precious
Range Rover.

~~~
gizmo
Maybe it's much simpler than that. When people hear the word scientist, they
think "men in white lab coats". If that's what they think scientists are, then
all the responses make some sort of sense.

The depressing thing is that people who believe in conspiracy theories are
generally reasonably smart people, who have nuanced opinions on a lot of
topics, and are often well educated. In order to believe in a conspiracy
theory you have to have at least a passing understanding of whatever accepted
truth it is you don't believe in. That puts those people leagues ahead of the
ignorant-and-proud-of-it.

------
biohacker42
_... finds that some of science's conclusions are widely mistrusted, and hints
at a widening partisan divide._

Obviously. Lets face it, the majority of kids don't actually think through and
convince themselves of everything they are thought.

Partly because kids are like little fact sponges for facts that come from
adult authority. And partly because they don't have to think to pass exams.

The earth goes around the sun. Sure thing Mr. Teacher, I can see the sun going
around the earth but I still believe what ever you say. And that's not fake,
that's really how it works most of the time. I'd guess only about 15% or less
actually think it through.

But now in some regions, for some groups there are competing authorities and
they say the earth is 6000 years old. Sure Mr. Preacher, what ever you say.

Fact is, public education is a mass product, a government provided mass
product/service. It's crap. More often then not we get smart kids despite
public school, not because of it. What public school does reasonably well is
teach you the three Rs. You want anything more? Educate yourself.

Solutions:

1\. Improve, and I mean really improve, public education in this union of
states which covers most of a continent.

2\. Do nothing. Wait for this strange modern day cult of anti-Darwinists to
run its course and peter out.

3\. Give them more rope to hang themselves. Radically shrink the size and role
of the feds and increase the economic competition between the states.

Problems:

1\. Extremely difficult will take centuries.

3\. Counter to the strong natural tendency of governments to grow and grow and
grow.

2\. Requires no effort - is most likely scenario.

A humble suggestion. Stop trying to save the anto-evolutionists from
themselves. Why not ignore these real life trolls? Please point out where they
are doing real world damage that matters? And no, it hurts (their) kids is not
something you can help with.

~~~
ori_b
> it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with.

The problem is that it's not just their kids that it hurts. It affects the
textbooks and lesson plans of schools across the state and country (especially
since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks).

If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed - I don't think
children should be punished for the failings of their parents - but I would be
less concerned about it. But it doesn't just hurt their children. It hurts
everyone's children, and undermines the innovation economy that the USA has
built. Our largest export is brains and ideas - we don't manufacture all that
much in the USA anymore. We should be doing what we can to protect our most
important resource - our education.

~~~
biohacker42
_especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school
textbooks_

Only as long as Texas doesn't go too far out there and the parents in other
states are not too involved with school.

If Texas really goes out on a limb, and you have parents in say Vermont very
actively engaged with their kids' school, I bet we can finally split the
market and get Texas & Co. off our backs.

And that is better for everyone (except kids in Texas) and also more likely
then us being able to pull Texas towards reason.

 _If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed_

Sure, but how can you help someone else's child? How could the government
rescue children from their parents? I don't see any way in a non-creepy world.

And as far as America's innovative edge goes, the US or key parts of it, still
produce amazing discoveries, and they do it with a lot of immigrants. It would
be nice if we added more home grown brains, but that's all it would be: nice.

------
calcnerd256
If the scientific community's portrayal in the media only tells the story of
one side of a controversial issue, that is going to make the public think that
the entire community agrees with that stance. How often are things portrayed
as "scientific fact" or some other such when they are still widely debated
within the scientific community? Each of those issues erodes the public's
trust of the entire community, even those that are adamantly declaring, "We
don't know yet" about the issue.

------
tel
Did the Ars rewrite add anything to the Pew Report besides some thin
speculation and ambiguous wording? No wonder scientists don't like
journalists.

~~~
rjprins
It's not so much as adding, as making it readable and interesting.

------
nice1
I think scientists are partly responsible for their loss of credibility by
bowing to leftist pressure and endorsing slogans like "global warming",
"global cooling", "the population bomb" and other such nonsense.

~~~
Locke1689
I looked up "the population bomb"[1] and it seems to be another Malthusian
crisis book. The funny thing is that you criticize scientists for this.
Ehrlich is an _entomologist_. The Wikipedia article states that demographers
and a large section of the scientific community widely panned the book.
Honestly, if you get your view of the scientific community from Neil Cavuto on
Fox News, you're kidding yourself into believing that you're actually getting
science.

Similarly, pick up any recent scientific publication on climatology. Now,
notice that there are no slogans. Instead, there are peer reviewed studies
which present hypothesis, experiments, and conclusions. True science is not
"political," and if you believe it is then you are simply the byproduct of the
media. Scientists themselves say that the media doesn't cover science well --
so perhaps you shouldn't judge scientific opinions based on it?

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb>

~~~
jpwagner
This response is solid, however I don't think the OP suggested that "True
science is political." (Although it's hard to tell when people don't express
themselves clearly.)

There have been many scientists to have admitted that they have kept their
mouth shut when they oppose the status quo for fear of losing jobs or failing
to gain funding. The concept of "a few bad apples" is certainly not new.

