Slashdot Mirror
Study Highlights Gap Between Views of Scientists and the Public
ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists. The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does. And while 84% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that." 27% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44% ten years ago. The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits. For example: scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science, and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results. 32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...
We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter. Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live. Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with. Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.
Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)
Signatures are the new names.
Yes, the the patrons of those scientists had a vested theological interest in those positions. Not that any actual science was really conducted to validate them...
The disparity between the views of scientists and 'the public' is another illustration of the generally poor quality of education. This is evident here in the UK, and perhaps even more in the US, where the base quality of education is often questionable, and often the subject matter is 'taught' in a far from sensible way. Just look at the debate over how (or even if) evolution should be taught. The populace are never going to be able to participate in informed debate from a position of ignorance, but that is exactly what is currently happening. This whole mess is made even worse by those in power (politicians) putting their own agendas before fact and truth, and by putting short term (political) considerations above the long term good (see the 'debate' raging over global warming for a good example of this). The public will never catch up with the level of appreciation and understanding scientists have of these matters unless their underlying knowledge and education is adequate, and right now it clearly isn't.
Smivs on the intertubes!
A lot has changed since then and even the term scientist as well. There are however still biased scientists today as there were back then, scientists whom receive their paychecks from tobacco companies to supply data that brings doubt to lung diseases caused by smoking tobacco. Still to gain the acceptance of the majority of scientists today should not be taken lightly, as it is not an easy task.
I am the lawn!
Yes, the the patrons of those scientists had a vested theological interest in those positions. Not that any actual science was really conducted to validate them...
Perhaps not unlike the corporate interests of some scientists these days.
The fact that the media gives equal time and access to creationists, conspiracy theorists, homeopathic medicine and various other tinfoil hat whackmobiles does the body politic no favors whatsoever. There's no emphasis on rigorous thought. Sentiment and ratings trump accuracy and logic.
Critical thinking should be a required course in every high school in the land, and if you fail you don't get a diploma. But the churches would scream bloody murder. The last thing they want is children thinking for themselves.
I piss off bigots.
The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat.
That's just a modern myth about olden days people. People have known the world was round for thousands of years.
The problem here is that Americans are derisive of intelligence and scientists in particular. Calling someone an "Einstein" or an "Egghead" is not purely a compliment even among geeks and nerds... in fact, aside from the word "scientist" the words themselves used to describe them are shown to have their own negative connotations via etymology. When I want help pumping shit, I call a plumber. If I have a problem with my house wiring that I can't handle, I call an electrician. When I want help understanding the fundamental nature of the universe, I look for a scientist.
Unfortunately, there is a major conflict between science and certain religions bent on control. You might notice that certain religions don't actually conflict with science, because they don't make ridiculous claims, because they're not trying to control people for their own ends. They only seek to make the world a better place. It's clear that Christianity (the best example for our nation) is intended only to benefit Christians -- if you aren't one, you can just go to hell.
Science is the quest for that which is. Religion is the quest to explain that which is not. Paths may be varied, but there is only one set of facts. When the two contradict, it's clear that falling back on religion is a failure. Those cultures which have most successfully embraced science have always been most successful, a trend which will only continue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Out of curiosity why are you accusing the Pew Research Center of systematic unethical and deceptive practices?
Do you think they always engage such behavior? Or is it just certain studies?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I found it very revealing to see the statistics about what the public thought the scientific consensus is. Paraphrasing from the original article:
- Public thinks 60% of scientists agree that evolution occurred, but actually 97% of scientists support evolution.
- Public thinks 56% of scientists agree that global warming is human caused, but actually 84% of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming.
This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public? The press. And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs. If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.
It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians. Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance'
The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong. No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined. The models aren't working. It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about. Here is an article that illustrates this problem.
The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.
You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer. Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth. Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality , and the regular folks understand that.
Kevin
scientists may be bought. science cannot. if you falsify results for money, anyone reproducing the experiment will demonstrate your flawed conclusions.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
The research for these types of stories is horrible.
What do I care if 84% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity? My father's a scientist who studies product safety. His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist." A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.
Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
... how any *real* scientist could be anything but independent. Political parties subscribe to belief systems that are principally about self-preservation and perpetuation. Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about. FWIW, I am registered unenrolled (a.k.a. independent) and typically vote anti-incumbent unless one or the other candidate truly inspires me (rare) or scares me (frequent).
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible. They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites. How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being. The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.
The other problem is that this particular issue has been latched onto and exploited by politicians and opinion-shapers. It has become an 'our side vs. their side' thing. People chose the anti-evolution option because that boosts their side. If you could decouple it from the fight, you might be able to convince more people.
You can probably guess where I come down on the issue. I do believe in God. I can't prove it, but I accept it as a tautology. I also believe in evolution as a natural process. I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do. God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen. Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot. To me, that is _much_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".
The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat
Not even that. The greeks knew the Earth was round and had calculated its size pretty accurately. Since then, there hasn't been serious disagreement among scientists or sailors or educated people generally. There may have been some denial from the religious and the simply ignorant, but the story you hear about Columbus being the one who proved the world was round --or whatever the story is-- it's BS.
The last thing they want is children thinking for themselves.
That applies to any self-perpetuating group. If you catch people when they're too young to make distinctions, you can implant your ideas down at the level of attitudes where they're very, very hard to get at later. Relatively few people who were raised in a non-religious environment ever acquire faith later in life: such an adult will perceive much of a typical religious belief system to be as corny, fictitious and unjustifiable as it really is.
Conversely, the bulk of people who were raised in religion die still believing it. As one of the aforementioned people who was not brought up in a God-fearing household, I often wonder how people who have strong religious beliefs manage to accommodate such cognitive dissonance. That is, how they rationalize the very evident inconsistencies between their programmed view of the Universe, and what actually is.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It's clear that Christianity (the best example for our nation) is intended only to benefit Christians -- if you aren't one, you can just go to hell.
More correctly, if you aren't one, you are going to Hell.
Realistically speaking, however, if you look at the root of all religions (going back to the pantheons of the ancient Greek, Roman and even earlier civilizations) you will note that they are attempts to explain that which was, at the time, unexplainable or simply unacceptable (i.e., death.) The problem is that we've advanced way, way beyond the need for such primitive descriptions of how the Universe works. To this day, far too many people are simply unwilling or, in many cases, constitutionally unable, to accept that and move on.
Where we have not succeeded is in eliminating the need for the social control that organized religion provides. By and large, people are animals when you get right down to it, and civilization doesn't function well (or at all) if everyone is just doing what's best for him or herself, no matter the cost to anyone else. Fear of God (or Zeus, or any other external deity) has kept millions of people more-or-less in line for centuries. Consequently, one can't say that everything organized religion has done is bad, but unfortunately we're at the point where their antiscience bent is causing a severe cultural rift, and is in fact causing a lot of damage.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If a scientist is evaluating subjects (often well) outside their sphere of study, how does that make their opinion any better than anyone elses?
Maybe it does, maybe it does not. I would say that the opinion of, say, an astronomer on evolutionary science carries more weight than the opinion on the same subject of an uneducated layperson completely unaware of the principles and methods of science. The layperson may reject evolution because to him it seems unfathomable that he could descend from monkeys (especially when the Bible contradicts it), whereas the astronomer, due to his own scientific grooming, understands that there might be larger causal framework at play that he may not be aware of that makes the evolutionary theory a plausible conception.
I'm equally as terrified by scientific zealots as religious zealots. Some ignorant people can say Goddidit as easily as they can say Sciencedidit.
I've witnessed the political posturing behind "science" in academia and industry, I've know many great scientists who search for the truth. I've known many assholes with PhDs that impede progress. How long did "science" dispute that bacteria caused ulcers?
I'm not sure how Einstein, Mendell, Lord Kelvin, Henry Eyring, etc were impeded by a believe in God. I'm not a member of any religion, yet I can see the value of them.
While studying biology, I got to know several religious people that had no problem with accepting both evolution and christian religion. Most of them believe in some kind of predistination, other people have found different solutions for that problem.
Ask the same question to germans. I bet even most german priests will tell you they believe in evolution and the bible at the same time. Fact is that the bible can't be taken literal, there are to many inconsistencys, both inside the bible itself and between bible and reality, to allow literal fundamentalism and that's where education and enlightenment come into play.
So, the real problem is, how christian religion gets tought in America, not christian religion nor any other religion itself.
I don't know if the media really is clueless (though many 'journalists' believe anything you tell them with a straight face) but more just out of ideas. The Michael Jackson coverage was a prime example, eventually, just to fill time CNN had on some psychics/astrologers on. I don't think having unpopular ideas reported or discussed in the news is a bad thing, so long as you look at it critically just as you would with people with differing views on the economy.
The thing that really worries me about journalism, especially on TV is allowing opinion to run right alongside actual reporting. Fox news is the most blatant with this type of coverage, but MSNBC and CNN are pretty close in this lazy time killer. Just do 10 seconds of reporting on an issue, then cut back to someone just saying "this is stupid and it'll ruin society!" and eventually people start viewing all news through a quick-reaction filter.
"I'm thinking it's the part where people arrive at a conclusion regarding matters of science from a path dictated by politics and or religion."
I'm thinking your thinking is irrelevant to the science. Why not try to answer the question with data or reasoned argument rather than a nice sophistic non-denial denial?
There was nothing in the post concerning what we know about the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is in any way the product of politics or religion, so exactly what's your point about there only being a "correlation" and not a well understood cause and effect relationship?
Do you actually have to observe someone hitting you on the head with a hammer before you can notice that your head hurts? That might be a pretty rigorous form of hypothesis testing, but like the case of study of global warming, your approach is going to be both far more expensive and painful than it needs to be.
That is, how they rationalize the very evident inconsistencies between their programmed view of the Universe, and what actually is.
Easily.
II Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight
In Christianity at least, faith is supposed to be different than what you see. For context, the next verse:
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
How do you suppose people can believe that their dead friend/relative is still alive and in heaven when they themselves are at the burial? The existence of a more important, more enduring reality than what is observed is a central concept, not an aberration adopted to defend the worldview.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I work at a university and so work with PhDs all the time. There are a good many of them who think they know everything, but in reality have extremely limited knowledge outside of their narrow field. They'll be happy to tell you how you should of all sorts of thing, but if you investigate, you discover they know fuck all about what they are talking about. That they have a PhD means they are highly educated in a very specific field. It doesn't mean they are masters of everything. Some understand that, others do not.
As an example we have a massive amount of wireless APs on our campus, hundreds per building. The idea is to provide total coverage. This necessitates they be placed all over, and not just in wiring closets and such. There are some in offices. We have a few professors that demanded the APs be moved, or who placed shields over them to "protect" themselves from the radiation. These are engineering professors, by the way, not art professors. So while this is even in their general domain, they still don't know about it and are as subjected to the same pseudo-science BS as the general public.
While it might be a comforting idea to think scientists are all very smart, reasonable people, that just isn't the case. They are human like the rest of us, and there are plenty of them who don't know what they are talking about save for a small area, and even some who don't know what they are talking about in their area. Science works not because scientists are superhuman, but because the process of strong inference allows us to test and refine our knowledge. The process of science is what is amazing, not necessarily the people who work in it.
Feynman's biography has some great commentary on this and the dangers of "averaging" opinions with people. That just because you ask a lot of people, doesn't mean that you got the right answer.
As an example, suppose around the 1950s you asked 100 scientists about an atomic theory and 90% thought it was right, 10% thought it was wrong. Must be right huh? Now what if I told you the 10 that thought it was wrong were Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe, and so on. Maybe then you aren't so sure. Just because 90 random scientists think something, doesn't mean they are right and the people who actually developed the technology are wrong.
Science is not a democracy, you don't vote on what the right answer is.
So I'm with you, I really hate these stories of "Well X% of profession Y believe this!" That is marketing bullshit. "4 out of 5 dentists agree this is the toothpaste for you!" Ok well so what? Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are just mediocre and the top 20% know that it is bunk. Any time I hear something telling me what percentage of peopel like something or believe something, I feel like I'm being sold something, not being informed.
i don't know if this is the case in other cultures, but in America, we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything. We are incapable of simply being happy for each other or grateful for what we have. This seems especially true of intelligence/education. We HATE smart people. If you correct someone's grammar, spelling, punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else. A semi-educated person will call you a prescriptivist. Anything to avoid admitting ignorance or that you're right. It's odd to me that a nation so obsessed with accomplishment, despises anyone who accomplishes.
Then there are the one uppers. If you tell them your house is yellow, their house is yellower... or they've seen a house that was yellower. Can't you just nod and say, "oh, yellow house, nice"? If you have a headache today, they have migraines everyday!
There was a study saying that most Americans would rather that all their coworkers make 50K and for them to make 100K, than for everyone at the company to make 200K.
We also hate anyone/thing that makes us question our beliefs. We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned. That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent. Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians. The rest of us should just shut up and be grateful to be allowed to live. After all, we'd be put to death in Iran, right?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
The media is reporting their theories as fact.
"They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites. How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being. The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'."
If your goal is to assess the level of magical thinking in a population, that's not such a bad split. The problem would arise if you got the natural-processes-guided-by-a-supreme-being crowd opting for "natural processes."
The view you hold -- "God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen" -- is called deism, and it is emphatically not what people mean when they say "guided by a supreme being." The latter is intelligent design, and it's been a depressingly successful stealth tactic for creationists. Deism is perfectly compatible with a scientific study of life. ID says basically, when you find a hard biological problem, throw up your hands and say "Goddidit."
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
They arrived at that number by rounding down. (No kidding!) The study actually says it's 97 out of 100. So instead of 1 in 10 not accepting evolution, it's less than 1 in 33.
Even that is a shockingly high number. How, in a survey of 2,533 scientists did they find 76 that didn't accept evolution? Even with the physicists and chemists in the mix?
I'm Catholic yet I don't believe the earth is flat. Since I wasn't alive back then, I don't know if the earth was flat or not. Maybe, back then, the earth was in fact flat. Your dad and probably yourself also believed that the earth travels in circles around the sun. That is of course false, we know today that the earth travels in a straight line in curved space-time.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
If I only had some mod points... your post was spot-on exactly what I was going to say in response to the topic.
I am a Christian and a scientist (life sciences/mycology/forestry to be exact). Several of my closest colleges hold similar beliefs, though some are less "religious" than others (believe me, it makes for some very interesting conversations over our morning coffee!). Yet the prevailing cultural attitude we regularly face is that you are expected to either be a 7-day biblical literalist, or that you completely dismiss the Bible as an ancient myth. There seems to be no room for middle ground. Myself, I don't see why answering the question of our exact mechanism of creation is critical.
I believe in a God who, if He wanted to, could have guided evolution with humankind as a result, or could have created the world in 7 days complete with "historic" fossil and genetic evidence of evolution, or could have even ordered the entire universe (including us with all of our memories) into existence less than a second ago. Does it matter? What matters to me is that we're here, now, and that we need to do what we can to make the most of every moment we have. As a scientist, this means using my skills and knowledge to strive to make the world better through improvements in our understanding of the physical universe around us, and as a Christian this means seeking out a spiritual framework of meaning and purpose for my life that goes beyond just a physical existence. Maybe it's a bit naive of me, but I see religion and science as addressing two fundamentally different questions. I do not expect science to answer questions which lie outside of the observable, empirical world, and I do not expect my religious beliefs to completely explain the minutiae of the workings of the universe.
This is why I have no qualms about studying or writing about evolutionary processes as a Christian. It's the currently held scientific theory, based on the consensus of overwhelming empirical evidence. Just because something can appear to happen in the absence of a higher power, doesn't mean that the higher power cannot exist. Whether evolutionary evidence is genuine or was planted in a 6,000 year old earth that was designed to "look" old, it's still there, and in science you can't discount data simply because it doesn't fall in line with what you personally want it to be.
I think this is both true and focusing on a tree, not the forest. There's a lot more than this going on.
That story is bunk. Europeans, back to the Greeks (and probably before), knew that the world was round.
The debate that Columbus had wasn't whether it was round, but whether it was *small enough* that a ship could sail westward to reach "the Orient" before running out of provisions, instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route. It turns out the answer is: "no, it's not." So Columbus was wrong, but lucky.
And to dispell another commonly-held myth, North America had long been visited by Norse explorers. The evidence for this is extremely, extremely strong. (Even if you don't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America.)
Comment of the year
The size of a planet is not the size of its orbit. The electrons themselves have been measured to be ~ 10^-18 cm. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle#Point_particle_properties
On the other hand, the size of a solar system is the size of the planets' orbits. Atoms measure about 10^-8 cm.
Basic U.S. science education teaches that an electron is one of many parts that make up an atom. There are zero or more electroncs, plus protons and neutrons. Basic logic says that if one thing is inherently a part of something else, then the first thing must be smaller. You're thinking to hard to justify how 54% of Americans could get that question wrong. The sad truth is that 54% of Americans couldn't care less about basic education.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Look if you do enough research to look up sample bias and self selection, surely you can do enough research to actually follow the link and read the methodology of the study you're claiming is suffering from them. For example, they control for self selection in the study using statistics on contact methodology between respondents and the public. Your claim that the AAAS is a "liberal" organization is likewise a completely subjective opinion based upon the stated goals of the organization and your own, arbitrary definition of "liberal" as it is a decidedly not affiliated with any political party. Finally, your comments about anyone being able to join are misguided as the study was not of the general membership and weeded out nonscientists using survey questions and the information the AAAS had on its members, for example eliminating all primary and secondary education professionals.
Basically, it looks to me like you have a belief you're trying to support, so you're looking for anything that might support it without looking too deeply. A real scientist forms opinions logically and rationally, rather than simply using those as methods to defend an opinion already formed.