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.
No they didn't. Catholicism was the major driver behind geocentrism, and no-one with any sense ever believed the earth was flat.
Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll. Anyone that wants to fork over $99 can join the AACS, including kindergarten teachers. Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist? The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization, so it's no surprise that 55% say they are Democrats.
Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.
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!
Hrm... I'd like to see exactly how they arrived at *that* number...
They're not counting engineers as scientists, are they?
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
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 "Pew Research Center" canvassed the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS publishes the Science journal which has a distinctly liberal bias.
Note carefully: I'm not saying that's a bad thing. However, it means that the sample is biased. I'm actually surprised that as many as 6% of respondents identified themselves as Republicans.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
This is just plain wrong. Even the ancient greeks knew that the earth was spherical. This has been the dominant scientific position for a long time. The wikipedia article on it is quite good flat earth.
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.
Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth back then in 240 BCE, thats long before science as we know it today even existed.
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.
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.
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.
Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll
I looked to find this "aacs" you refer to. I came up with several organizations:
None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me. Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. And if we look at their membership requirements for the US we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year. A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.
The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization
Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their website:
The same page continues on with some broad goals:
That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
I am a student of neuroscience at the graduate level, find religion to be extremely valuable at a philosophical level and as an important tool to buttress a healthy society, and I understand that a drive toward equilibrium and low energy states is the driving force behind all interactions. I have seen the evidence that the world is globally warming, and that one of the main causes of that is the introduction of greenhouse gases by human activity.
... but also understand that there needs to be some laws to stifle monopolistic corporations, or innovation will be just as stifled as if it were a socialist system (because large corporation is practically the same as large government, just with a different location of power). I also understand that capitalism and society do not work quickly enough at all times, but they are the ideal methods. Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely, because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years.
But I also find the idea of large government to be entrapping and without any verifiable benefit to society. I prefer the self regulation of capitalism
And really, who can disagree with the idea of renewable resources, either from an environmental, social, or military perspective? I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer only.
I find that my political objectives are aligned with the "Democratic" party, but my prefered method is much more similar to the "Republican" party (I prefer the terms "socialist" and "privatist" as they more accurately reflect the ideas, but the party names are what they are unfortunately). So, philosophically or functionally I am a Republican, but my goals are socially liberal (not to be confused with the political Democratic Party).
Basically, I want my personal freedom.
Indeed. Columbus had difficulty getting his expedition funded not because people thought the world was flat, but because they thought it was sufficient large that he would run out of supplies in the middle of the ocean. They were right; if there hadn't been a continent in the way then he'd have starved to death.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
shamelesly stolen from another website, i am not plagiarizing this, (i lay no claim to authoring it, but i love it)
So here's the thing: We have 46 chromosomes. Our nearest great ape relatives have 48. On the surface, it looks like we must have lost two. But that's actually a huge problem. Made up of organized packs of DNA and proteins, chromosomes don't just up and vanish. In fact, it's doubtful any primate could survive a mutation that simply deleted a pair of chromosomes. That's because chromosomes are to the human body what instruction sheets are to inexpensive, flat-pack furniture. If you're missing one screw, you can still put that bookcase together pretty easily. But if the how-to guide suddenly jumps from page 1 (take plywood panels out of box) to page 5 (enjoy bookcase!), you're likely to end up missing something pretty vital. All this left scientists with a thorny dilemma: How could we have a common ancestor with great apes, but fewer chromosomes?
Turns out: The chromosomes aren't missing at all. Genetic investigators caught the first whiff of the prodigal chromosomes' scent in 1982. That year, a paper published in the journal Science described a very funny phenomenon. Researchers knew all chromosomes had distinctive signatures; patterns of DNA sequences that can be reliably found in specific spots, including in the center and on the ends. These end-cap sequences are called telomeres. Telomeres are like the little plastic tips that keep your shoelaces from unravelling. They protect the ends of chromosomes and hold things together. Given that important function, you wouldn't expect to find telomeres hanging out on other parts of the chromosome. But that's exactly what the 1982 study reported. Looking at human chromosome 2, the scientists found telomeres snuggled up against the centromere (the central sequence). What's more, these out-of-place human telomeres were strikingly similar to telomeres that can be found, in their proper location, on two great ape chromosomes.
This evidence laid the groundwork for a brilliant discovery. Rather than falling apart, the two missing chromosomes had fused together. Their format changed, but they didn't lose any information, so the mutation wasn't deadly. Instead, scientists now think, the fusion made it difficult for our ancestors to mate with the ancestors of chimpanzees, leading our two species to strike out alone. In the two decades since the original study, more evidence has surfaced backing this up, which leads us to 2005, when the chimpanzee genome was sequenced around the same time that the National Human Genome Research Institute published a detailed survey of human chromosome 2. We can now see extra centromeres in chromosome 2 and trace how its genes neatly line up with those on chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. It's a great example of evidence supporting the common descent of man and ape. [EOF]
So all you christians are wack thinking some imaginary god did it.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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/
The Half Sigma blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...
There is a Pew research study purporting to poll "scientists." The question I immediately want answered is, what's a "scientist?" The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".
You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
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!
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.
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