Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Trust in Science Recovers Slightly, But Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels 130

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Public trust in scientists is showing signs of recovery, according to a new Pew Research Center survey, though levels remain below pre-pandemic highs. The October 2024 study, which surveyed 9,593 U.S. adults, reveals that 76% of Americans have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of confidence in scientists' commitment to public interests -- a modest increase from 73% in 2023, but still short of the 87% recorded in early 2020.

The survey -- whose results were released Thursday [PDF] -- also highlights persistent partisan differences, with 88% of Democrats expressing trust in scientists compared to 66% of Republicans. However, Republican trust increased by 5% points since 2023, marking the first uptick since the pandemic's onset. On scientists' policy engagement, Americans remain divided: 51% support scientists' active participation in policy debates concerning scientific matters, while 48% prefer they maintain focus on research and empirical findings.

Trust in Science Recovers Slightly, But Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels More | Reply

Trust in Science Recovers Slightly, But Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels

Comments Filter:

  • Demographics (Score:3)

    by will4 ( 7250692 ) on Thursday November 14, 2024 @12:30PM (#64945687)

    May be correlated with the largest pre-internet generation, Boomers, leaving the workforce and aging.

  • I trust science. Pseudo-scientists, not so much. (Score:3)

    by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Thursday November 14, 2024 @12:32PM (#64945689)

    I have always trusted science - with the natural proviso that as it is never "settled", it can be wrong.

    I do not trust twisters and con men who exploit people's belief in science to swindle them. You all know who they are.

    • Perhaps I should add that in a culture that values money and celebrity above all else, and in which many people have ceased to believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, science has an uphill course to run.

    • "wrong" is a strong term. Take Newtons laws... They do not take into account things which are influenced by light. Hence they are 'wrong'... Well, actually they are NOT wrong, they are correct when we talk about things moving only so fast as an SR-71 (the fastest manned aircraft ever developed) or slower, the correction to account for light and such is sooooooooo small that it makes no difference, it is there though. So, is 9.8 m/second squared good enough? or would you prefer to use 9.799999999999999999999

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      I do not trust twisters and con men who exploit people's belief in science to swindle them. You all know who they are.

      Heh "You all know....". There's a minority of Slashdot users who would have pretty much the opposite answer to the rest of us in regards to the question of "who they are".

  • Dichotomy (Score:3)

    by Artem S. Tashkinov ( 764309 ) on Thursday November 14, 2024 @12:35PM (#64945707) Homepage

    51% support scientists' active participation in policy debates concerning scientific matters, while 48% prefer they maintain focus on research and empirical findings

    I don't understand the dichotomy in this sentence. Research is an integral part of science. "Empirical findings" is largely observed and measured evidence, which again what science is about.

    So, what was the alternative to science that people were implying or were asked about?

    • yep, plus which politicans are educated so much that they both understand the science and are honest enough that they will not seek some argument that they believe they will profit from?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      This just shows that regular people have no clue how Science works or what it does.

  • ...people have been lied to for years by advertisers, corporations and government. Some claim to use science to support the lies.
    Critical thinkers check, cross check, use multiple sources and lots of common sense.
    Others simply reject everything except that one crazy guy screaming nonsense

    • I'll add one caveat to your comment which I wholeheartedly support: while some people are willfully ignorant, others simply don't have time to inform themselves to the degree necessary if you're going to separate real science from increasingly sophisticated quacks and fraudsters. And unlike scientists, they're masters of social media. It's how they make their money.

  • It's trust in general, science-based knowledge is just one victim.

    And while it's good not to mindlessly trust scientists, if you don't trust science itself you've essentially failed to leverage your brain's potential. At it's core, science is the scientific method, and if you don't believe that reality is best understood by testing theories and accepting the best working theory is the one that best fits the evidence... You're irrational and in an ideal world would be sent back to elementary school until y

  • This is a very different thing. Trust in science means trusting a methodology based on observation, experiments and logic over faith, tradition and feelings. Trust in scientists means trusting people who are (supposedly!) practitioners of science.

    It is possible, maybe even common to trust science but not scientists, for example if you think that scientists don't do science properly, for example because you think that scientists are more interested in grant money and will readily commit fraud for it.

    But it i

  • Profession Should Not Equal Blind Trust (Score:3)

    by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Thursday November 14, 2024 @01:52PM (#64945931)
    Trust or blind trust? Asking about trust in scientists is like asking about about how much blind trust do you give people in general. I'd trust a mechanic with a mechanical problem as much as I trust a scientist with a science problem. Either party I'd also want to make sure what I'm being told actually works out in reality and would not blindly trust them without data. Data manipulation happens in all of these professions. I believe a scientist is just as likely to try to manipulate you to favor themselves as a mechanic is, such as by making up fake problems that need their solution that happens to make them money. The covid time period was the biggest failure of holding scientists responsibly for providing data, and in fact doctors and PHDs were banned on almost every social media website if you even questioned the main stream narrative's data. For example, every single person that did zero research thought the death rate was incredibly high because that is what the news was saying, however the death rate was done as 'per confirmed infection' which during the first few months only those nearly dying were able to get the expensive covid tests. That meant you had a drastic underestimation of the # of covid infections and news was saying the death rate sometimes was 3% or higher of confirmed infections when in reality the death rate was a fraction of 1%. I could go on and on about the bad data that was hidden or manipulated before released but the point is, you can't blindly trust one scientist because they hold a position of power and especially you can't silence other scientists.

    • Either party I'd also want to make sure what I'm being told actually works out in reality and would not blindly trust them without data.

      The difference here being that when you drive home and your car breaks down you know the mechanic was dodgy. What do you do with science, get an advanced degree to double check all their findings?

      The issue with science is it's not easy, which means most people are not equipped to question it. They think their "research" is taking a shit on the toilet while death scrolling Facebook until they find someone to agree the science is wrong and then they use that to back it up. "Fuck Fauci, I know I can cure COVID

  • Obligatory Futurama (Score:4, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Thursday November 14, 2024 @02:09PM (#64945967)

    Fry: In my time we had a way of moving things long distances without hovering!
    Hermes: Impossible!
    Fry: It was called ... let me think. It was really famous -- Ruth Gordon had one. The wheel!
    Leela: Never heard of it
    Professor Farnsworth: Show us this "The Wheel"!

  • Title needs correction. Those those two things are very different and conflating them give very misleading impressions.
  • "Trust in Science?" As a concept? Because it sounds like you were asking "trust in giant commercial entities that sometimes do science-adjacent things but are publicly traded and thus only care about numbers and money."
  • this is not about "science".

    It's about your information being processed by various intermediaries. Whoever's hands it passes through, will tweak it a bit or a lot. Trust and the Internet are a moving target. 15 years ago, true automated dis-information processes and campaigns were the fodder of science fiction. Today... umm... several years ago... I forget what it's technically called: the cabal of giant tech companies, your Apple/Google/MS/Amazon, etc began transforming information via filtering agents...W

  • 76% of Americans have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of confidence in scientists' commitment to public interests

    That's completely irrelevant. The question in and of itself implies to the respondent that all scientists (in fact, all science) should be actively working toward the "interests of the public".

    First, the job of a scientist is to answer questions using research, experiments, and analysis. A person could spend their entire life documenting the mating dance of a particular subset of sparrows, provide nothing to the public interest, and still be an absolutely perfect scientist.

    Second, the "interests of the publ

    • Try telling that to someone in the Critical Theory departments. "You positivists with your empirical evidence & disproving the null hypothesis! Don't oppress us with your colonial 'facts'!"
  • ...idiots that they're wrong much of the time. No wonder it's so unpopular!

Slashdot Top Deals

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Close