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.
Re:Education Gap (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this. He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world. E.g. I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought. He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex."
I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out. It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.
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.
Re:Unscientific? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I think its a more psychological effect, like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more. If you leave the same person, party or attitude in office long enough, you stop noticing what they're doing in any positive light so you switch it up. After a while, the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again.
Re:Education Gap (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.
I have known several priests and bishops in various faiths over the years, and many of them hold multiple doctorates and/or masters degrees (they have nothing better to do than read, one would think). One bishop (who has since passed) was psychologist for years before joining the priesthood. A priest here in Maryland is an electrical engineer, another priest has a masters in Russian literature (again, before he joined the priesthood) which he obtained in the 1970s. Another man I know of, who is now in his forties, had 4 doctorate degrees before he decided to join the priesthood. I know at least 6 bishops offhand that have doctors in theology or psychology.
Anyone, no matter what education level, can fall into ruts where they are only willing to believe what they believe and that's it, this includes both theologians and scientists.
A Republican Scientist Reporting (Score:2, Interesting)
But I also find the idea of large government to be entrapping and without any verifiable benefit to society. I prefer the self regulation of capitalism
And really, who can disagree with the idea of renewable resources, either from an environmental, social, or military perspective? I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer only.
I find that my political objectives are aligned with the "Democratic" party, but my prefered method is much more similar to the "Republican" party (I prefer the terms "socialist" and "privatist" as they more accurately reflect the ideas, but the party names are what they are unfortunately). So, philosophically or functionally I am a Republican, but my goals are socially liberal (not to be confused with the political Democratic Party).
Basically, I want my personal freedom.
Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible.
On the subject of poor quality questions, one of the the questions to test the public's knowledge of science [people-press.org] was
Electrons are smaller than atoms. (True/False)
46% of the general public said true and, at first, I was thinking that for more than half of the general public to not understand about atoms and electrons was a pretty poor showing.
But then I got to thinking about whether an electron is, in fact, smaller than an atom. Sure, the rest mass of an electron is much smaller than the rest mass of an atom. Maybe that's what the question was trying to ask. But the way the question is worded seems to imply a spatial size. When you're dealing with objects as light as electrons, the whole notion of size is non-intuitive (probability distributions described by wave functions).
Maybe they had their reasons for not simply asking whether an electron was more massive than an atom - or maybe whoever put the survey together some gaps in their own science education.
Re:flat (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It would help if the media weren't clueless too (Score:1, Interesting)
I am also very confused by this attitude.
I was attempting to have a debate with a person from my community recently, (the actual issue is irrelevant here) and this person kept throwing bible verses at me as evidence. Now, I respect the bible for *some* of it's teachings, but I have problems accepting the bible literally, particularly if you consider that the actual books were not written by god/jesus/any supreme being, but rather by a person's recollections, which were later translated, sometimes poorly.
It's very difficult to argue with this kind of person. They use evidence which I do not accept, and can not understand why I don't appreciate it. If you want to use that for your own life that's fine, but when it begins infringing on the rights of others, you better be able back up your assertions with more than "I can give you X numbers of bible verses which prove Im right."
If there's one thing I've learned, don't try to argue with religious nutjobs.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:0, Interesting)
On a private poll, with anonymous data, you think they'd lie to get government funds? WTF?
I think it's more likely that the Republican party has been openly associating itself with bizarre irrational people for years now, and it's damaged the party's credibility with anyone who values rationality. At least the left shoves their serious looney-tunes people out of the spotlight where possible. To find a lefty crackpot, you generally have to dig around to find some college professor or blogger who said something loopy; with the right you just have to turn on your TV and look at what shrieking madman the Crackpot Institute has paid to do the rounds, or what Senator Psycho said today.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like the ABC Australia author took part of this article and added his own interpretation. Notice that Dr. Allison is not quoted in the crucial sentences on either article. My guess is that the scientific journalists (who are not scientists themselves) are putting words in his mouth.
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. (emphasis mine)
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.
I'm more inclined to believe this is closer to Dr. Allison's view as it encompasses long range thinking and there's a direct quote attached.
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. (emphasis mine)
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
So this is where the ABC article is getting it's information. Dr. Allison is saying that these are episodic carvings but that over a long period it's stable. The ABC author is just looking at the carving going on this year and created a sentence (that is not a direct quote from Dr Allison) saying that Antarctic is losing ice. This is a myopic and misinforming view in my opinion, as it's short term and does not represent the overall situation in Antarctica.
Re:religion is not where the truth is (Score:1, Interesting)
A little off topic?
FYI - Christianity doesn't claim to deliver by what exact process things happened. It does say, briefly in the first books, that it all ultimately came from one source. How it went from there is left out.
So, just asking.... to you, everything just is? I'm not talking about evolution by natural selection, I'm talking about before our universe, according to you, just magically exploded into existence.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)
Prince Charles has started a petition
Prince Charles wants to return to the land of his forefathers where the Royal Family was held in high esteem and he could withdraw to his country estate to shoot deer and poachers for fun. The fact this his idyllic picture of yesteryear coincides with a currently fashionable environmental movement shouldn't fool you into supporting him. He's prat, if he had more power he would be a dangerous prat.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)
Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.
This is interesting, and as best as I can tell, sort-of correct. Remove the words "vast" and "heavily", and I think you're on base. The best survey I could get was from 1960, unfortunately - more modern attempts I found had poor methodology or were not cited. However, to varying degrees, there does seem to be a trend: The most liberal group by far is social scientists, followed by hard scientists who tend to be more moderate (but still liberal-leaning), followed by engineers, who tend (slightly) toward conservatism.
It's worth noting that in all disciplines, from science to business to plumbing, folks who earn higher degrees tend to be more moderate. Statistics on political affiliation by education level are badly poisoned - even contemporaneous studies show wildly different results. Anyone can cherry-pick studies showing that higher education favors their party. However, everyone appears to agree that people with little education are the most polarized politically, and that education gradually mitigates this.
Re:reality is librul (Score:4, Interesting)
> Who wants to be a mere normal? Certainly not I.
Whether one aspires to be normal or not, depends on which side of the mean you lie in a normal distribution. For you I'm pretty sure it would be a step in the right direction.
> Any group that is more than half democrats is biased to start with.
The majority of climate scientists are not American and thus neither democrats nor republicans. Does that make them more credible to you ? Or do scientists need to be predominantly right wing to be credible in your world ?
Re:reality is librul (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that. The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&D to its highest levels in 30+ years. [aaas.org] The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton. But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that's not really the point. The reason why Ph.D.'s would be expected more trustworthy on a topic outside their expertise (certainly more than a member of the general populus who is out of his element) is that they have a demonstrable ability to construct a hypothesis and support it through facts and arguments. While this does not mean that they are *right*, it does mean that they more likely to recognize an argument as well-constructed or so much anally-directed smoke.
So, in general, I put more trust in the opinions of a random person with a Ph.D. than a random person without one. But of course I'd think that. I have a Ph.D.
Re:55% say they are Democrats (Score:1, Interesting)
Once the democrats have been in power for 8 years, and have cut some budgets and put politics before science in a few decisions, I wonder if the tide will shift.
Besides, how does that compare to the general population? Is anyone willing to call themselves Republican these days? For all I know, the general population is 8% Rep, 55% dem (or whatever the exact numbers from the article are).