Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans 460

cold fjord writes The Woodrow Wilson School reports, "If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit 'warmer,' according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm. In particular, Americans seem wary of researchers seeking grant funding and do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality. 'Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust,' said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of public affairs. 'But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment. Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

Comments Filter:
  • Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2014 @08:58AM (#48018899)

    Fox news goes on and on to perpetuate the idea that scientists would rather be shamed and discredited by releasing junk science to receive grant money than be honored as brilliant to discover something profound. I swear those people are nitwits.

    • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lorenlal ( 164133 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:07AM (#48018979)

      ^^This

      The fact that a good chunk of the population has been repeatedly fed that scientists are every bit as corrupt as the politicians (and ironically enough, the big money backers) that they'd compromise their standards for cash has done more damage than and lack of personability or "warmness."

      • Re:Fox News? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:15AM (#48019049) Homepage Journal

        I think there's a bigger problem. The US is a nation of rebels. We almost all see ourselves rebelling against [insert personal selection of powerful entities in the country here]. And we tend to see the people rebelling against something substantially different as being aligned with [our evil of choice]. Christians rebelling against secular satanists, atheists rebelling against Christian hegemony. Racist fucks rebelling against the "PC police", minorities and allies rebelling against bigoted fuckwads.

        I'm not saying that every group has an accurate perception of the things they're rebelling against, nor am I saying that rebellion is entirely unwarranted. Just that "Not trusting" scientists occurs because they're "the system" to certain groups.

        • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:29AM (#48019727)

          If we were a nation of rebels we'd have lined our telecom exec's and board members against a wall and shot them, mulched them and prepared the wall for RIAA/MPAA/IP activists, and finally have led violent revolt against pretty much everyone in congress.

          Instead we bend over backwards to accomodate dysfunctional, greedy monopolies. Watch idly as 12yo's are prosecuted for "piracy" and vote the same clowns in again.

          We haven't been rebels in a real long time.

        • True point. You can add to that the fact that each party is certain the other party is trying to turn the country into a dictatorship (Bush is hitler, Obama thinks he's emperor, etc)
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well, in all fairness, things like a certain stem cell paper recently published and retracted does a hell of a lot more to convince me of corruption in academia than anything Fox News has ever published.

        • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:57AM (#48019423)

          You mean the corruption that was quickly discredited? That corruption? Working as designed. Try as they may, the climate scientists can't be discredited. Fox refuses to acknowledge that.

      • Re:Fox News? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:09AM (#48019527)
        There is a lot of poor science reported on Fox news. And there is just as much reported on every other network and major media outlet. If you don't recognize that, you may be part of the problem.
      • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Vitriol+Angst ( 458300 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:26AM (#48019689)

        I think that critical thinking skills are something that scientists cannot trust American citizens to have. We are lead to believe that someone would have around 16 years of higher education, and take a job that pays at least a third of what they could make with the math and technical skills if they became stock brokers or media pundits -- and they do all this so they can lie about a passion for seeking truth and knowledge. It shows a complete lack of empathy or understanding of human nature.

        If I'm wanting to rip people off, I'll open a pay-day loan or a bank and charge bounce fees to poor people -- I don't need to waste time with difficult science to fudge a climate report in the desperate hope of getting a meager research grant.

        The Crooks that own the media and hire think tanks to make every controversy like dealing with the Tobacco industry -- they are to blame. They are a cancer on society. We have to do something about these idle, useless rich people gaming the system to ruin it for everyone else. What, are they not able to afford a prostitute and enough steak to eat? These entitled parasites need to be shut down. We face a few existential crisis right now but we can't deal with Climate Change or the end of cheap labor (replaced by robots) because money owns politics and the media.

    • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cranky_chemist ( 1592441 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:16AM (#48019051)

      It's not just Fox. It's a problem with journalists in general.

      Journalists are taught to present "both sides" of a story. This approach, however, leads to journalists giving charlatans "equal time." Thus, the public wrongly assumes that scientists must be split 50/50 on important issues like climate change. The reality, of course, is that the split is far closer to 99/1 than to 50/50.

      The REAL underlying problem is that journalists don't know enough science to be able to spot a crackpot when they see/hear one.

      • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:35AM (#48019249)

        >The REAL underlying problem is that journalists don't know enough science to be able to spot a crackpot when they see/hear one.

        Don't know, or don't *care*? The major media outlets in this country are all controlled by a very small group of very powerful people with definite agendas, who then send a message down the heirarchy about what kind of behavior is expected. Things like "fair and balanced" reporting of largely one-sided issues is almost certainly one of those things. People who don't trust science are far easier to manipulate after all, regardless of your agenda.

        • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:39AM (#48019271)

          Oh and how they care! But they care for controversity. A panel discussion with all participants agreeing would sink the ratings.

          "Fair and balanced" is not a reminder that you have to hear multiple viewpoints, but an excuse to pit them up agains each other for maximum drama.

        • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rob Y. ( 110975 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:13AM (#48019553)

          Most of the bogus scientific breakthroughs are "amazing medical advances" and "promising cancer treatments" that have no business being in the popular media at all - given their untested status at the time they're released. This is largely a media problem (isn't everything these days), driven by an over-competitive media landscape in which consumers' attention is all that matters. But it's also a trap scientists themselves can fall into. There often are large financial involvements at stake, and the media are all too easily manipulated. None of which is to say that the scientific method and peer review don't win out in the end. Science pursues all kinds of dead ends - we're just not supposed to hear about them. And that's not any kind of cover-up; it's how the process works - and it does work.

          • Quite so, but might I suggest rephrasing that last line to avoid invoking coverups? After all, even a denial of such a thing reinforces the beliefs of those who are so inclined. try:

            Scientists pursue all kinds of potential dead ends - we're just not supposed to take them seriously until they've survived years of peer review and earned acceptance by the broader scientific community.

      • The reality, of course, is that the split is far closer to 99/1 than to 50/50.

        the manifestation of this by John Oliver [youtube.com]

      • Re:Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:01AM (#48019459)

        False equivalence. Although equal airtime for all views is silly, Fox intentionally distorts facts and dialog to fit their agenda. WMD's in Iraq? A certainty, well after all the other news outlets have given up on that. Obama a Muslim? Obama not an American citizen (even though the fact that his mother is one made him one). How long did they go on and on about that? Obama a weak socialist tyrant? (How does that even work?) Their news is opinion and their opinion is whatever is the opposite of Obama. It's a crying fucking shame. We need a decent opposition party.

  • by lesincompetent ( 2836253 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @08:59AM (#48018907)
    I pity USA scientists. It must be hard to live and work in a country where the powers that be turned all facts into opinions.
    • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:08AM (#48018987) Homepage Journal

      Eh. I don't entirely disagree, but...

      It could be Italy, where failing to predict an earthquake lands you in jail.
      Or it could be China, where grants don't actually cover the costs of your experiments, and many scientists publish faked results on some work to pay for the science they want to do.
      Or it could be Iran, where being a scientists in the wrong field nets you a free gift box of bullets delivered straight to your cranium, courtesy of the CIA(okay that's the US's fault too).
      Let's not forget that only few decades ago, in the Soviet Union, several entire schools of academics(like sociology) were considered outright verboten to study, on the grounds that they weren't Marxist.

      And the US still has the single biggest science economy in the world, even if that's massively and disproportionately military in nature.

      The problems are voters have with understanding and appreciating science definitely hold us back, but it could be a lot worse.

      • OT: The story of the italian scientists has been somewhat twisted. They were sent to jail because they explicitly said there was NOT going to be a strong earthquake.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by johanw ( 1001493 )

          Whatever, anyone can predict that this will lead to so many false earthquake alarms that no one is going to take them serious anymore.

      • As I mentioned before, just a few days: the scientists in Italy are not convicted for not predicting an earthquake, but for having the data of a strong indication for an earth quake and issuing no warning about it to any authority. That is a _huge_ difference!

    • by Evtim ( 1022085 )

      And how is this different than any other "developed" nation? Sure, the US has taken "everything is for sale" to an absurd level [politics and religion are also for sale there, let alone mere science] but the plague is spreading everywhere else too...

      There is nothing to be done about it. All the advices to scientists to do this or that in order to improve the image and raise awareness are stupid, because we are not fighting people's ignorance here. No, we are fighting propaganda supported by immensely powerf

      • >There is nothing to be done about it.

        That's a bit defeatist I think. I think you're probably right about the destructive nature of an organiation of scientists - there's a reason for the old saw about how all beuracracies eventually come to work against the principles they were founded on, and intertwining that poison seed with the scientific establishment sounds like an excellent way to undermine scientific credibility in the long term. Especially considering the number of interests who would be spec

    • by SirGeek ( 120712 ) <sirgeek-slashdot@nOsPAm.mrsucko.org> on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:23AM (#48019121) Homepage

      I pity USA scientists. It must be hard to live and work in a country where the powers that be turned all facts into opinions.

      Or worse. Where their "faith" trumps your Facts, Data and empirical evidence.

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      Unlike the EU that closes Nuclear plants when the science clearly shows they actually save lives.

      • "Unlike the EU that closes Nuclear plants when the science clearly shows they actually save lives."

        Strangely enough, the Germans had so much solar and wind power without the nukes, that they exported it to countries for so low a price (sometimes for free) that those countries had to shut down reactors too. Especially the Swiss were not amused.

        And the 'saving lives' part I will believe when the ashes are cooled down in 200.000 years without hurting anybody.
        And if the sites and the guards will have been paid

      • by johanw ( 1001493 )

        The Japanese might disagree.

  • by dave314159259 ( 1107469 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:07AM (#48018977)
    Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
    • Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.

      +1, Insightful. How in the hell did you get modded down for this comment?

    • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:25AM (#48019683)

      >Science is not about trust

      Certainly it is - the very core of the scientific method is the peer review which winnows through the morass of contradictory results coming from different inevitably fallible scientists to find the ones that are reproducible - that can be trusted and built upon.

      The fact that it's not about trusting individuals, and in fact integrates distrusting them into the very core of it's principles, is what makes the results that survive the gauntlet so much more trustworthy than anything else in the human experience. The most trustworthy individual on the planet is still rife with self-deception and fallibility - science is the art of building knowledge about the universe that's far more trustworthy than the people who built it.

  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:09AM (#48018991)

    The entire goddamn point of science is that you prove the theory using experiment, publish a paper explaining what you did and how you did it, and then anybody else [who is competent] can go read the paper and reproduce similar results for themselves.

    The real issue here is the part I put in square brackets as an aside: "anybody [who is competent]." It's true that if you're not competent then you need to trust something. But what you need to trust is not the individual scientists themselves, but rather that competent people will, as a group, follow the process and weed out the disproven theories.

  • by teslabox ( 2790587 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:12AM (#48019009) Homepage

    It's very challenging for non-scientists to tell the difference between good science, obsolete science that is used to sell defective products, and charlatan science - 'lipstick on a pig'.

    If real scientists want respect, they need to call out Wall Street for all the ways it profits from the obesity epidemic.

  • by kruach aum ( 1934852 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:12AM (#48019011)

    The American public can make even the basest effort in trying to understand the world for themselves and immediately grasp the complete irrelevance of perceived "warmth" when it comes to judging what is true and what is not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Eunuchswear ( 210685 )

      Hey come on, you're talking about a group of people who voted for Bush instead of Kerry because they'd rather have a beer with Bush.

      Forgetting that Bush is a recovering alcoholic.

      Have fun drinking with that guy!

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:14AM (#48019031)

    Maybe scientists would be friendlier if the 'average American' wasn't a proctologic habersashery.

    It is not a scientists job to teach people science. Their job is to do science. Furthermore, the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes who insist on pushing their own personal politics.

    And then, of course, scientists will get raked over the coals because they are not allowed to be a human being, who gets frustrated and bitchy when being forced to deal with such crap.

    The problem is that there is no one clear problem. The media don't know jack about science, but insist on reporting it. North American culture in general has become profoundly anti-intellectual. There are other issues as well, but those are the most directly relevant.

    What we need are more *spokespersons* for science. More Neil deGrasse Tysons. People who BOTH understand the science AND have the skill to teach it to laypeople. Hell, IMO general media should be banned outright from discussing scientific topics, since they don't seem to be able to do anything BUT screw it up.

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:29AM (#48019719) Journal

      Maybe scientists would be friendlier......the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes

      'Climategate' involved people being happy at the death of scientists they disagreed with. I don't think you understand the meaning of 'friendlier.'

      Climategate was basically a bunch of assholes being revealed as assholes.

  • Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions.'"

    So, the study calls for presenters rather than scientists? It is difficult to find balance, but I'm inclined to think that scents should just do the science, and they'd better be well left alone. It's up to the (gasp!) media or to their institution's press department to sensibilise the public in general to the science being done and what it means.

    • by RabidReindeer ( 2625839 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:27AM (#48019165)

      Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions.'"

      So, the study calls for presenters rather than scientists? It is difficult to find balance, but I'm inclined to think that scents should just do the science, and they'd better be well left alone. It's up to the (gasp!) media or to their institution's press department to sensibilise the public in general to the science being done and what it means.

      This isn't a problem unique to science. For decades, IT people have been told that they need to focus less on technology and more on "the business".

      F**K! If they don't focus on the technology, who will? Or can? Might as well not have technology people.

      Yes, there is very much a place for the people who can plant feet in two different worlds. But don't go around expecting much progress if you demand that everybody be that kind of person.

  • Fucked both ways (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 )

    In particular, Americans [...] do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. [...] But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment.

    The whole fucking planet knows we've got environmental problems except the people in the U.S.A. because they trust religion and politicians more than scientists who are "pushing an agenda". I pity the real scientists living there, they just can't fucking win.

  • by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:20AM (#48019087) Homepage

    Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust,' said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of public affairs

    it was only fairly recently that someone explained the absolutely crucial difference between trust and respect, and it knocked me sideways. i used to always accept the "wisdom" that trust is EARNED.

    trust - literally by definition- CANNOT be EARNED.

    *respect* can be earned, because to respect someone (or something) you learn from PAST experience and PAST actions, you make a judgement call "that thing (or person) did something cool [in the PAST], and i liked it."

    trust - by definition - refers to the FUTURE. i am - in the FUTURE - going to give someone the power and authority to do something. i (the person doing the trusting) actually have absolutely NO CLUE as to whether in the FUTURE, regardless of PAST performance, the person will do what they say that they can do.

    how on earth can _anyone_ say, "you earned (past tense) my trust (future decision-making)"????

    this is how wars are started (and sustained), by people confusing past and present in relation to trust and respect.

    so this is where it gets interesting, because the original article is actually making TWO completely SEPARATE and distinct statements:

    1) the american public has analysed the PAST actions of scientists, and finds that those actions are [in some way] cool enough to be respected (past tense)

    2) the american public has, within themselves, insufficient knowledge about what it is that scientists do - and this has absolutely nothing to do with the scientists but EVERYTHING to do with "the american public" - in order to take the [frightening!] step of placing their trust in the FUTURE decision-making of some individuals-that-happen-to-be-scientists.

    i cannot emphasise enough that a decision *to* trust has absolutely nothing to do with the person or thing that you are trusting. the *decision* to place trust in someone else really *really* is something that has absolutely nothing to do with the *analysis* of whether *to* trust.

    this is where people get terribly confused. they do some analysis (based usually on past performance), and then they have to make a decision. they *believe* that the [past] analysis *IS* trust. it's not!! even once the [past] analysis has been done, you *still* need to take that step - to trust.

    the link between respect and trust is that it is *usually* the respect that we have for people which tips our analysis in favour of certain individuals. but the analysis is NOT respect itself, just as trust (the decision to trust) is not the same thing as respect _either_.

    now what i find ironic is that it is someone with a degree in psychology that is talking about trust being "earned". if someone whom the american public implicitly "trusts" (because they have a PhD) is saying "trust is earned" then how is anyone else supposed to know the difference between trust and respect??

  • I wonder if (Score:4, Interesting)

    by James-NSC ( 1414763 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:20AM (#48019091) Homepage
    (just one example) I wonder if Southern Baptist - of the Fire Brimstone leaning - are seen as "trustworthy" more/less than scientists. I'd wager they are, and I'd double down that it has little to do with how "warm/fuzzy" they come off as.

    I'd wager this has much less to do with scientists coming off as "warm/fuzzy" and more to do with most people’s innate distrust of those that deliver either information they don't agree with (or more specifically that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions) or information that makes them feel stupid - when the majority hears about something they are too ignorant to understand, they don't like/trust the person with that idea - but that's just human nature.

    While "scientists" do have their problems (journals / peer review circle-jerks / et al) I fear the only way they'll come across as "warm/fuzzy" would be if they "dumb it down" even more and that's not a direction we should be going, as we're already down to -11.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:29AM (#48019189)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Americans trust science too much. If you can cite a study to prove your point you have won the argument. This has been noticed by the political class and they have designed studies to allow them to win the political argument or get the headline they want. For instance, the famous Harvard study that came up with the conclusion that medical bills cause greater than 60% of bankruptcies used as a criteria that if there were over $5000 in medical bills that caused the bankruptcy. Just about every year I have tha

    • If you can cite a study to prove your point you have won the argument.

      That's not trusting science too much, that's laziness. Usually the person citing the study has a tenuous grasp of what it really says, and in all but a handful of cases they are betting on the fact that few people will bother to look it up and read it themselves.

      You can tell this is what's going on, because it only further polarizes people; if the "study" reinforces their existing view, then it's the best thing ever, and if not then the scientists who did it are clearly corrupt or they're just plain wrong.

  • What about him? Do they find him to be too cold and unlikable as well?
  • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:56AM (#48019415)

    We really need to stop doing that. When science is seen as being a part of politics, the public assumes that the facts we discover by observation of nature can be manipulated and bargained away in the same way as the laws made by legislatures.

    • by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @11:09AM (#48020019) Homepage

      than that.

      It's not that the public doesn't trust the abilities of scientists.

      It's that they don't trust their motives. We have a long literary tradition that meditates on scientists that "only cared about whether they could, not whether they should," and the politicization of sciences makes people wonder not whether scientists are incompetent, but whether they have "an agenda," i.e. whether scientists are basically lying through their teeth and/or pursuing their own political agendas in the interest of their own gain, rather than the public's.

      At that point, it's not that the public thinks "If I argue loudly enough, I can change nature," but rather "I don't understand what this scientist does, and I'm sure he/she is smart, but I don't believe they're telling me about nature; rather, they're using their smarts to pull the wool over my eyes about nature and profit/benefit somehow."

      So the public isn't trying to bend the laws of nature through discourse, but rather simply doesn't believe the people that are telling them about the laws of nature, because they suspect those people as not acting in good faith.

      That's where a kinder, warmer scientific community comes in. R1 academics with million-dollar grants may sneer at someone like Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers, but that sneering is counterproductive; the public won't understand (and doesn't want to) the rigorous, nuanced state of the research on most topics. It will have to be given to them in simplified form; Alan Alda and others in that space did so, and the scientific community needs to support (more of) that, rather than sneer at it.

      The sneering just reinforces the public notion that "this guy may be smarter than me, but he also thinks he's better and more deserving than me, so I can't trust that what he's telling me is really what he thinks/knows, rather than what he needs to tell me in order to get my stuff and/or come out on top in society, deserving or not."

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Scientist is just a label that any one can give to themselves. There is nothing preventing any human from calling themselves a scientist.

    And it is so true with those that manipulate the populous for their own profits. Only a fool would have to llook further than the global warming billionaires.

  • by DriveDog ( 822962 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:06AM (#48019493)
    When "scientists" discuss harsh facts that may have disastrous consequences, people think they're exaggerating, trying to be persuasive, and not being impartial.
  • by Rambo Tribble ( 1273454 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:57AM (#48019929) Homepage
    ... most scientists view Americans as incompetent and untrustworthy.
  • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @11:19AM (#48020107) Journal

    TFS quotes the lead author as saying:

            "... do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality. ...
            But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment."

    "Showing concern for the environment", in a scientific paper, generally means at least the appearance of pushing a "green" agenda. The first sentence applies to me, I do not trust people trying to persuade me to their agenda, I want impartiality. That means her proposed solution is precisely the opposite of what would work with me - I want the facts, the numbers, and the numbers don't have care and concern, for humanity or the environment. The facts are what they are. Give me the facts and let me decide what I most care about about, which concern takes priority.

    One of my favorite papers* goes through each potential national energy source and gives the benefits and drawbacks of each. It says "geothermal produces X kwh, in these locations, at this cost". It doesn't try to promote any of the options, but just lays out the facts about each. The closest it comes to advocacy is calculating approximately what percentage of energy needs COULD possibly be provided by each source, based on hard facts.

    * My opinion of this particular paper is highly subjective - I wrote it. :)

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...