Survey Finds Public Perception of Scientists' Credibility Has Slipped (phys.org) 276
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: New analyses from the Annenberg Public Policy Center find that public perceptions of scientists' credibility -- measured as their competence, trustworthiness, and the extent to which they are perceived to share an individual's values -- remain high, but their perceived competence and trustworthiness eroded somewhat between 2023 and 2024. The research also found that public perceptions of scientists working in artificial intelligence (AI) differ from those of scientists as a whole. [...] The five factors in Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) are whether science and scientists are perceived to be credible and prudent, and whether they are perceived to overcome bias, correct error (self-correcting), and whether their work benefits people like the respondent and the country as a whole (beneficial). [...] In the FASS model, perceptions of scientists' credibility are assessed through perceptions of whether scientists are competent, trustworthy, and "share my values." The first two of those values slipped in the most recent survey. In 2024, 70% of those surveyed strongly or somewhat agree that scientists are competent (down from 77% in 2023) and 59% strongly or somewhat agree that scientists are trustworthy (down from 67% in 2023). The survey also found that in 2024, fewer people felt that scientists' findings benefit "the country as a whole" and "benefit people like me." In 2024, 66% strongly or somewhat agreed that findings benefit the country as a whole (down from 75% in 2023). Belief that scientists' findings "benefit people like me," also declined, to 60% from 68%. Taken together, those two questions make up the beneficial factor of FASS. The findings follow sustained attacks on climate and COVID-19-related science, and more recently, public concerns about the rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence. Here's what the study found when comparing perceptions of scientists in general with climate and AI scientists:
- Credibility: When asked about three factors underlying scientists' credibility, AI scientists have lower credibility in all three values.
- Competent: 0% strongly/somewhat agree that scientists are competent, but only 62% for climate scientists and 49% for AI scientists.
- Trustworthy: 59% agree scientists are trustworthy, 54% agree for climate scientists, 28% for AI scientists.
- Share my values: A higher number (38%) agree that climate scientists share my values than for scientists in general (36%) and AI scientists (15%). More people disagree with this for AI scientists (35%) than for the others.
- Prudence: Asked whether they agree or disagree that science by various groups of scientists "creates unintended consequences and replaces older problems with new ones," over half of those surveyed (59%) agree that AI scientists create unintended consequences and just 9% disagree.
- Overcoming bias: Just 42% of those surveyed agree that scientists "are able to overcome human and political biases," but only 21% feel that way about AI scientists. In fact, 41% disagree that AI scientists are able to overcome human political biases. In another area, just 23% agree that AI scientists provide unbiased conclusions in their area of inquiry and 38% disagree.
- Self-correction: Self-correction, or "organized skepticism expressed in expectations sustaining a culture of critique," as the FASS paper puts it, is considered by some as a "hallmark of science." AI scientists are seen as less likely than scientists or climate scientists to take action to prevent fraud; take responsibility for mistakes; or to have mistakes that are caught by peer review.
- Benefits: Asked about the benefits from scientists' findings, 60% agree that scientists' "findings benefit people like me," though just 44% agree for climate scientists and 35% for AI scientists. Asked about whether findings benefit the country as a whole, 66% agree for scientists, 50% for climate scientists and 41% for AI scientists.
- Your best interest: The survey also asked respondents how much trust they have in scientists to act in the best interest of people like you. (This specific trust measure is not a part of the FASS battery.) Respondents have less trust in AI scientists than in others: 41% have a great deal/a lot of trust in medical scientists; 39% in climate scientists; 36% in scientists; and 12% in AI scientists.
- Competent: 0% strongly/somewhat agree that scientists are competent, but only 62% for climate scientists and 49% for AI scientists.
- Trustworthy: 59% agree scientists are trustworthy, 54% agree for climate scientists, 28% for AI scientists.
- Share my values: A higher number (38%) agree that climate scientists share my values than for scientists in general (36%) and AI scientists (15%). More people disagree with this for AI scientists (35%) than for the others.
- Prudence: Asked whether they agree or disagree that science by various groups of scientists "creates unintended consequences and replaces older problems with new ones," over half of those surveyed (59%) agree that AI scientists create unintended consequences and just 9% disagree.
- Overcoming bias: Just 42% of those surveyed agree that scientists "are able to overcome human and political biases," but only 21% feel that way about AI scientists. In fact, 41% disagree that AI scientists are able to overcome human political biases. In another area, just 23% agree that AI scientists provide unbiased conclusions in their area of inquiry and 38% disagree.
- Self-correction: Self-correction, or "organized skepticism expressed in expectations sustaining a culture of critique," as the FASS paper puts it, is considered by some as a "hallmark of science." AI scientists are seen as less likely than scientists or climate scientists to take action to prevent fraud; take responsibility for mistakes; or to have mistakes that are caught by peer review.
- Benefits: Asked about the benefits from scientists' findings, 60% agree that scientists' "findings benefit people like me," though just 44% agree for climate scientists and 35% for AI scientists. Asked about whether findings benefit the country as a whole, 66% agree for scientists, 50% for climate scientists and 41% for AI scientists.
- Your best interest: The survey also asked respondents how much trust they have in scientists to act in the best interest of people like you. (This specific trust measure is not a part of the FASS battery.) Respondents have less trust in AI scientists than in others: 41% have a great deal/a lot of trust in medical scientists; 39% in climate scientists; 36% in scientists; and 12% in AI scientists.
Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, when theres an active ongoing campaign to discredit any scientist that doesnt "toe the party line" from one side of the political spectrum, is it any surprise when we find out that they are actually gaining traction?
Yes, there have been some fairly well publicised cases in science recently of retractions and studies being discredited, but nothing that compares to the coordinated anti-science push from the right-wing.
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I find your post rather ironic in light of just two stories below this one we find:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You seem rather sheltered in your experiences with science being infected with politics. The proper and ethical way of declaring that something doesn't exist is to do at least some token research first. Clearly you didn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the horse have a menstrual cup?
Horses don't menstruate. Only humans, some bats, elephants and a few monkeys.
So probably not.
Re:Oh fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov
Re:Oh fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude let's look at some examples from just the good ol' United States of America.
Everything defying obvious science is either political, financial, or religious. So yeah, there are definitely campaigns against it, and there are WAY more examples than my tired ass cares to dig up right now.
Simplistic metaphysics begging the question (Score:3)
'States are banning abortions after six weeks and/or when a fetal heartbeat is detected, because "since there's a heartbeat, there must be life!" There is no science to back this as a viable, conscious human being.'
You're assuming that the definition of being human is to be a viable, conscious human being. Others assume otherwise. And note that your definition implies that an unconscious person is not a human being... ;)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Others assume otherwise.
Delusional, misinfomed, others with the same mental capacity as a rotting banana.
Maybe research natural termination rates before responding.
At best, a fetus is mostly just a parasite at this point.
And note that your definition implies that an unconscious person is not a human being..
Captain Slippery Slope rears his faulty logic and waves it around the room like a dufus
Re: (Score:2)
'begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true'
You are assuming that the definition of personhood is tied to being 'a viable, conscious human being'. That is your metaphysical belief. Others differ - one fashionable one, of course, is viability outside the womb. Another - which justifies infanticide - is being able to live without the help of others at all. They are all 'metaphysical' beliefs - according t
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that the definition of personhood is tied to being 'a viable, conscious human being'. That is your metaphysical belief.
Not an ssumption. Not a belief. Material, indisputable, fact. You're either functioning outside the womb or you're fertilizer. Everything else is naval-gazing idiocy.
Re:Simplistic metaphysics begging the question (Score:4, Interesting)
So you oppose life saving medical care. .
Oh, hello Captain Strawman? How goes your logical fallacy escapade?
Come back when you're cpable of rational discussion without those multi-locational goalposts you seem so invested in
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that abortion up to that point is ok because children are parasites?
Wow
Oh, hello Captain Strawman's clone! How goes your logical fallacy escapade?
Come back when you're capable of rational discussion without those multi-locational goalposts you seem so invested in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States are banning abortions after six weeks and/or when a fetal heartbeat is detected, because "since there's a heartbeat, there must be life!" There is no science to back this as a viable, conscious human being.
I am not from the US, so I am not familiar with this argument, but your logic is flawed. First you say "there must be file" and then you counter with "conscious human being", that was not the original proposition, which said simply "life", not "conscious life" or "intelligent life".
Re:Oh fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
You ignored the question and went on to make your own strawman and concerned trolled the shit out of it. The post above you said "There is no science to back this as a viable, conscious human being." You went to a pedantic reading on whether a cell was "considered to be alive", which is quite obviously not what the poster above was stating. You're part of the problem, and if you didn't already know that shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
GP is correct.
Within the scope of the argument you're referencing: When we examine the percentage of abortions that fall outside the proposed six week window, almost 100% of them are medical in nature, the mother doesn't *want* to give up the baby but they have to because the baby *isn't viable and wont survive outside the womb* and *represents a risk to the mother's life*. The kinds of people who are supposed to be punished for their loose morals or flippancy with human life *don't exist*.
You can pretend y
Re: (Score:2)
When we examine the percentage of abortions that fall outside the proposed six week window, almost 100% of them are medical in nature, the mother doesn't *want* to give up the baby but they have to because the baby *isn't viable and wont survive outside the womb* and *represents a risk to the mother's life*. The kinds of people who are supposed to be punished for their loose morals or flippancy with human life *don't exist*.
I assume that is correct, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably try reading the last line in my post again, I guess?
Re:Oh fuck off (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure it's not correct; medically necessary abortions are few and far between. Best data I can find quickly is from the WHO, which is worldwide data, and says that "61% of all unintended pregnancies result in abortion". When only 3% of all pregnancies terminate in induced abortion (again, from WHO), this shows that the vast majority of abortions are "elective."
I think in the US, according to one Pew research page I found, something like 50% of abortions are done with a pill, at home, which means they are not done in an emergent situation.
I found another article from verywell health that claims that 12% of abortions are "for health reasons" but it doesn't break them down into medically necessary versus other health reasons. That survey also finds that only about 15k abortions per year are related to sexual violence, out of the something like 600k total abortions. The vast majority of abortions are for things like money (don't think I can afford a kid!) or things like "it will impact my career".
Re: (Score:3)
You can pretend you're not choosing how to scope your argument all you want. It's a choice YOU are making.
My point is that a cell is alive. A fetus is alive, unless it is dead. So what? If you disagree with that, you're anti-science.
Again, what are you trying to say? I have no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe you could go and do a class on debate rhetorics or linear algebra then
either would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The abortion debate has always been about when life begins. He then goal post moved it to when consciousness begins which has literally never been a mainstream abortion question.
We have always always always always always talked about conception and beginning of life, not consciousness when it comes to abortion.
Why are you being intentionally disingenuous? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean it's unethical to kill cells. I just killed a bunch of cells for lunch. But it's not controversial to say that, and I don't deny it.
Re: (Score:2)
So like beyond right and wrong sometimes people just want an honest man, a guy who is a little too honest, to agree with them in public so they can take what he said, lean on his credibility, and run with it so he can support his lies that nobody would otherwise listen to.
Re: (Score:3)
The science part is if the foetus suffers. Plants are alive but nobody argues we shouldn't eat plants because they might experience suffering, partly because we would starve to death but also because science tells us that plants don't have any consciousness and don't suffer. In fact many have evolved to be eaten as a way to spread their seeds over a wider area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The pro-life thing is a very recent phenomenon; Cer
Re: (Score:2)
Unfertilised eggs & sperm are also alive.
True point.
Re: (Score:3)
Is a fetus alive? Of course. But the mother's big toe is also alive.
The question is *is the fetus a life?*
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a bit part of the snag. There is no dividing line in fetal development that separates "just a mass of cells" and "a person". The courts have held in the past that "viability" was the key in determining if abortion is legal or not; but viability is in constant flux. The courts likely erred in deciding on a particular number of days for when viability occurs; because the courts and the law cannot easily determine the data of conception and so far no one is requiring all couples to keep and notarize
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at time limited google search results you'll find that masks were often recommended even when they weren't sure exactly how effective they are. That is before covid.
If you check wayback machine for the cdc website, when the cdc was saying no masks for you and me, they were already recommending them in hospitals, including surgical masks in cases where transmission is unlikely but possible, like walking past doorways with covid patients inside. This is in the first few months of covid.
They just
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And when you don't peer review is going to make a fool out of you.
Except peer review hasn't done that good of a job of it lately, hence the large number of papers being retracted.
Partisan crap and outright lies gets spotted damned quick.
The whole anti-GMO movement is based on a big pack of outright lies and even when called out, a lot of people tend to just fucking ignore it, or worse, actively defend it. The journal that originally published them retracted them after a few years, though there was no prosecution for scientific misconduct despite ample evidence that the asshole behind it deliberately used a strain of pigs already
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the fact they are being retracted (albeit not immediately on first review) proof that peer review works
Re: Oh fuck off (Score:3)
For a competent journal at least, it's not supposed to be published until after peer review.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't reproduce or falsify the results then strictly speaking it's not really science. You have some observations and your conclusions which may or may not have value.
This is a big issue I've observed particularly in social and behavioral sciences. It is really to control for the many variables and I would be very doubtful about leaning to heavily on the outcomes unless you really can get the same results time after time across a wide variety of subjects. And do not get me started on those who cit
Re: Oh fuck off (Score:4, Informative)
The next time we have an epidemic/pandemic/public health issue or we hear that schools are falling behind in country-X, & we want to know the best ways to deal with it at the public policy level, remember where a lot of that info comes from.
I hope you also realise the irony of using data from a survey (one of the least valid & reliable social sciences instruments) to draw conclusions about the quality of science.
Re: (Score:2)
So in your opinion the "There are more than two genders"thing from the left is scientific?
Scientific and factual. So either you're intentionally ignorant or arguing in bad faith.
Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
By definition multiple genders is not science
So.. intentional, belligerent, ignorance then.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off!
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:4, Informative)
So in your opinion the "There are more than two genders"thing from the left is scientific?
First, it's not "from the left." Intergender [wikipedia.org] people have existed pretty much as long as humans have existed. It's an observed fact.
The only people denying intergender people exist are, surprise, conservatives who demand that everyone is either male or female regardless of the reality. They're always the first to chuck science out the window the moment it doesn't support their beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an observed fact.
Pretty much... with some truly awesome things going on in the other kingdoms... like the pseduo-penis in Hyenas, sex-swapping fish, etc...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sex != gender.
Intersex is a genetic mutation. Scientific fact.
Gender is a social construct. Nothing to do with science.
Please stop blurring medical terminology with sociology.
Re: (Score:2)
that does not mean they are themselves actual genders.
So in your pedantic opinion, which gender are they? Oh.. .wait... Splitting dumb hairs just makes us dumber
It is the same thing as being born with a third hand.
It very clearly is not. But claiming it is sort of diminishes whatever lunatic point it is you were trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
From the outside looking in it’s not just the right wing.. science in the west in an inherently political affair, with political dogma ruling supreme both in academic and social acceptance of science irrespective of political leanings. Science mostly has become a kind of religion for the masses with a sort of Christianity / Islam divide including acolytes and enforcers of their dogmas.
Not sure if I understand what you're saying correctly, but I wouldn't go quite that far. Most of science has not been politicised, thankfully. There aren't big ideological debates about quantum mechanics or chaos theory in non-scientific circles.
For bits of science that have been politicised however, this is indeed what's happening. Scientific theories are supposed to be evaluated by looking at the available evidence and other accepted science and seeing if on balance of probablilities they seem to support
Re: (Score:3)
You're so close to getting it, but it sounds a bit like getting it would undermine your whole worldview.
Tell me, what does it look like when a physicist expresses persona bias?
Most commonly? (Score:3, Interesting)
I noticed you used physicist and not biologist or epidemiologist. That wasn't an accident. You won't get very far as a physicist usually when you fake your data because it's just a little bit too obvious. It's biology and epidemiolog
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing
you're not answering the question I actually asked. You're answering the question "what does it look like when a physicist attempts to fake their data".
Physicists might instead tell you "this question doesn't make sense in the way you might normally think about the word 'bias'. Everyone has a perspective that they record data from, and an observer is an integral part of an experiment'.
Yeah, I know that's going to go over some heads, someone's going to claim it's semantic because they don't r
Re: (Score:2)
All people, even scientists, hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Ok ok but
try looking at Hawking's stuff on black holes
and now consider more than one observer
now you're looking at cutting edge questions in quantum physics lololol
Re: (Score:3)
I would even say that it's not sad that humans have biases, though. It's functionally unavoidable.
Everyone necessarily has a perspective, and trying to 'eliminate' that seems... like actually maybe sometimes it's an effort to limit the number of available choices, and in doing so force people into exactly two different sides so that someone already in power can have some kind of self indulgent fantasy about morals.
But of course, if an authoritarian can hide that attempt in some other kind of appeal, they'll
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientists also have financial incentives to show results. Fame is also an incentive. So, some of them lie. They ARE human, after all.
The ones that falsify data cause general public distrust for all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” --Isaac Asimov
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that as soon as any position is selected as a position of trust, then the trust will be abused by people who want power. The solution is to look at the evidence, not authorities.
Re: Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:2)
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:5, Insightful)
Many "scientists" have become politicized to the extent that science itself often takes a back seat
No. You have just been *told* that they are politicised. Science doesn't give a shit about politics. In the world of peer reviewed research there's no decrease in quality or increase in political bias. The issue is that people claim to be doing science (usually some political think tank writing some report), or people claim that the science is wrong (and not just people, but prominent important people like presidents and others whose opinions however incorrect can absolutely dominate a media cycle).
You are an example of the problem. This is a story about perception, and you have turned it into an actual attack on people. The people are fine, it's the perception that is bad, and you've just perpetuated that perception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
corruption is the problem and that includes science
classism and greed lead directly to corruption
all our scientific institutions are corrupt and self-serving
it's all about the money now ...
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just that. There's a reproducibility crisis in many fields, particularly things like psychology and social science, but medicine is also affected. About the only field to escape this problem is physics. The root causes of this isn't left/right politics, but rather scientific politics. Ask any scientist what it's like doing research, and they'll all tell you the truism "publish or perish."
You have to constantly churn out a series of papers trying to get them published in scientific journals. Th
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:5, Insightful)
you can thank Anthony "gain of function" Fauci for that
No you can't. You can thank the lackluster reporting turning complex discussions into soundbites for that. Fauci wasn't wrong in what he said and his comments were backed by both science and sound policy.
The kind of reporting that turns "We currently do not have studies showing the efficacy of masks" into "MASKS DON'T WORK!!!!! ". The kind of reporting that turns "we were prioritising masks for healthcare professionals to suggesting everyone wear them since supply increased" into "FAUCI BACKFLIPS! HE'S AN IDIOT!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Politics is the problem, NOT science (Score:4, Informative)
The 6 foot thing was made up by who? Fox News?
Apparently it was a compromise between the CDC's recommendation -- which was 10 feet, also an arbitrary number because of the need to pick a number rather than just saying "stay far apart" -- and some official in the Trump administration who thought that 10 feet was unworkable, but was apparently okay with 6.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/
Re: (Score:2)
He obviously doesn't.
surveys (Score:3)
Who answers these surveys?
Re: surveys (Score:5, Funny)
Liberals like me. We're real sluts for science. I mainly do it because I want to force students to buy new textbooks instead of the less profitable way of writing one Bible and use it forever.
Re: (Score:2)
People who answer random phone calls?
People being paid for answering?
Re: (Score:2)
A minority then?
Re:surveys (Score:5, Interesting)
Well who has landlines?
Who answers unknown numbers on their cell phone?
Who actually takes the time to speak with survey takers?
Answer: the elderly
Alzheimer research (Score:3)
Two stories down, there's a submission about faked Alzheimer's research. Hmm, what a coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
there's a submission about faked Alzheimer's research
The thing is when there isn't valid science going on, you wouldn't know it was faked. Debunking false claims is proof the actual process still functions.
Eventually (Score:4, Interesting)
The classic issue of recent years was the failure of the WHO to correct its denial that Covid was airborne for months after everyone else agreed otherwise.
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:3)
About faked Alzheimers research being discovered and the researcher's standing being reduced in the face of it, yes.
This is a feature.
The point of the scientific method, of double blind testing etc... is that people aren't trustworthy even when they have good intentions.
I know you guys really want to worship a white man with a neat haircut in a labcoat with hornrimmed glasses and a pocket protector, but that's got nothing to do with the practice of science and everything to do with science fiction novels fr
Re: (Score:3)
I know you guys really want to worship a white man with a neat haircut in a labcoat with hornrimmed glasses and a pocket protector, but that's got nothing to do with the practice of science and everything to do with science fiction novels from the 1950s. Sorry.
Those were the same guys telling you smoking Lucky Strikes was healthy and if your wife was was getting mouthy then she needed some barbiturates.
Re: (Score:2)
it's real sad how advertising gets in the way of people understanding shit that's actually happening to them huh
it's hard enough for people to understand their experiences without someone gaslighting them so they can sell a product. I don't really blame 'em for not being able to differentiate Ernest Rutherford and a tobacco salesman, but it doesn't really help things along.
Re: (Score:2)
it's real sad how advertising gets in the way of people understanding shit that's actually happening to them huh
No. Just NO. We *do* not get to surrender personal agency and then act as if it was not a personal choice and resolve to blame others for our very personal idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
if your wife was was getting mouthy then she needed some barbiturates.
The real truth is that if your kid can't focus, he needs some amphetamines.
White nationalist incoherent cockroaches are nazis (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Nazis took over Germany prior to WWII there were two groups they removed as "obstacles":
1. Scientists. People who could prove facts were a threat. They were vilified, railroaded, hunted down, and killed. Most were Jewish so it just seemed right. Right?
2. Media. People who could evidence what was really going on and talk about it in print or radio. They were vilified, railroaded, hunted down, and killed.
Just like the Republicans' plan.
48 milllion white trash cockroach voters shouting incoheren
Uh, you've misread history somewhat . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they were against science. Take homeopathy, for example. This is some anti-scientific shit. But the nazis considered it a proper German science instead of the Jewish evidence based medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the Nazis took over Germany prior to WWII there were two groups they removed as "obstacles": 1. Scientists. People who could prove facts were a threat. They were vilified, railroaded, hunted down, and killed. Most were Jewish so it just seemed right. Right? 2. Media. People who could evidence what was really going on and talk about it in print or radio. They were vilified, railroaded, hunted down, and killed.
Just like the Republicans' plan.
48 milllion white trash cockroach voters shouting incoherent slogans can't be wrong. Right?
Good heavens ... I think you may need some pharmaceutical science there soon, son ...
Here's the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
People have been lied to by corporations, advertisers and the government for years. Powerful corporations in tobacco, junk food, oil and others, have funded studies that cover up the damage their products cause. Some scientists have been caught falsifying work.
Some people develop a healthy skepticism, and check facts carefully. Some simply refuse to believe that anyone is telling the truth
Too much like hard work (Score:2)
And most of the population isn't competent to carry out a serious fact check anyway.
Ultimately without the ending of the right to free speech, there is no obvious answer to the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why the truth should be protected - we require trust to function as a group. Damaging that trust hurts the entire group as we start having to double-check everything and then quickly run into life being so complicated we can't possibly be competent to know everything we'd need to do so.
And I'm not talking about the appearance of truth - protecting that is a tiny square of gauze on a sucking chest wound. Cover-ups to maintain trust damage the truth even further.
Every deceptive ad, every political s
Three categories of causes (Score:2)
One way to look at it is dividing what changes people's opinion of science into three groups
- scientists earning it: the concrete output and attitudes : reproducibility problems, retracting high profile papers ..
- group dynamics: public opinion changing through its own momentum, like total ignorance or once the reputation is damaged people only focus on the bad stuff, which then makes it worse
- PR effort: groups putting out stuff for their own interests which is designed to discredit some science
Thing is 1.
Dubious Statistics (Score:2)
I saw that in the summary and thought someone had made a copy-and-paste error, but no - that is exactly what the original article says.
When a new study/survey comes out.... (Score:2)
That's ... (Score:2)
... ridiculous [slashdot.org]!
(Random internet guy hyperventilates)
Re: (Score:2)
What are your thoughts on leaded gasoline? It's probably fine and all those people who were poisoned during the manufacturing process were just being dramatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common rhetorical fallacy called "argument by authority".
Re:Gee, I wonder why (Score:4, Interesting)
Marketing and commercial media do so much damage to society!
Scientists doing AI work are not the ones doing extreme marketing and over promising - maybe some are but not most of them. Marketing and commercial media (which is part marketing) are the ones hyping it.
Scientists are the best educated guessers for their area. Sometimes they overstep their domain and are hardly any better than other guessers. They certainly can be over-confident given they are smarter and more educated than the vast majority so they likely have a better guessing record at most things they are not completely ignorant about. Also, some areas are random like politics or gambling/stocks so even experts in those areas do no better than chance itself (unless they have unfair advantages.)
----
I don't remember any climate scientists saying we're going to be underwater in 20 years. prove it. you are exaggerating or had bad sourcing. What the alarmist negative scientists were saying proved to be more accurate than the optimistically biased scientists 20 years later. I noticed that. most people's optimist bias (genetic correlation) even impacts their scientific work -- because a ton of decisions must be made and educated guesses - which are biased towards the positive when it's as upsetting as something like global warming. What they WERE saying is we'd lock in a bad, bad situation that in a century would result in massive sea level rise. A ton of people live around sea level, BTW.