Scientists Top List of Most Trusted Professionals In US (theguardian.com) 232
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Scientists have topped a survey of trusted professions, with adults in the U.S. more confident that they act in the public's best interests than employees from any other line of work studied. The survey found that confidence in scientists has risen markedly since 2016 and more than half of American adults believe the specialists should be actively involved in policy decisions surrounding scientific matters. The upswing in public trust, a rise of 10 percentage points since 2016, led to 86% of U.S. adults expressing at least a "fair amount" of confidence that scientists put the public interest first. The trust rating placed scientists above politicians, the military, business leaders, school principals and journalists. Trust in non-scientific professions has remained largely stable since 2016 with school heads on 77%, religious leaders on 57%, journalists on 47%, business leaders on 46% and politicians earning the lowest mark at 35%, the survey by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC found.
Power and trust (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like trust is inversely correlated with power. If you can't fuck me there's no downside to me trusting you.
Re:Power and trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like trust is inversely correlated with power. If you can't fuck me there's no downside to me trusting you.
Indeed. The last time a police officer pulled me over for a minor infraction he noted that I appeared nervous. I didn't want to inflame the situation so I kept my mouth shut so I didn't tell him that "well let's see, I'm being detained against my will by someone who could shoot me dead for no reason and face nothing worse than a paid vacation ("administrative leave") and the idea of "well if you're not a real criminal you have nothing to fear" requires a level of trust in the system that maybe my grandparents had but is not common today." I was kind, I showed proper respect, and I received a traffic ticket, yes, but I knew damned well this came from someone who has a million and one ways they can fuck me over and make my life hell, so okay, that makes me nervous. Note all the cases of filming in public being perfectly legal, yet police intimidating and issuing trumpted-up charges against bystanders who video them carrying out their jobs in a public space. I was asked some unnecessary questions like whether I have guns or contraband, which I truthfully answered "no", but otherwise I was fortunate that the nice officer didn't use one of the many ways he could have given me hell. The fact that the "court costs" were SEVERAL TIMES more expensive than the actual ticket penalty is another matter, though I wonder why I pay all these taxes if not to support things like the court system but then I digress.
If you don't have a healthy distrust of power -- especially power with little ability to hold it accountable because the one wielding it has a form of sovereign immunity -- then you're just plain naive. Science has its own brand of religions and heretics and orthodoxy, what it takes to get funding, egos and personalities, how paradigm shifts are long overdue etc, but at least it has a modicum of being fact-based. It isn't based on the point of a gun as all politics and power ultimately is.
Sadly though what you speak of isn't really "trust" or accountability at all. Real trust is based on mutual respect and full-disclosure type of knowledge with confidence that errors are really honest mistakes and are likely to be quickly corrected in light of new facts. In terms of institutions, especially armed bureaucracies, this is indeed a precious rarity.
Re: (Score:3)
Your nervousness is illogical. You're more likely to drive yourself into a tree than be shot by a cop at a traffic stop unless you start some shit with him.
And yet most Americans don't believe in science (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting their faith in Trump and religion instead.
Re:And yet most Americans don't believe in science (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He pretty much is president, is he not? And the US pretty much still claims to be a democracy, does it not? Hence whoever gets voted into office essentially represents the people and their attitudes and limitations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...Hence whoever gets voted into office essentially represents the people and their attitudes and limitations.
That's a interesting theory. Unfortunately it gets thrown out the damn window almost every election, because the only thing we're actually voting on, is choosing the lesser of two evils.
Trump is president because most Americans did NOT want Clinton in that position.
Re: (Score:2)
...Hence whoever gets voted into office essentially represents the people and their attitudes and limitations.
That's a interesting theory. Unfortunately it gets thrown out the damn window almost every election, because the only thing we're actually voting on, is choosing the lesser of two evils.
Trump is president because a minority of Americans did NOT want Clinton in that position.
FTFY. Don't forget that Clinton got more votes than Trump. The electoral college count fell in his favor and that's the one that matters, but if you're talking about "most Americans" (who bothered to vote), more of them considered her the lesser evil.
Re: (Score:3)
but if you're talking about "most Americans" (who bothered to vote)
Or more accurately who were allowed to vote. A number of states which Trump won by very slim majorities had recently instituted very restrictive voter ID laws and voter purges. Trump won WI by 23k votes, for example. The then-AG of the state went on a radio talk show afterwards and pointed to the new voter-ID law as what tipped the scales for Trump [apnews.com]. Missing from that was him talking about how the DOT, to "save money" closed a number of DMV offices and reduced the hours at others at the same time, making it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. But Trump seems to reflect at least something like 40% of the whole, and that is exceptionally bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. But Trump seems to reflect at least something like 40% of the whole, and that is exceptionally bad.
I find myself in the odd world of finding the deplorables, well deplorable, but understanding how we got here.
We have a lot of people that the world has basically passed them by. A lot of blue collar Americans who are looking at a future of more or less nothing. Rapidly becoming unemployable.
We have an evangelical religion component who will vote for anyone that tells them what they want to hear for their reworked old testament hatefest
We have the gun nuts who are manipulated by the Politicians and Rus
Re: (Score:2)
Only 50% turnout? Then more than 40% Trump supporters. Realistically, the non-voters are a weaker type of supporter. In a democracy, you cannot escape responsibility for who got voted into office if you did not vote. The only way to not have that responsibility is to vote for somebody else. Yes, that is pretty messed up.
I do agree on Hilary being about the worst candidate the Democrats could have put up. I was surprised to see what a repulsive person she actually is.
As to the groups you list, their behavior
Re: (Score:2)
Only 50% turnout? Then more than 40% Trump supporters. Realistically, the non-voters are a weaker type of supporter. In a democracy, you cannot escape responsibility for who got voted into office if you did not vote. The only way to not have that responsibility is to vote for somebody else. Yes, that is pretty messed up.
This is why I love to tell the Democrats I know they the Democrats are completely responsible for Trump's election. I must be kinda evil, purposely trolling with the truth.
I do agree on Hilary being about the worst candidate the Democrats could have put up. I was surprised to see what a repulsive person she actually is.
Pretty much. A bad tradeoff.
As to the groups you list, their behavior is non-rational. Or did they think voting for a _politician_ that makes even grander promises than usual would get them anything? Of course, the whole is a symptom of a fractured society. And that is bad for absolutely everybody.
The big thing the Republicans latched onto was the single issue voters. Promise them what they want, and not quite deliver. That one has been working since the 1970's. The typical Republican politician does not even want to ban abortion. Why? Because if they did, they would be shooting themselves in the foot
Re: (Score:2)
"He was elected by a couple different things, some national level gerrymandering..."
Gerrymandering doesn't help you in a presidential election. With only a couple exceptions (Maine for example) all votes in a state count toward winning their electoral votes. What does help in that case is that Dems have clustered themselves into places like CA and NY.
Re: (Score:2)
"He was elected by a couple different things, some national level gerrymandering..."
Gerrymandering doesn't help you in a presidential election. With only a couple exceptions (Maine for example) all votes in a state count toward winning their electoral votes. What does help in that case is that Dems have clustered themselves into places like CA and NY.
https://www.fairvote.org/popul... [fairvote.org] Perhaps it shouldn't be called gerrymandering, but if you live in say Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and a few other states, you get more electoral votes than your population would suggest.
But you're correct, Gerrymandering is not the right term. Over-representation is. I did clarify that in the rest of the sentence.
As I said, at the political level, all it will take is for a Demoncrat to be elected by 3 million less votes, and the party of the Moral High G
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's interesting that w/o CA Clinton wouldn't have had more votes. And, the "popular vote" is a figment of the imagination anyway because if we ran the system on that, the outcome may still have been the same. Why? Because the candidate would have ran entirely different campaigns, in locations other than where they did. CA was a lock for Clinton, so Trump spent virtually no time there. Had the "popular vote" mattered, his campaign would have spent money and possibly won it anyway.
As for "over-rep
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's interesting that w/o CA Clinton wouldn't have had more votes. And, the "popular vote" is a figment of the imagination anyway because if we ran the system on that, the outcome may still have been the same. Why? Because the candidate would have ran entirely different campaigns, in locations other than where they did.
You make an incorrect assumption based on your narrative. I approach this in what I believe is a logical fashion, and that is that if a vote is held, the winner of that vote should be the thing that was received the majority of the votes cast.
You are busy worried about Clinton versus Trump, and no doubt very pleased that though the system, Trump won, even though he received less votes. I get it. I would be fully accepting with him winning after receiving an actual majority. There's no argument then, other
Re: (Score:2)
"You make an incorrect assumption based on your narrative."
Back at you. Though conservative, Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate that I refused to vote for since I started voting in '76. Don't assume. I came extremely close to voting for Clinton, but since she was a lock in VA, I decided to protest vote for McMullin. Trump had no business running, and wouldn't have come close but for $2B in free advertising from the media.
I simply pointed out facts. If you want to have a "popular vote
Re: (Score:2)
"You make an incorrect assumption based on your narrative."
Back at you. Though conservative, Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate that I refused to vote for since I started voting in '76.
I don't know about you, but Trump is not what I consider conservative in the least. He uses some words that modern crypto-conservatives want to hear, but old school conservative values are not terribly popular in either the Republican party, or in the White house.
We'll never know, but the whole "she won the popular vote" is a complete misnomer. The campaigns would have operated much differently.
And we don't know a lot of things about the election. I am not so quick to simply throw out majority rule. I get this argument a lot from people who wish the smaller population states to have control of the country. Yeah - California had a lot to d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, people decide on a President on one or two issues. I know people that don't care about any issue except abortion - vote for Trump. I also know people that won't vote for anyone that won't totally ban guns in America (so vote for the candidate that favors the most gun control). Trump knows this and he hypes his single issue crowds with "I will stop the flow of illegal immigrants" and the crowd doesn't hear that he will also decimate their ability to sell crops by starting a trade war or cut t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can discredit anything by calling it a "religion". You just cannot have truth on your side in this case if you do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Science never, ever tells you what to do, only what possible fact is very likely to be not false.
Science doesn't "tell us" anything. It permits us to determine what happens, and why, for some practical and useful values of what and why. Scientists (who are the people in the best position to understand science) sometimes tell us what they think we should do about things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll buy that (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched a documentary the other day on... well... dirt. Don't laugh, it's was actually pretty interesting. One might say the topic is... ahem... deeper than you'd initially think. These scientists were talking excitedly about their research on soil, and I thought to myself, "it's really fantastic that these people are dedicating their lives to the expansion of human knowledge."
I know, it doesn't make scientists inherently better people than anyone else, but it has the feeling of a noble profession.
Re:Yeah, I'll buy that (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've worked with scientists, seen them in action, you'll see that like other human beings they are complicated and often contradictory. I think it's typical to have a sense of public mission, but at the same time there's also ego, ambition, and occasionally petty professional resentments. Science works by harnessing both the admirable and the petty in a human nature to produce something that is beyond an individual's limited abilities to achieve.
You can see that in the peer review process, which is anonymous and brutally honest. Some reviewers are clearly really nice people because despite being anonymous they'll twist themselves into a pretzel making everything they say constructive and encouraging. But other reviewers sound like middle school mean girls trying to keep you out of their clique -- they'll take any excuse they can find to take a dump on you.
The thing that most surprised me was how useful the mean-girl critiques were. You want your paper to be iron-clad, absolutely proof from any quick and superficial pretext for rejection, and that's exactly what the mean girls are looking for. The genius of science is that it doesn't require the human beings doing it to be better than human beings can be. It makes use of them the way they are.
I don't think scientists as people do not intrinsically have more integrity than others, but the nature of the profession encourages honesty. I believe people are usually better people when others are watching, and in science there is no place you can hide your errors and shortcomings where other scientists won't look for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Sell, sort-of. If you get the smart ones of the mean girls. You can also get ones that do not understand pretty basic arguments, are not conversant with (or are ignoring) established facts in the subject area or are not really reading your paper in the first place. I have had several papers accepted where some of the reviewers basically recommended a "strong reject". One session chair later told me he got additional reviews from people he trusted and that was why I not only got into the conference, but also
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the system worked in your case, it just wasn't nice. Peer review informs but doesn't trump editorial judgment.
Re:Yeah, I'll buy that (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, mostly. I also got stuff rejected where there was absolutely no valid reason to do so and others got fraudulent stuff accepted in my field (In the specific case, the other authors basically published a retraction a year later, but the fraudster got to keep his PhD. This was on perhaps the most reputable conference in the field.) and that very nearly killed my own PhD. Yes, I had about 5 best paper awards, and yes, I did dissect and dismiss that fraudulent paper in about 10 minutes after I saw it. My PhD adviser turned out to not be smart enough to actually understand the arguments and went with "it is the best conference, it must be true". When that retraction was published, suddenly my PhD was on track again after a year which I had basically given up in. Of course, I never got any sort of apology. As you may be able to tell, I am utterly disgusted with academia.
On individual research, peer review is badly broken. It tends to keep out anything that is more than tiny incremental steps. Same with individual experts. They may be badly off or completely on the wrong track. They may also overlook glaring problems with their stance. Long-term, peer-review does work, but sometimes it takes multiple decades or centuries to get there. As to experts, that is why you need scientific consensus. (Which is not consensus in the ordinary meaning, stop pushing that lie. For example, classical mechanics in Physics is a scientific consensus and that it is limited by relativity is as well.) Individual experts giving their own views are not reliable. You need to be able to verify their reasoning yourself there. Experts reporting on the scientific consensus are typically pretty reliable though, and most experts understand what that consensus is.
Re:Yeah, I'll buy that (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course consensus isn't reliable. However scientists don't use "consensus" the way lawyers (or you) do; it really means burden of proof.
Re: (Score:3)
And it does mean long-term established things that most scientists do not expect will fall. It is not a majority vote on the thing itself. It is a 95% majority (or so) vote on "do you expect this to fall or to you see/know any credible arguments that it could"?
It is most decidedly not about new results or new publications. Getting that scientific consent on global warming took something like 20 years and that was fast. Climate scientists have spend the last 20 years on refining models, not on trying to blow
Re: (Score:2)
Sell, sort-of. If you get the smart ones of the mean girls. You can also get ones that do not understand pretty basic arguments, are not conversant with (or are ignoring) established facts in the subject area or are not really reading your paper in the first place. I have had several papers accepted where some of the reviewers basically recommended a "strong reject". One session chair later told me he got additional reviews from people he trusted and that was why I not only got into the conference, but also got a best paper award for that one.
In essence, peer review somewhat works for small, incremental, boring stuff. It is utterly broken when you find something actually new.
I think that their peer review process is in dire need of peer review!
In the end, your experience worked out, probably because the session chair suspected something was amiss. And the difference between a strong reject and a best paper shows that they need to tweak their settings a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that most surprised me was how useful the mean-girl critiques were.
This is related to the reaction of scientists to the cherry picking of say, AGW deniers.
If someone points out the discrepancy of temperature measurements between say high altitude balloons and satellite extrapolations, and acts like it disproves the idea of radiative forcing, the scientists hop right on that, and figure out why.
Yet it seems the denialists haven't figured out that by cherry picking through the research to discredit AGW, they are a very helpful thing, just like the "mean girls".
Re: (Score:2)
What's the name of this documentary? Dirt? Did it mention ants too? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a two-part documentary called Secret Life Underground [curiositystream.com]. And it was more about worms than ants - or more specifically, the living ecosystem that makes soil fertile (worms, fungi, bacteria, etc). It's a French documentary (dubbed in English), and so you'll also hear from a bunch of French scientists who are conducting research into things like how different types of bacteria affects crop fertility, tracking invasive species that are killing off worms, and other soil-related issues.
Surgeon General's Warn
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I'll check it out! Weird. I thought you were referring to "Life in the Undergrowth" documentary which was good too if you love insects like ants.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, and I just noticed your username.
If you want ants, there's this: https://curiositystream.com/vi... [curiositystream.com]
Also recently watched, and very good. Sort of a unique take about ant colonies that cooperate instead of compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I wonder if I saw that one before. Darn, too bad they're not free.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is noble profession too
Not according to the survey.
Scientists Top List of Most Trusted Professionals In US
"And rounding out the bottom were politicians, who topped the list of Most Wanted To Peek Their Face Through A Doctor Strange Portal And Find Themselves Peering Up From The Target Area Of A Urinal."
Re: (Score:3)
Worldwide, you go into politics (or just government) so you can be corrupt and get in the way and thus get paid to get back out of the way. It is literally the desired job to become wealthy, not entrepeneurship, which is disfavored because that's a hassle what with all the politicians and officials getting in your way.
It's more under wraps in the west but still dominant, not any noble "I'm serving The People!" rhetoric.
Little trust in media (Score:2, Insightful)
What seems to have just flew by these people was how little people trust the media. Of course the people reporting on this are in the media and so they will do what they can to downplay that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly when the media seeks out scientists who will say the 'right' thing. If 98% of scientists in a field say A, but a media organization wants to promote B, they'll interview one of the remaining 2% and proudly proclaim "Science proves B!"
Reasonably trustworthy but human (Score:2)
I think most scientists are pretty honest, but they are also human. If situations are set up where they will greatly benefit by spreading incorrect information it will sometimes happen.
This is why I think its important that scientific funding not be made dependent on scientific results.
Re: (Score:3)
I think most scientists are pretty honest, but they are also human. If situations are set up where they will greatly benefit by spreading incorrect information it will sometimes happen.
That's why scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals. Dishonesty is rare and can be career-ending for a scientist. It's more common that they make mistakes that are corrected sooner or later.
This is why I think its important that scientific funding not be made dependent on scientific results.
Scientific funding should not be made dependent on obtaining a specific result that the funding agency stipulates. No legitimate granting agency works like that. However, funding agencies give out money because they have a selection of things they want studied. They give out grants with an expectation that the resear
Re: (Score:2)
Peer reviewed journals are pretty good, but things can get by reviewers. This is especially true these days when many scientists are overworked and don't have the time to give papers the scrutiny that they deserve. Most reviewers are volunteers who have to take time out of there normal funded work.
For some types of science you are looking for "success" . Did you detect a Higgs boson. Did you detect gravity waves. B modes in the CMB etc. The really big results get carefully scrutinized, but lots of more mi
Re: (Score:2)
Peer reviewed journals are pretty good, but things can get by reviewers. This is especially true these days when many scientists are overworked and don't have the time to give papers the scrutiny that they deserve. Most reviewers are volunteers who have to take time out of there normal funded work.
On the rare occasions that happens, other scientists react and comment on the paper after it is published. They may not reproduce the experiment exactly, but they may carry out adjunct studies that reveal inconsistencies.
For some types of science you are looking for "success" . Did you detect a Higgs boson. Did you detect gravity waves. B modes in the CMB etc. The really big results get carefully scrutinized, but lots of more minor results are not checked as carefully. Sometimes its possible to tell the complete truth, but leave funding agencies (and the public) mislead.
Scientists may begin a study with a certain expectation about the result, but they are compelled to consider the evidence of the experiments they carry out, even if they don't fit expectations. The Michelson-Morley Experiment [wikipedia.org] may be the most famous example of an experiment that set out to m
Re: Reasonably trustworthy but human (Score:5, Insightful)
While some p-hacking is intentional and/or malicious, I'd wager that the majority of it happens relatively innocently. The fact that all scientists had to pass a statistics course doesn't mean that they understood the philosophy of why we employ p values in the first place, let alone internalized the importance of avoiding cognitive biases. There are plenty of scientists out there who are extremely skilled at employing the tools of science, but are absolutely horrid at critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
While some p-hacking is intentional and/or malicious, I'd wager that the majority of it happens relatively innocently.
You don't have to be a genius to understand this [xkcd.com]. How many scientists have you met that don't understand basic statistics? Do you think scientists are so unskillful?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be a genius to understand this. How many scientists have you met that don't understand basic statistics? Do you think scientists are so unskillful?
Honesly? Many. Science has become hyperspecialised because we know a lot about a lot of things now and so you have to go very deep before you know enough to be on the cutting edge.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/co... [smbc-comics.com]
red button is funny because it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, you just need to know what kinds of dishonesty is acceptable. P value hacking is a real thing. It's not so much that scientists don't know how to use P-values (all of them passed statistics classes)
Look: I've studied statistics and probability. I've gone in way more depth than your average scientist. That's not a brag, it's jut an area I studied, I was into Bayesian machine learning with estimating distributions and divergences and MCMC and all that shit for a while. Heaps and heaps of maths, tons of m
Re: (Score:2)
P-Values are at the moment under heavy discussion all over the world.
The common tenor is: they are not as useful as we got taught and believed, or are even bad.
Re: (Score:2)
P-Values are at the moment under heavy discussion all over the world.
Yes, and that's good. They are widely used and widely misunderstood. And widely misused. And really easy to abuse accidentally or intentionally.
The common tenor is: they are not as useful as we got taught
Probably yes. I mean there's a lot of bad teaching out there, and the magical figure of P and believed, or are even bad.
They're not bad any more than bandsaws are bad. I mean it's frighteningly easy to lose a finger or two if you g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their motivations a
Re: Reasonably trustworthy but human (Score:2)
Scientists were happy to give patients syphilis for the sake of experiment.
That's an old myth. Worse things have certainly happened in the name of science, thiugh, which makes it even more frustrating that this lie keeps getting repeated as the default example.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
2000 years ago Chinese scientists studied acupuncture.
On war prisoners mostly.
They where seeking for "deep points" inside of the body. Mostly on the "now new in fashion" fascia around the inner organs, like liver and kidneys etc.
They died in the ten thousand because without ultrasonics or other means it is difficult to hammer a big needle into the body and not pierce the organ (only relying on "feeling").
However the Americans claim acupuncture is not well researched, while it actually is. It is probabl
Re: (Score:2)
Science is based on "trust" or "correct bias" or "authority," it is based entirely on experiments and data.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I think its important that scientific funding not be made dependent on scientific results.
It's not much, but it is a bit. No funding agency of any repute (i.e. the governmental ones and the well known private ones, university internal ones etc) require a specific result.
On the other hand they want some sort of ROI and if you never manage to get any results ever, then they will stop funding you on the grounds it's throwing good money after bad and there's a thousand really smart, competent people
Science (Score:2)
What about Software Engineers? (Score:2)
I suppose the big difference between a programmer and a used car salesmen is that when you pay the latter you generally drive away with a car that will generally keep working at least until you get home.
Re: (Score:2)
Programmers are not engineers. They are technicians in a technology that is not yet mature enough to be practiced by technicians. If you get an actual engineer in the software field (there are not that many of those though) chances are you will get something that works and has a reasonable degree of reliability and resilience. Do not expect that to be cheap though.
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Religious leaders?
Who tell you, that there's a bearded guy in the sky who will torture you for eternity if you are naughty?
Re: (Score:2)
Religious leaders are one thing: People that want to lead and have lots of followers. Like typical for those that thirst for power, they will tell any lie, commit any crime (that they think they can get away with), violate any trust and generally commit any evil act that they think will increase their power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, scientists should stick to science. There is a big difference between:
"AGW is real, and you should listen to me because I am a climate scientist."
and
"You should support AOC's Green New Deal, because I say so and and am a climate scientist."
Scientists certainly have a right to get involved in policy decisions, but as citizens, not as scientists. When they use their professional credibility to push specific political issues, their credibility rapidly erodes.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right that a scientist risk's reputation damage when they wade into political issues with their credentials, but there is no way to avoid it. I am okay with scientists having stupid opinions, sure it colors my view of them after that but it will not change that they still need to be actively involved. I am more concerned with the gate-keeping that is going on in science. If you don't "believe" certain things and "parrot" certain things then you are not taken seriously as a scientist. Some folks
Re: LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with a decent litmus test. If I'm talking to a mechanic and he tells me that he doesn't believe in oil changes, I know he shouldn't be taken seriously as a mechanic. If I'm talking to a scientist and he tells me that he doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, I know he shouldn't be taken seriously as a scientist.
Expecting professionals to have a bare minimum of knowledge is not "gate keeping" except in the same sense as stopping 5 year olds from performing open heart surgery is "gate keeping". A more reasonable person would use phrases like "quality control" and "professional standards".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in history you used to do oil changes every 10,000km
Now it is about 60,000km or more.
The only important oil changes are the first two after 2000km and 5000km.
For the rest of a typical car life it is enough to just refill it.
Re: LOL (Score:2)
There was no goal post moving; I was responding to what he wrote, whereas you are having a completely different discussion with yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not whether it is happening, but what, if anything, to do about this.
That draconian command and control measures are often trotted out, coincidentally (purely coincidence, I assure you!) in line with the power arrogation desires of politicians should not be ignored.
In science you address the argument, not the arguer. In politics, it is almost always the opposite because the real reasons are often hidden behind the surface meme arguments.
It was noted in the late 1960s that the far left was pick
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is far, far more complex than most laymen and many 'scientists' understand.
Yes. You can spot the slashdotters who have never worked in biology because they think something to do with it is simple. Nothing in biology is ever simple. Even the concept of species is very woolly if you look too close.
Re: (Score:2)
"You should support AOC's Green New Deal, because I say so and and am a climate scientist."
It's more like
"You should support the Green New Deal because it's the best, most practical plan to address the problem that anyone has thus far proposed, in my opinion as a climate scientist."
Re: (Score:2)
"You should support the Green New Deal because it's the best, most practical plan to address the problem that anyone has thus far proposed, in my opinion as a climate scientist."
The problem with that is that the climate scientist has stepped out WAY beyond their sphere of expertise in advocating for large society-wide solutions.
They might have technical skill and expertise in determining if the climate is changing dramatically. They are no more qualified than any plumber to specify society-wide fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. A climate scientist basing that statement on climate change being an urgent problem that must be solved, and the lack of any better plans is completely justified in saying that.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Scientists certainly have a right to get involved in policy decisions, but as citizens, not as scientists. When they use their professional credibility to push specific political issues, their credibility rapidly erodes."
+1
I was going to post the same thing. "Scientists" might be great at what they do in their field, but from my observations, they generally do poorly at understanding public policy. As a group, they seem to care far less about democracy, cost/economics, and freedom than many other gro
Re: (Score:2)
The effects of marijuana, espcially the healing effects are known since decades or centuries. ... can't work, because: there are not enough american studies. The fact that it actually works all over the world, no one is interested in.
The west, but especially America, is suffering from the "not researched here syndrom".
Same with acupuncture
Re: (Score:2)
Acupuncture works? You have some scientific papers that show that, preferably in some sort of double blind study?
Re: (Score:2)
Naaa, double-blind stuff obviously disturbs the cosmic energies as work here! The whole idea to do such a study is stupid, as the method was clearly designed to discredit viable alternatives and has no other purpose!
In other news, stupid people will continue to believe, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary. And there are a lot of stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... Schroedinger's Chakras, they only work when not observed?
Re: (Score:2)
Or something. Probably they only work when you are not trying to test whether they work.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just google it?
Obviously double blind studies are impossible, or how do you do a fake 'I poked you here'?
Re: (Score:2)
Acupuncture gives you the placebo effect. Depending on the education level of the person treated and other factors, that effect can be pretty strong. But there is nothing else in it. Same as Homeopathy. Nice placebo effect, the practitioners spend more time with each patient which makes the thing more pleasant.
Oh good, and let's start killing rhinos too! (Score:2)
Same with acupuncture ... can't work, because: there are not enough american studies. The fact that it actually works all over the world, no one is interested in.
Oh, good to hear. I suppose we should start harvesting more rhinos, too? I mean, it's been "tested" in Chinese culture for a lot longer than sildenafil has.
Double blind studies or GTFO. The double blind studies of accupuncture I've seen have illustrated that it's bullshit--even for stuff it does appear to help with, it doesn't actually matter where the needles are inserted. The theoretical bases for acupuncture are bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not only that. It is also that actual science often has inconvenient results and people accepting it need to question their beliefs. That is something most people cannot really do and the prospect frightens them. Hence there is a ton of science that would be exceptionally useful, but never makes it to the public because people do not want to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
How about... say all of them?
No one writes good policy in a vacuum ever. Everyone has to have a seat at the table, line cooks being able to write good or back regulations is entirely besides the point. Lots of regulations are "theater" because it makes people feel safer when they are actually less safe in practice. There are mountains of policies that do not stand up to any serious scrutiny but because of those pesky politics folks just cannot help themselves and require that the situation goes sideways
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if a scientist says bullshit, it's easy to show because scientific results are falsifiable.
If a politician spouts bullshit over and over, the worst he has to fear is a reelection.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the assholes can make it frustrating. It's annoying when one scientist provides formal proofs and then other scientists call them hacks or make idiotic comments like "I won't waste my time reading that nonsense"... and they do... but I tend to consider those types to be politicians rather than scientists.
Now, how about political scienc
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review has been broken for quite a while. There are plenty of articles on why that is, but it's mostly because there's no money in double checking someone else's work. You don't get grants or recognition for double checking someone else's work either.
Re: (Score:2)
The Journal publishers are deeply enamored of the idea of 'peer review.' Because they largely own the forums on which said 'peer review' is practiced and collect tolls in all directions from people who want to play at being 'peers' in the whole adventure.
But then... what is your point? The money collected is no more than a lunch tip for a politician collecting dark money from another country to line his pockets and re-election campaign.
It is hard to scrub corruption from the human condition, but money wise, if personal pecuniary enrichment is the goal, these journals aren't very good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has been on the inside for the last decade and a half, and knows how this brand of sausage is made, this trust is largely misplaced.
It isn't. Was on the inside for about 15 years. I'm now on the inside in other places. In order to determine whether scientists as a group deserve the term "most trustworthy" you have to know other professions well enough to know if they're really "more trustworthy".
Here's a fun fact, all sausage factories are awful but false equivalence is still a thing some are
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is about science it it demonstrably marches forwards. Sure there are plenty of missteps along the way but the advance is clear.
And that is the thing that basically distinguishes it from all other human endeavors. When something gets scientifically established, it stays. Sure, sometimes it turns out to be inaccurate or needs amending, such as classical mechanics. Or it can be mostly overturned, such as Freud's Psychology. But even then it stays with the original reasoning and an explanation how it came to pass and _why_ that result did turn out to not be valid after all. Hence it serves as a negative fact and it serves to improve th
Re: (Score:2)
Please scientifically establish for us whether eggs and butter are good or not for one's health, in such a way that it "stays". Kthxbye.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO the society could use _a lot_ more critical thinking and a lot less blind "trust". Science has some really weird incentive structures which ensure that it is, and will remain, fucked up. Come hell or high water, you have to publish something with some periodicity even if you don't really have much to report. So people make up shit that's not there, or regurgitate something that doesn't matter and pass it off as new. Then the press takes it as gospel and blows it out of proportion completely. By scientis
Re: (Score:2)
If you know nothing, all you can do is belief. Whether you believe in some religious or scientific text doesn't make much of a difference then.
The difference is that if you have knowledge, you can verify the scientific texts. But if you're uneducated, there really is no difference to you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one verification step that even the uneducated can do, but rarely use: You can check whether there is a consensus and _then_ you can check whether these people are all members of a cult or the like that would have produced this consensus irrespective of facts. Despite a lot of claims that, for example, climate science is such a cult, any closer look makes it immediately obvious that it is not. And when it is not a cult, then you can be pretty sure a lot of people have looked at things from differen
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... last time I checked history, religion seems to be the getting people into trouble more often than not.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... last time I checked history, religion seems to be the getting people into trouble more often than not.
Depends on which side of the noose you're on ... it usually works out well for the privileged and powerful no matter what ...
Re: (Score:2)
Even his attempts to put people down haven't changed in more than 20 years. The sad part is that what they said 20 years ago about Alexander Peter Kowalski is also the same today - a guy who needs to get a job (no job in 25 years and counting) and grow up.
APK is the role model for today's generation of incels - they will never need birth control because their lack of personality is enough.
What a whining baby!
Re: (Score:2)
Alexander Peter Kowalski is a coward through and through. He hasn't got the guts to use his name, won't get an account, his anonymous posts using only his initials are his way of hiding in plain sight.
Maybe when the people he's mooching off find out he's been spending several decades basically doing sweet fuck all they might hold him accountable - but most likely not, just to avoid the hassles.
He's like the Titanic - a lesson in hubris.