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.
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.)
My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this. He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world. E.g. I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought. He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex."
I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out. It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.
I am not a crackpot.
Personally I think its a more psychological effect, like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more. If you leave the same person, party or attitude in office long enough, you stop noticing what they're doing in any positive light so you switch it up. After a while, the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible.
On the subject of poor quality questions, one of the the questions to test the public's knowledge of science was
Electrons are smaller than atoms. (True/False)
46% of the general public said true and, at first, I was thinking that for more than half of the general public to not understand about atoms and electrons was a pretty poor showing.
But then I got to thinking about whether an electron is, in fact, smaller than an atom. Sure, the rest mass of an electron is much smaller than the rest mass of an atom. Maybe that's what the question was trying to ask. But the way the question is worded seems to imply a spatial size. When you're dealing with objects as light as electrons, the whole notion of size is non-intuitive (probability distributions described by wave functions).
Maybe they had their reasons for not simply asking whether an electron was more massive than an atom - or maybe whoever put the survey together some gaps in their own science education.
It looks like the ABC Australia author took part of this article and added his own interpretation. Notice that Dr. Allison is not quoted in the crucial sentences on either article. My guess is that the scientific journalists (who are not scientists themselves) are putting words in his mouth.
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. (emphasis mine)
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.
I'm more inclined to believe this is closer to Dr. Allison's view as it encompasses long range thinking and there's a direct quote attached.
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. (emphasis mine)
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
So this is where the ABC article is getting it's information. Dr. Allison is saying that these are episodic carvings but that over a long period it's stable. The ABC author is just looking at the carving going on this year and created a sentence (that is not a direct quote from Dr Allison) saying that Antarctic is losing ice. This is a myopic and misinforming view in my opinion, as it's short term and does not represent the overall situation in Antarctica.
> Who wants to be a mere normal? Certainly not I.
Whether one aspires to be normal or not, depends on which side of the mean you lie in a normal distribution. For you I'm pretty sure it would be a step in the right direction.
> Any group that is more than half democrats is biased to start with.
The majority of climate scientists are not American and thus neither democrats nor republicans. Does that make them more credible to you ? Or do scientists need to be predominantly right wing to be credible in your world ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that. The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&D to its highest levels in 30+ years. The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton. But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.