Study Highlights Gap Between Views of Scientists and the Public 670
ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists. The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does. And while 84% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that." 27% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44% ten years ago. The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits. For example: scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science, and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results. 32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
reality is librul (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...
55% say they are Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter. Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live. Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with. Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.
Unscientific? (Score:5, Insightful)
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.
Education Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
Re:flat (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, the the patrons of those scientists had a vested theological interest in those positions. Not that any actual science was really conducted to validate them...
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not. I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen. Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:2, Insightful)
We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
A lot more than your comment. Honestly, i can't make head nor tail of this.
"but if that is so" - if correlation DOES imply causation?
The fact that correlation doesn't imply causation is often taken to extremes, like this, and if you say it in relation to something like global warming, where there are solid reasons for accepting the link, it is fair to say that you need not believe anything. For future reference, it is necessary to point out that correlation does not imply causation where there is a false or tenuous or overly complicated reason given for why the two things are related.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with.
Unless cleaning up your act will cost you a lot of money, or you make a lot of money selling pollutants like oil.
At least we have the history of CFCs to look back on as an example of how to clean up effectively. It's such a shame that CO2 is a) harder to avoid producing and b) more difficult to blame than CFCs were.
Education (Score:4, Insightful)
The disparity between the views of scientists and 'the public' is another illustration of the generally poor quality of education. This is evident here in the UK, and perhaps even more in the US, where the base quality of education is often questionable, and often the subject matter is 'taught' in a far from sensible way. Just look at the debate over how (or even if) evolution should be taught. The populace are never going to be able to participate in informed debate from a position of ignorance, but that is exactly what is currently happening. This whole mess is made even worse by those in power (politicians) putting their own agendas before fact and truth, and by putting short term (political) considerations above the long term good (see the 'debate' raging over global warming for a good example of this). The public will never catch up with the level of appreciation and understanding scientists have of these matters unless their underlying knowledge and education is adequate, and right now it clearly isn't.
Re:flat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:flat (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the the patrons of those scientists had a vested theological interest in those positions. Not that any actual science was really conducted to validate them...
Perhaps not unlike the corporate interests of some scientists these days.
It would help if the media weren't clueless too. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that the media gives equal time and access to creationists, conspiracy theorists, homeopathic medicine and various other tinfoil hat whackmobiles does the body politic no favors whatsoever. There's no emphasis on rigorous thought. Sentiment and ratings trump accuracy and logic.
Critical thinking should be a required course in every high school in the land, and if you fail you don't get a diploma. But the churches would scream bloody murder. The last thing they want is children thinking for themselves.
Re:flat (Score:2, Insightful)
The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat.
That's just a modern myth about olden days people. People have known the world was round for thousands of years.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:1, Insightful)
One of YOUR assumptions is wrong: that the planet is a simple system and that there are no major variations in the climate. A trend of increasing temperature is still present even if there are temporary drops.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
From a purely scientific viewpoint, it doesn't really "mean" anything without more information. I could come up with a whole slew of theories to explain this statistic, but they'd all be extremely speculative since it's just one piece of information.
The only thing it might mean (if the sample is accurate) is that the Republican party is extremely unpopular among scientists at the moment.
can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
My understanding is we have a mechanism, a model, and a lot of evidence that shows global warming is caused by us. Where did you get the idea that it was ONLY a correlation?
Re:Education Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
I think it may explain being socially liberal -- recognizing that moral decisions are inherently difficult to make objectively. I am skeptical, however, that analytical skills correlate (or at least should correlate) strongly with being fiscally liberal. There seems to be decent evidence that being fiscally liberal, particularly in a society in economic decline, is hazardous.
Then again, I guess there is ample evidence that neither Republicans nor Democrats are fiscally conservative.
Re:Depressing... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that Americans are derisive of intelligence and scientists in particular. Calling someone an "Einstein" or an "Egghead" is not purely a compliment even among geeks and nerds... in fact, aside from the word "scientist" the words themselves used to describe them are shown to have their own negative connotations via etymology. When I want help pumping shit, I call a plumber. If I have a problem with my house wiring that I can't handle, I call an electrician. When I want help understanding the fundamental nature of the universe, I look for a scientist.
Unfortunately, there is a major conflict between science and certain religions bent on control. You might notice that certain religions don't actually conflict with science, because they don't make ridiculous claims, because they're not trying to control people for their own ends. They only seek to make the world a better place. It's clear that Christianity (the best example for our nation) is intended only to benefit Christians -- if you aren't one, you can just go to hell.
Science is the quest for that which is. Religion is the quest to explain that which is not. Paths may be varied, but there is only one set of facts. When the two contradict, it's clear that falling back on religion is a failure. Those cultures which have most successfully embraced science have always been most successful, a trend which will only continue.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:1, Insightful)
Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
I'm thinking it's the part where people arrive at a conclusion regarding matters of science from a path dictated by politics and or religion.
Re:55% say they are Democrats of those surveyed (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity why are you accusing the Pew Research Center of systematic unethical and deceptive practices?
Do you think they always engage such behavior? Or is it just certain studies?
The revealing statistic (Score:5, Insightful)
- Public thinks 60% of scientists agree that evolution occurred, but actually 97% of scientists support evolution.
- Public thinks 56% of scientists agree that global warming is human caused, but actually 84% of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming.
This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public? The press. And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs. If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.
Global Governance (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong. No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined. The models aren't working. It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about. Here is an article that illustrates this problem. [theregister.co.uk]
The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.
You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer. Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth. Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality [uah.edu], and the regular folks understand that.
Kevin
Re:flat (Score:4, Insightful)
These stories are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The research for these types of stories is horrible.
What do I care if 84% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity? My father's a scientist who studies product safety. His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist." A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.
Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.
I fail to see ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live.
And the reality of that is- if we could no longer produce CO2 we'd better reduce the population of the planet by quite a bit. Feel free to start.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible. They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites. How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being. The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.
The other problem is that this particular issue has been latched onto and exploited by politicians and opinion-shapers. It has become an 'our side vs. their side' thing. People chose the anti-evolution option because that boosts their side. If you could decouple it from the fight, you might be able to convince more people.
You can probably guess where I come down on the issue. I do believe in God. I can't prove it, but I accept it as a tautology. I also believe in evolution as a natural process. I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do. God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen. Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot. To me, that is _much_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".
Re:Education Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
With respect to the Republican/Democrat/Independent split, I find it interesting that a third identify as independents. I think that for at least the last couple decades, the Republicans have taken on so much of an "America Fuck Yeah" religiousity, that people who understand that the world is not simple because they have discovered in their own area, how much others misunderstand the topic and the findings and how much more there is to learn, are easily disillusioned by the Readers Digest platitudes that seem sufficient for the vast majority of people. As a result, those who actually know how little they know, can see how they are underinformed outside their area of expertise and are much more likely to accept that they may be wrong in any of their beliefs. Given the Republican party's penchant for unthinking dogmatism, it is easy to see why people who have become very expert in a specialized area would be hesitant to be associated with the Republican party. By the same token, Democrats can be just as bad, but there is some logic in going with the lesser evil (although I personally have decided against that path), and because the Democrats on average aren't such thundering bible-bangers, it seems natural enough to go that route.
Re:flat (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat
Not even that. The greeks knew the Earth was round and had calculated its size pretty accurately. Since then, there hasn't been serious disagreement among scientists or sailors or educated people generally. There may have been some denial from the religious and the simply ignorant, but the story you hear about Columbus being the one who proved the world was round --or whatever the story is-- it's BS.
Re:It would help if the media weren't clueless too (Score:4, Insightful)
The last thing they want is children thinking for themselves.
That applies to any self-perpetuating group. If you catch people when they're too young to make distinctions, you can implant your ideas down at the level of attitudes where they're very, very hard to get at later. Relatively few people who were raised in a non-religious environment ever acquire faith later in life: such an adult will perceive much of a typical religious belief system to be as corny, fictitious and unjustifiable as it really is.
Conversely, the bulk of people who were raised in religion die still believing it. As one of the aforementioned people who was not brought up in a God-fearing household, I often wonder how people who have strong religious beliefs manage to accommodate such cognitive dissonance. That is, how they rationalize the very evident inconsistencies between their programmed view of the Universe, and what actually is.
Re:Depressing... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear that Christianity (the best example for our nation) is intended only to benefit Christians -- if you aren't one, you can just go to hell.
More correctly, if you aren't one, you are going to Hell.
Realistically speaking, however, if you look at the root of all religions (going back to the pantheons of the ancient Greek, Roman and even earlier civilizations) you will note that they are attempts to explain that which was, at the time, unexplainable or simply unacceptable (i.e., death.) The problem is that we've advanced way, way beyond the need for such primitive descriptions of how the Universe works. To this day, far too many people are simply unwilling or, in many cases, constitutionally unable, to accept that and move on.
Where we have not succeeded is in eliminating the need for the social control that organized religion provides. By and large, people are animals when you get right down to it, and civilization doesn't function well (or at all) if everyone is just doing what's best for him or herself, no matter the cost to anyone else. Fear of God (or Zeus, or any other external deity) has kept millions of people more-or-less in line for centuries. Consequently, one can't say that everything organized religion has done is bad, but unfortunately we're at the point where their antiscience bent is causing a severe cultural rift, and is in fact causing a lot of damage.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:reality is librul (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Education Gap (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.
I beg your pardon but why should the teachings of religion have any value in philosophy? Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble. Even the more philosophically inclined Asian religions are based not slightly in unfunded fantasies.
This is to be expected as these beliefs were created by men without any modern tools to gain insight into the nature of the world and the mind, without physics or psychology or even just reliable statistical surveys about the opinions of the population of their own countries, let alone data from international sources.
Religion is of no use today except for waging religious wars and even then it might not be absolutely necessary.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe it's this one:
4: The average human gives a crap about reality
Re:Scientists outside their field? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a scientist is evaluating subjects (often well) outside their sphere of study, how does that make their opinion any better than anyone elses?
Maybe it does, maybe it does not. I would say that the opinion of, say, an astronomer on evolutionary science carries more weight than the opinion on the same subject of an uneducated layperson completely unaware of the principles and methods of science. The layperson may reject evolution because to him it seems unfathomable that he could descend from monkeys (especially when the Bible contradicts it), whereas the astronomer, due to his own scientific grooming, understands that there might be larger causal framework at play that he may not be aware of that makes the evolutionary theory a plausible conception.
Re:Depressing... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've witnessed the political posturing behind "science" in academia and industry, I've know many great scientists who search for the truth. I've known many assholes with PhDs that impede progress. How long did "science" dispute that bacteria caused ulcers?
I'm not sure how Einstein, Mendell, Lord Kelvin, Henry Eyring, etc were impeded by a believe in God. I'm not a member of any religion, yet I can see the value of them.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:1, Insightful)
While studying biology, I got to know several religious people that had no problem with accepting both evolution and christian religion. Most of them believe in some kind of predistination, other people have found different solutions for that problem.
Ask the same question to germans. I bet even most german priests will tell you they believe in evolution and the bible at the same time. Fact is that the bible can't be taken literal, there are to many inconsistencys, both inside the bible itself and between bible and reality, to allow literal fundamentalism and that's where education and enlightenment come into play.
So, the real problem is, how christian religion gets tought in America, not christian religion nor any other religion itself.
Re:It would help if the media weren't clueless too (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know if the media really is clueless (though many 'journalists' believe anything you tell them with a straight face) but more just out of ideas. The Michael Jackson coverage was a prime example, eventually, just to fill time CNN had on some psychics/astrologers on. I don't think having unpopular ideas reported or discussed in the news is a bad thing, so long as you look at it critically just as you would with people with differing views on the economy.
The thing that really worries me about journalism, especially on TV is allowing opinion to run right alongside actual reporting. Fox news is the most blatant with this type of coverage, but MSNBC and CNN are pretty close in this lazy time killer. Just do 10 seconds of reporting on an issue, then cut back to someone just saying "this is stupid and it'll ruin society!" and eventually people start viewing all news through a quick-reaction filter.
Just a non-answer. (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'm thinking it's the part where people arrive at a conclusion regarding matters of science from a path dictated by politics and or religion."
I'm thinking your thinking is irrelevant to the science. Why not try to answer the question with data or reasoned argument rather than a nice sophistic non-denial denial?
There was nothing in the post concerning what we know about the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is in any way the product of politics or religion, so exactly what's your point about there only being a "correlation" and not a well understood cause and effect relationship?
Do you actually have to observe someone hitting you on the head with a hammer before you can notice that your head hurts? That might be a pretty rigorous form of hypothesis testing, but like the case of study of global warming, your approach is going to be both far more expensive and painful than it needs to be.
Re:Education Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.
Bone to pick: Religion is equally worthless in discussing philosophical subjects.
I know that it's a popular rhetorical device to try and "fence in" religion to a limited domain of non-scientific topics such as ethics (as published most widely by Stephen J. Gould). But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.
Re:It would help if the media weren't clueless too (Score:2, Insightful)
That is, how they rationalize the very evident inconsistencies between their programmed view of the Universe, and what actually is.
Easily.
II Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight
In Christianity at least, faith is supposed to be different than what you see. For context, the next verse:
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
How do you suppose people can believe that their dead friend/relative is still alive and in heaven when they themselves are at the burial? The existence of a more important, more enduring reality than what is observed is a central concept, not an aberration adopted to defend the worldview.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
...Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter. Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live. Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with. Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.
Seems like a no-brainer, no? But that's pretty much the topic here: no brainers.
Honestly, though, I see the failure of American thinking as far more of a problem than Global Warming. The latter can do a lot of damage to the environment to which we're used. But, aside from our own perspective, so what? A few cities get flooded? We might care, but the Earth won't.
On the other hand, we need clear and decent thinking - analysis, reason, etc. - to deal with this issue. And the next. And the next. Maybe Global Warming is the fault of humans this time. The next problem might not be. But that doesn't mean that we don't have to deal with it.
Dealing, though, is where we'll fail if we cannot apply science and engineering to design and implement rationally chosen solutions. And our schools are not churning out people trained in rational and critical thinking, much less scientists and engineers.
There's too much political advantage to be had in keeping people ignorant and backward, I fear, for schools to ever receive the long-term correction that is likely required.
Re:reality is librul (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the Democrats are liberal, because they would be a right wing party outside of the US. US politics are extremely right wing in comparison to the rest of the democratic world. I mean like really really right wing.
That's cool, I just wish that some Americans wouldn't act as if everyone else is abnormal. It's you guys who are out of step with everyone else. NTTAWWT
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
If you see this as a comforting sort of validation that you are right, then you aren't one of the most highly educated men and women. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
Re:These stories are stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Science is transferable because fundementally it is the same methodology. A scientist specialising in one field is still a person who can think scientifically and apply the same reasoning to one that is not his speciality. Providing experts in the other fields make their findings known and have been carefully reviewed by similar experts, the scientist in the initial field can safely assume the findings of other scientists are likely true, even if is outside of his expertise. Why? Because he's following the documented evidence.
A detective doesn't need to understand everything about pathology to find a murderer.
Re:reality is librul (Score:1, Insightful)
The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.
How they choose to define "scientist" is relevant. That is, the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are. I'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants, who tend to be democrats, and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
I work at a university and so work with PhDs all the time. There are a good many of them who think they know everything, but in reality have extremely limited knowledge outside of their narrow field. They'll be happy to tell you how you should of all sorts of thing, but if you investigate, you discover they know fuck all about what they are talking about. That they have a PhD means they are highly educated in a very specific field. It doesn't mean they are masters of everything. Some understand that, others do not.
As an example we have a massive amount of wireless APs on our campus, hundreds per building. The idea is to provide total coverage. This necessitates they be placed all over, and not just in wiring closets and such. There are some in offices. We have a few professors that demanded the APs be moved, or who placed shields over them to "protect" themselves from the radiation. These are engineering professors, by the way, not art professors. So while this is even in their general domain, they still don't know about it and are as subjected to the same pseudo-science BS as the general public.
While it might be a comforting idea to think scientists are all very smart, reasonable people, that just isn't the case. They are human like the rest of us, and there are plenty of them who don't know what they are talking about save for a small area, and even some who don't know what they are talking about in their area. Science works not because scientists are superhuman, but because the process of strong inference allows us to test and refine our knowledge. The process of science is what is amazing, not necessarily the people who work in it.
Feynman's biography has some great commentary on this and the dangers of "averaging" opinions with people. That just because you ask a lot of people, doesn't mean that you got the right answer.
As an example, suppose around the 1950s you asked 100 scientists about an atomic theory and 90% thought it was right, 10% thought it was wrong. Must be right huh? Now what if I told you the 10 that thought it was wrong were Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe, and so on. Maybe then you aren't so sure. Just because 90 random scientists think something, doesn't mean they are right and the people who actually developed the technology are wrong.
Science is not a democracy, you don't vote on what the right answer is.
So I'm with you, I really hate these stories of "Well X% of profession Y believe this!" That is marketing bullshit. "4 out of 5 dentists agree this is the toothpaste for you!" Ok well so what? Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are just mediocre and the top 20% know that it is bunk. Any time I hear something telling me what percentage of peopel like something or believe something, I feel like I'm being sold something, not being informed.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
The environment is so complex that you can't just point at some melting/growing ice and say we're all doomed/saved. These kinds of arguments skirt the main issues which are:
(Note: the current warming trend started well before the industrial revolution. Look at just about any data that includes 1000s of years (ice cores, Sargasso sea, etc) and you'll see it clearly. Are we increasing the natural trend already in motion? If so, by how much?)
The answer to that seems to be both as the biosphere has increased a great deal [slashdot.org] (plants are being fertilised) but the coral reefs are suffering due to ocean acidification.
The final concern is that the Earth will get SO hot that there will be a tipping point where there will be an effect called a "positive feedback loop" in which the heat will somehow cause the Earth to get hotter and hotter. As almost all things in nature work in negative feedback with multiple buffers coupled with the fact that the Earth has been much hotter in the past, I find this scenario to be closer to Science Fiction than anything else.
From the article:
84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity.
This is true but it's spun, worded with an agenda. Many of those same scientists believe that the amount we're adding to the natural cycle is minuscule, insignificant, or may actually help the environment.
We hate our betters (Score:3, Insightful)
i don't know if this is the case in other cultures, but in America, we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything. We are incapable of simply being happy for each other or grateful for what we have. This seems especially true of intelligence/education. We HATE smart people. If you correct someone's grammar, spelling, punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else. A semi-educated person will call you a prescriptivist. Anything to avoid admitting ignorance or that you're right. It's odd to me that a nation so obsessed with accomplishment, despises anyone who accomplishes.
Then there are the one uppers. If you tell them your house is yellow, their house is yellower... or they've seen a house that was yellower. Can't you just nod and say, "oh, yellow house, nice"? If you have a headache today, they have migraines everyday!
There was a study saying that most Americans would rather that all their coworkers make 50K and for them to make 100K, than for everyone at the company to make 200K.
We also hate anyone/thing that makes us question our beliefs. We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned. That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent. Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians. The rest of us should just shut up and be grateful to be allowed to live. After all, we'd be put to death in Iran, right?
Re:Education Gap (Score:3, Insightful)
Purely anecdotally, scientists (and other random educated people) don't agree on being fiscally liberal. They generally agree on being socially liberal (with a fair fraction of exceptions). But then, all the poll was asking about was party affiliation: it's not like you get much choice, and it's not like either choice is fiscally conservative.
Re:Education Gap (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideology is the elevation of conditional conclusion to the status of axiom--free markets are always better (they're not, only under certain conditions are they better--and under all others they aren't even free markets, regardless of the level of government involvement), unions are good (UAW, SEIU, became blood-sucking parasites destroying their hosts and acting ultimately against the interests of their members), regulation is good, regulation is bad, etc.
All (well, maybe not all, but most) of both parties' platform points are correct under circumstances, but not under all circumstances. Both parties commit a total unthinking, unscientific dogmatism in believing that their platforms are always right, always the solution, when this is simply (and demonstrably) not true.
While I think you're right about the 'knowing what you don't know' reaction against the Republicans, both platforms are equally illogical (being the result of conglomerated agendas from devil's alliances of various factions).
I do not think that it is reason which drives most educated people to the Democrats--it is a disposition towards Humanism that does so. Reason disposes one to Humanism, Humanism to social liberalism. But reason cannot dispose one to ideology--because ideology is inherently the abandonment of reason in favor of dogma.
Re:reality is librul (Score:5, Insightful)
...and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.
So because I use a computer, I'm now considered a Computer Scientist? Good to know. I need to update my CV.
Re:Education Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
Catholicism is radically different from American Protestantism w/ regards to science. In Catholicism it is just short of heresy to claim that scripture contradicts evolution (as of 1996--this does not mean that evolution is religious doctrine, merely that Catholics believe scripture is mute on the subject). They do teach a sort of 'theistic evolution,' but this amounts to 'God chose natural selection and evolution as the tool by which He would create the various species,' and not any meaningful deviation from the prevailing modern evolutionary synthesis.
American protestants on the other hand, especially the Calvinist and pseudo-Calvinist branches, object rather vehemently to the very possibility of entertaining such an idea.
Scientist should be frustrated. (Score:1, Insightful)
The media is reporting their theories as fact.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
"They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites. How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being. The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'."
If your goal is to assess the level of magical thinking in a population, that's not such a bad split. The problem would arise if you got the natural-processes-guided-by-a-supreme-being crowd opting for "natural processes."
Re:These stories are stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
Scientist != "job title"
I think it's very reasonable to think that someone who claims to be a scientist would be educated about a wide variety of subjects. A chemist might not know all the specific details pertaining to global warming, but they will have a better understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved than a "non-scientist."
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
The view you hold -- "God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen" -- is called deism, and it is emphatically not what people mean when they say "guided by a supreme being." The latter is intelligent design, and it's been a depressingly successful stealth tactic for creationists. Deism is perfectly compatible with a scientific study of life. ID says basically, when you find a hard biological problem, throw up your hands and say "Goddidit."
Re:These stories are stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you know the scientific method and maybe have some basic background knowledge in general science, math and stats, you should be able to reasonably assess any scientific argument. If you can't, that argument is not clear enough.
You may not be able to (immediately) do useful work in a foreign field, but you should be capable of judging the strength of any given result.
So yes, your father, if he is a product safety scientist and not a technician, should know some stats and is probably quite knowledgeable about experimental design. These things will make him much more able to assess a the strength of scientific global warming results than an average member of the general public. Note that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a scientific argument. There wasn't a single p-value in the whole thing.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the 55% Dem 6% Repub number says anything in particular about the validity of the parties or the bias of the science. I think more likely than not, this is the fallout of the obvious facts:Scientists spend a long time at universities, in many cases their whole lives. Universities have an extremely liberal population makeup, both among students and professors. Therefore most scientists are basically bathed in liberalism every day of their adult lives, and face pretty strong scorn from university peers if they don't follow that trend.
Personally, I'm somewhere in the conservative-libertarian camp. That is, I hate right-wing-nuts (especially the religious kind) and left-wing-nuts (especially the socialist-leaning kind), and wish the government would just stay the hell out of everything that isn't strictly necessary (which is about 5% of what it does today). I really wish either the democrats would drop socialist tendencies (not gonna happen), or the republicans would kick out the religious nuts (also very unlikely, but less so), so that there would be some semi-rational major party in this country I could somewhat stand behind.
Re:reality is librul (Score:5, Insightful)
Dem politicos tend to favor more funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities. The Repubs like to fund private outfits like think-tanks and independent contractors. The "scientists" are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them. (Until they get tenure, that is.) And so that is the way they vote.
Re:Unscientific? (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties are stealing money from the public to give to their preferred interests. Republicans tend to steal to give to the needlessly greedy, and Democrats to give to the needlessly needy. I think the point the GP was making was that one thing Democrats tend to steal money for is university systems, which has a direct economic impact on the lives of scientists.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:1, Insightful)
They arrived at that number by rounding down. (No kidding!) The study actually says it's 97 out of 100. So instead of 1 in 10 not accepting evolution, it's less than 1 in 33.
Even that is a shockingly high number. How, in a survey of 2,533 scientists did they find 76 that didn't accept evolution? Even with the physicists and chemists in the mix?
Re:flat (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Catholic yet I don't believe the earth is flat. Since I wasn't alive back then, I don't know if the earth was flat or not. Maybe, back then, the earth was in fact flat. Your dad and probably yourself also believed that the earth travels in circles around the sun. That is of course false, we know today that the earth travels in a straight line in curved space-time.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, for fuck's sake.
This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.
1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.
Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
A number of things. For example, you choose to focus on CO2. While CO2 is associated with warming, there are an almost limitless number of other factors that also can contribute to warming (or cooling, for that matter). For example (taken from Wikipedia):
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36â"72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â"26%
* methane, which contributes 4â"9%
* ozone, which contributes 3â"7%
So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor (36%). Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2? Note that's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change. CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e. the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).
It also doesn't help that global warming proponents tend to be shrill absolutists who, instead of trying to convince people of their argument, are merely content to shout them down or denounce them as imbeciles. You may recall my first comment on your post. Your opener falls into such a category. It's not a way to win people over to your side even if you were to have all the facts (which you don't). Note this isn't a knock against you personally or the science of climatology; nobody has all the facts, because nobody fully understands all the variables (or even most of the variables) associated with our climate. We have theories and models that require constant tweaking, modifying, and massaging, and even then they fail to accurately predict both past and present weather trends. The disclosure that several high-profile warming proponents admitting to actually cooking their data (aka cherry picking) also doesn't help your cause, as it shows these people had political, economic, or ideological biases which drove them to commit scientific fraud.
If you care to respond to this, try to make it reasoned and tactful. Have all your facts, and admit that the totality of our knowledge about what's going on with the climate is anything but 100% sure. Claiming you've got it all nailed down with unassailable data is the surest sign that you've turned into a zealot. Nobody listens to zealots, even if they are sometimes right.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a Christian and a scientist (life sciences/mycology/forestry to be exact). Several of my closest colleges hold similar beliefs, though some are less "religious" than others (believe me, it makes for some very interesting conversations over our morning coffee!). Yet the prevailing cultural attitude we regularly face is that you are expected to either be a 7-day biblical literalist, or that you completely dismiss the Bible as an ancient myth. There seems to be no room for middle ground. Myself, I don't see why answering the question of our exact mechanism of creation is critical.
I believe in a God who, if He wanted to, could have guided evolution with humankind as a result, or could have created the world in 7 days complete with "historic" fossil and genetic evidence of evolution, or could have even ordered the entire universe (including us with all of our memories) into existence less than a second ago. Does it matter? What matters to me is that we're here, now, and that we need to do what we can to make the most of every moment we have. As a scientist, this means using my skills and knowledge to strive to make the world better through improvements in our understanding of the physical universe around us, and as a Christian this means seeking out a spiritual framework of meaning and purpose for my life that goes beyond just a physical existence. Maybe it's a bit naive of me, but I see religion and science as addressing two fundamentally different questions. I do not expect science to answer questions which lie outside of the observable, empirical world, and I do not expect my religious beliefs to completely explain the minutiae of the workings of the universe.
This is why I have no qualms about studying or writing about evolutionary processes as a Christian. It's the currently held scientific theory, based on the consensus of overwhelming empirical evidence. Just because something can appear to happen in the absence of a higher power, doesn't mean that the higher power cannot exist. Whether evolutionary evidence is genuine or was planted in a 6,000 year old earth that was designed to "look" old, it's still there, and in science you can't discount data simply because it doesn't fall in line with what you personally want it to be.
Re:reality is librul (Score:3, Insightful)
Fek nerml. Being "normal" means being average, run of the mill, a follower, a nonthinker, a - what's the word I want here? A frigging COLLECTIVIST!!!
Who wants to be a mere normal? Certainly not I.
Oh yeah. Normal today means blindly accepting the political movement regarding global warming. The article points out that researchers often find results that are palatable to the research funding agency. Hmmmm. That really begs the question: is the "consensus" of scientists unreasonably influenced by the funding or people with an agenda, or not?
Thanks everyone, but I'll remain skeptical of man made global warming. Any group that is more than half democrats is biased to start with.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is at odds with the Arctic ice melting due to global warming how?
It's not! This is exactly my point!
You cannot look at one aspect of one region in one layer of the atmosphere and consider it to be the nail in the coffin, case closed. It's like seeing someone with a headache and saying he's certainly got swine flu.
I'm not arguing against global warming. Please reread my post if you got that impression. The Earth is most definitely warming. We've diagnosed that in countless ways that are much less anecdotal than ice melting.
My point is that we are consuming ourselves with countless anecdotes of things like this and missing the real questions, which I listed above.
Re:Just a non-answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not try to answer the question with data or reasoned argument rather than a nice sophistic non-denial denial?
Because the scientific community and the wider internet is already awash with data and extraordinarily well reasoned arguments outlining the realities of anthropogenic climate change. Nothing I post on any website is going to change anyone's mind. It won't because it's become a politicized issue, which deniers traffic in talking points from propagandists and preachers.
It's not that they are misinformed, it is that they have made a decision from a political or religious perspective to deny reality. They push these long refuted talking points not because they are completely convinced of their accuracy or validity but rather because they have an intent to misinform. In truth they have no interest in the facts or the science behind the facts, except to the extent that they view such facts with hostility.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're right. I've got a co-worker who claims he's "not very green or environmental". I jokingly asked him if he goes on his property and dumps out oil and chemicals all over the place. He said of course not. I also know he's installed compact florescent bulbs to save money, over-insulated his house, and drives a fuel-efficient car. But "he's not very green".
A lot of arguments are really about "side of the room". Some people just don't want to be seen as being on the same side of the room with other people.
There's another side related to this same line of thinking. It's one where a certain way of thinking challenges you whole world view. For certain people global warming simply CAN'T be true because then human beings wouldn't be able to just do as they please with the planet without consequences. There's a lot of crossover between these two ideas.
For the above two groups of people, scientific argument simply doesn't work, as "it just can't be true!". You really have to win them over to the new "team" or "world view". For people who think rationally and scientifically getting people to your side using persuasive techniques is akin to blasphemy since you could convince people of anything this way.
Re:Unscientific? (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.
But your approach seems to rely on the assumption that you and your enlightened friends will be the only ones doing so. If everyone voted this way, then the incumbent would always lose. It would be, in effect, like passing a law that limited all candidates to a single term. This would only encourage politicians to grab as much as they can, as quickly as they can, and all the assumptive benefits of the first term (candidates basing their decisions on deep, objective consideration) would get tossed out the window. As such, your attitude seems cynical at best, and at worst, completely self-defeating.
Reality is larger than that. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is both true and focusing on a tree, not the forest. There's a lot more than this going on.
Re:reality is librul (Score:3, Insightful)
Modern farming is based on centuries of research and experimentation. Farmers have been performing genetic engineering for thousands of years.
Re:flat (Score:3, Insightful)
That story is bunk. Europeans, back to the Greeks (and probably before), knew that the world was round.
The debate that Columbus had wasn't whether it was round, but whether it was *small enough* that a ship could sail westward to reach "the Orient" before running out of provisions, instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route. It turns out the answer is: "no, it's not." So Columbus was wrong, but lucky.
And to dispell another commonly-held myth, North America had long been visited by Norse explorers. The evidence for this is extremely, extremely strong. (Even if you don't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America.)
Re:Bad question (Score:1, Insightful)
The size of a planet is not the size of its orbit. The electrons themselves have been measured to be ~ 10^-18 cm. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle#Point_particle_properties [wikipedia.org]
On the other hand, the size of a solar system is the size of the planets' orbits. Atoms measure about 10^-8 cm.
Re:reality is librul (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just Horwitz crap. If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics. The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:reality is librul (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, I had wondered about that for a long time — how such smart people can be so dumb. But the cause finally occurred to me — professors are idealists. This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists. Personally, I am a Centrist, which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.
Re:Serious problem with this Pew poll (Score:3, Insightful)
Look if you do enough research to look up sample bias and self selection, surely you can do enough research to actually follow the link and read the methodology of the study you're claiming is suffering from them. For example, they control for self selection in the study using statistics on contact methodology between respondents and the public. Your claim that the AAAS is a "liberal" organization is likewise a completely subjective opinion based upon the stated goals of the organization and your own, arbitrary definition of "liberal" as it is a decidedly not affiliated with any political party. Finally, your comments about anyone being able to join are misguided as the study was not of the general membership and weeded out nonscientists using survey questions and the information the AAAS had on its members, for example eliminating all primary and secondary education professionals.
Basically, it looks to me like you have a belief you're trying to support, so you're looking for anything that might support it without looking too deeply. A real scientist forms opinions logically and rationally, rather than simply using those as methods to defend an opinion already formed.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't necessarily consider myself a "global warming denier" but I do have a problem with those that claim "the debate is over". The debate is never over. Here's my take, first I have to be convinced that the world is actually warming. Considering that there is sufficient debate on how much, and even IF, the world is warming the debate is far from over. The historical records on temperatures were not always taken with the highest level of scientific rigor. Claiming a rise in global temperature of 0.2C is difficult to swallow since even finding a thermometer with that level of precision, and applying it to something as poorly defined as "global temperature", is nearly impossible.
Assuming I am convinced that the world is warming then I would have to be convinced that it is caused by human activity. With all the life on earth, all the geologic activity, and the solar variation I find it difficult that any one can say, with even the slightest level of confidence, that human activity is the primary driver in global temperatures. The oceans cover 3/4 of Earth's surface, that is a lot of water to soak up carbon dioxide and sustain plant life to consume it. I find it difficult to believe that humans pumping oil out of the ground can overwhelm that massive of a carbon sink.
Assume that I am convinced that humans have somehow thrown the Earth atmosphere out of balance and are now warming the planet. I'd still have to be convinced that global warming is a bad thing. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that human activity is causing the CO2 levels in the air to rise. With more CO2 plants become more robust, and can grow in places they could not before. Some people may be driven from their homes by rising sea levels but on the whole human civilization is now better off because food is more plentiful.
I do my best to be "green" but I have my limits. I bought some CFL bulbs and will very likely never do so again. I've had too many of those bulbs fail prematurely, I found out that those bulbs interfere with IR remotes, they have an unpleasant color, and introduce mercury into my home. I've had a coworker point out how using an incandescent bulb means more mercury spewed out from coal fired power plants. First, that mercury is "out there" and not "in here". That mercury being spilled into the outside air is very different than a broken CFL bulb in my home. Second, if people were truly concerned and informed about mercury in the environment they'd be screaming for more nuclear power. The same goes for CO2, nuclear power is second only to hydroelectric in "carbon footprint". That may sound counter intuitive given how "green" wind and solar are but the manufacture of those windmills and solar panels requires the very carbon heavy industries of refining aluminum and silicon. Nuclear power requires plenty of CO2 production in the pouring of concrete but it is more than offset over the life of the plant in comparison.
One thing that makes me very skeptical of global warming is that the global warming people talk about how many people that agree with them, that is just bandwagon and propaganda. The people that deny global warming point out the temperature data, the poorly maintained and poorly placed weather stations, solar activity, among other things. The global warming deniers tend to talk about facts, not how Al Gore told them it is so.
Re:reality is librul (Score:5, Insightful)
You think money alone shows support and respect for science? Wrong! The Republican regard for science is very backhanded. They don't hesitate to cook evidence to fit the conclusions they think they want, and, you know, that costs money. Remember Iraq? No WMDs! Remember that lying idiot who dared to censor Hansen's research to take out anything that might show there is global warming, and while he was at it, also censored it of all suggestions that Evolution was accepted science? There are dozens of skewed studies that supposedly show there is no global warming, tobacco isn't addictive, our food isn't unhealthy, pollution isn't causing cancer or birth defects or other health problems, or anything else some industry thinks they want. The religious wackos have embraced these techniques wholeheartedly, to push their own agendas such as the "controversy" over Evolution vs Creationism. It's an entirely manufactured controversy. And they do this without seeming to understand that what they're really doing is lying. The Republican party has become an unholy alliance between liars for industry and liars for God. As has been said, they make facts based on decisions, not decisions based on facts.
Republicans at least see the respect people have for science, or they wouldn't bother faking it. What they don't get is that faked science is worthless. They really seem to have a hard time understanding that crucial point. It's really amazing how they can puke out some rubbish anecdotes and think that's on par with evidence collected in a professional, disinterested manner. They also don't hesitate to try a snow job, that is, "doubt is our product".
Re:reality is librul (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I am a Centrist, which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.
On which spectrum? If you're a "centrist" in U.S., that means you're well into the right in most other Western countries, and not really a centrist there at all.
Re:reality is librul (Score:3, Insightful)
Dem politicos tend to favor more funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities.
Academica is unionized? Did I somehow miss that memo?
Re:reality is librul (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a "preconceived" if there's evidence for it.