Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans
cold fjord writes The Woodrow Wilson School reports, "If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit 'warmer,' according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm. In particular, Americans seem wary of researchers seeking grant funding and do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality. 'Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust,' said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of public affairs. 'But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment. Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions.'"
Fox news goes on and on to perpetuate the idea that scientists would rather be shamed and discredited by releasing junk science to receive grant money than be honored as brilliant to discover something profound. I swear those people are nitwits.
I pity USA scientists. It must be hard to live and work in a country where the powers that be turned all facts into opinions.
Are more interested in discovering new things or proving old things wrong, than trying to make friends with everyone.
Fuck, no! The media and politics need to treat science differently.
It is not the scientists fault the multiplicators neglect knowledge and reason and go for Bang and Bling.
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
The entire goddamn point of science is that you prove the theory using experiment, publish a paper explaining what you did and how you did it, and then anybody else [who is competent] can go read the paper and reproduce similar results for themselves.
The real issue here is the part I put in square brackets as an aside: "anybody [who is competent]." It's true that if you're not competent then you need to trust something. But what you need to trust is not the individual scientists themselves, but rather that competent people will, as a group, follow the process and weed out the disproven theories.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's very challenging for non-scientists to tell the difference between good science, obsolete science that is used to sell defective products, and charlatan science - 'lipstick on a pig'.
If real scientists want respect, they need to call out Wall Street for all the ways it profits from the obesity epidemic.
The American public can make even the basest effort in trying to understand the world for themselves and immediately grasp the complete irrelevance of perceived "warmth" when it comes to judging what is true and what is not.
Magic has always intimidated people who weren't in on it.
Let's make this discussion about global warming! I'll start.
I don't trust scientists that try to say global warming is a human-caused problem. It's a conspiracy to control us all!
Maybe scientists would be friendlier if the 'average American' wasn't a proctologic habersashery.
It is not a scientists job to teach people science. Their job is to do science. Furthermore, the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes who insist on pushing their own personal politics.
And then, of course, scientists will get raked over the coals because they are not allowed to be a human being, who gets frustrated and bitchy when being forced to deal with such crap.
The problem is that there is no one clear problem. The media don't know jack about science, but insist on reporting it. North American culture in general has become profoundly anti-intellectual. There are other issues as well, but those are the most directly relevant.
What we need are more *spokespersons* for science. More Neil deGrasse Tysons. People who BOTH understand the science AND have the skill to teach it to laypeople. Hell, IMO general media should be banned outright from discussing scientific topics, since they don't seem to be able to do anything BUT screw it up.
Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions.'"
So, the study calls for presenters rather than scientists? It is difficult to find balance, but I'm inclined to think that scents should just do the science, and they'd better be well left alone. It's up to the (gasp!) media or to their institution's press department to sensibilise the public in general to the science being done and what it means.
i *had* a low uid, but lost it in my lawn
Peer review has nothing to do with trust. Results, those are important. Cheap way to include politics into this.
Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically.
We already know that a large portion of our country is repeatedly fed biased misinformation on this topic and told to distrust anyone who represents an opposing viewpoint. If we tried this on something that is less of a political football, we would likely see very different results. I would doubt that anywhere near as many people would doubt scientists telling them about research on gravity or the spheroid shape of our planet.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
More religion from the US.
Though money is at stake, what does science have to do with the trust of the general public? In this context, trust has nothing to do with data. And, i would go as far as suggesting that the overwhelming majority simply know little of the most basic experimental designs, caveats, and the necessary analyses. BTW, the same applies to the STEM religious groups here on Slashdot.
Off the top of my head, I recently read about a Novartis treatment that dramatically improved outcomes from heart failure and there was something in today's headlines about extended the lives of breast cancer (HER2?). The research and the researchers care nothing about the trust of the general public. It's a different question when discussing profits, shareholders, and so on.
The whole fucking planet knows we've got environmental problems except the people in the U.S.A. because they trust religion and politicians more than scientists who are "pushing an agenda". I pity the real scientists living there, they just can't fucking win.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I'd rather trust an elected government than corporate leaders I can do nothing about. Politicians are far from perfect, but they are one step up from capitalists, and unlike capitalists, the people have the power to kick them out every four or so years.
Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust,' said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of public affairs
it was only fairly recently that someone explained the absolutely crucial difference between trust and respect, and it knocked me sideways. i used to always accept the "wisdom" that trust is EARNED.
trust - literally by definition- CANNOT be EARNED.
*respect* can be earned, because to respect someone (or something) you learn from PAST experience and PAST actions, you make a judgement call "that thing (or person) did something cool [in the PAST], and i liked it."
trust - by definition - refers to the FUTURE. i am - in the FUTURE - going to give someone the power and authority to do something. i (the person doing the trusting) actually have absolutely NO CLUE as to whether in the FUTURE, regardless of PAST performance, the person will do what they say that they can do.
how on earth can _anyone_ say, "you earned (past tense) my trust (future decision-making)"????
this is how wars are started (and sustained), by people confusing past and present in relation to trust and respect.
so this is where it gets interesting, because the original article is actually making TWO completely SEPARATE and distinct statements:
1) the american public has analysed the PAST actions of scientists, and finds that those actions are [in some way] cool enough to be respected (past tense)
2) the american public has, within themselves, insufficient knowledge about what it is that scientists do - and this has absolutely nothing to do with the scientists but EVERYTHING to do with "the american public" - in order to take the [frightening!] step of placing their trust in the FUTURE decision-making of some individuals-that-happen-to-be-scientists.
i cannot emphasise enough that a decision *to* trust has absolutely nothing to do with the person or thing that you are trusting. the *decision* to place trust in someone else really *really* is something that has absolutely nothing to do with the *analysis* of whether *to* trust.
this is where people get terribly confused. they do some analysis (based usually on past performance), and then they have to make a decision. they *believe* that the [past] analysis *IS* trust. it's not!! even once the [past] analysis has been done, you *still* need to take that step - to trust.
the link between respect and trust is that it is *usually* the respect that we have for people which tips our analysis in favour of certain individuals. but the analysis is NOT respect itself, just as trust (the decision to trust) is not the same thing as respect _either_.
now what i find ironic is that it is someone with a degree in psychology that is talking about trust being "earned". if someone whom the american public implicitly "trusts" (because they have a PhD) is saying "trust is earned" then how is anyone else supposed to know the difference between trust and respect??
But real scientists don't want respect, they want to know how the world works.
I'd wager this has much less to do with scientists coming off as "warm/fuzzy" and more to do with most people’s innate distrust of those that deliver either information they don't agree with (or more specifically that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions) or information that makes them feel stupid - when the majority hears about something they are too ignorant to understand, they don't like/trust the person with that idea - but that's just human nature.
While "scientists" do have their problems (journals / peer review circle-jerks / et al) I fear the only way they'll come across as "warm/fuzzy" would be if they "dumb it down" even more and that's not a direction we should be going, as we're already down to -11.
I'd rather trust an elected government than corporate leaders I can do nothing about. Politicians are far from perfect, but they are one step up from capitalists, and unlike capitalists, the people have the power to kick them out every four or so years.
You can refuse to do business with and therefore not give your money to a corporation.
Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you.
True, but when it comes down to it, I'll trust a scientists' word about something scientific over a celebrity's word or a preacher's word.
For example, Scientist A, a respected immunologist, says that vaccines prevent disease and are good. Celebrity M, a former Playboy model, says they're filled with icky stuff and should be banned. Too many Americans would listen to the celebrity over the scientist or give their views equal weight when there is no comparison: The scientist should win out.
For another example, Scientist B, a geologist, says that the evidence points to the Earth being 4.54 billion years. Preacher Z claims that the Bible says it is only 10,000 years old. Again, too many Americans would either give them equal weight or would side with the preacher.
Avoiding the authority fallacy is a good thing, but this doesn't mean that a person's knowledge of a field should be disregarded in all cases.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Trust is a pretty big thing here in America. Gravity? sure, i get it, i use that every day (unless its not still free. i do have a budget you know.) But sir isaac newton? seriously shady guy. how can i trust someone that looks that much like Weird Al Yankovik but never once dropped a mix tape...you have to approach the guy kinda carefully. dispersive prisms are sweet, but did you know that Pink Floyds dark side of the moon album uses them too? Isaac newton probably invented them so he could have a mix tape, but through the magic of Pink Floyd (prisms help roger waters rock harder) +1 to Isaac for helping out (maybe he can be trusted now. maybe.)
and climate change? sure, i get that and its been explained and it helped al gore invent the internet and now flights to florida are a lot cheaper than before. But 300 scientists around the world? hold on. can they be trusted? i mean what if they dont wash their hands after going to the bathroom? You cant trust people who dont use their turn signals either, so those guys are right out. What if climate change was secretly used in 9/11? do those scientists support the troops? EXACTLY. these are important questions about science that keep us up at night. Also if I disagree with it, then that makes it a THEORY and not a science fact, which means it can only be used in movies until they make it come true.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I do end up wondering though, every time this type of story comes up it is in the form 'people do not trust XYZ, rated below used car salesmen!'. So who does the population tend to trust? There must be some group on the top of the list.
Stop paying your landlord, or utility companies and see what happens.
Your non-government % of GDP says you trust yourselves. Like government, that works better in theory than practice.
Fixed your subject line for you. Enjoy!
Americans trust science too much. If you can cite a study to prove your point you have won the argument. This has been noticed by the political class and they have designed studies to allow them to win the political argument or get the headline they want. For instance, the famous Harvard study that came up with the conclusion that medical bills cause greater than 60% of bankruptcies used as a criteria that if there were over $5000 in medical bills that caused the bankruptcy. Just about every year I have that much in medical bills. I guess the real amazing thing is ~40% of people who declare bankruptcy have less $5000 in medical bills in the year in which they declare bankruptcy.
Unless the news and the public can distinguish between studies that were designed to give a result, science will continue to be misused. It is very easy to design a study that will give a specific result. If you wanted to create a study that said only 1% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills you could used that 99% of the debt in the bankruptcy had to be medical bills. The issue is that caused by does not mean what you would expect.
What about him? Do they find him to be too cold and unlikable as well?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I don't think anyone disagrees that vaccines prevent disease and are good. I think certain people would just like to have the contents of the vaccines studied further for unwanted side affects. I love this agenda. If we were talking about food additives, would you say: Scientist A, a respected agricultural scientist, says food is good and people should eat it to survive. Celebrity M, a former Hustler model, says food is filled with icky stuff and should be banned. No? Why not? That's what you're doing, being disingenuous.
Because everyone knows that many artificial additives, preservatives, chemicals, etc. put in most modern foods are bad for you by now, yet when it comes to vaccines we blindly trust that everything in them absolutely *has* to be good, because they were made by scientists! Guess who made those same "safe" food additives? Not an anti-vaxxer, not by any means, just saying there are lots of things we think absolutely must have been tested to be completely safe when it turns out that it probably isn't as great for you as you'd like to have thought. That's all.
For starters, please provide citations for everything you put in quotes.
If scientists were so desperate for money, so easily bought by whoever was willing to pay them, we'd have volumes of studies saying that burning fossil fuels is good for everything from water quality to sex drive, that dumping toxic waste into rivers makes fish taste better, and that tobacco smoking curse cancer.
But we don't. For every study that suggests (or is construed to suggest even though it clearly doesn't) that climate change isn't occurring there's at least a hundred that says it is.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the scientists are not chasing paychecks like some people claim, but are doing their best to honestly study a subject they feel is important and are interested in.
=Smidge=
Yes, this is a common set of mistakes and misunderstandings as well as the bizarre focus on grant money over the money in the entire fossil fuel industry that the average climate denialist partakes in.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you stop paying your landlord, you no longer get to use someone else's land and buildings. This comes as a shock to you?
If you own the land instead, and stop paying your property taxes, the government will take your property away.
Your argument for trusting politicians over landlords seems silly.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Mate, when you're paid peanuts and work long hours, then all that's left is respect.
Why do you think there are so many scientific awards?
Instead of paying researchers properly, you can just hand out a few nice cheap awards.
Car works, science is good.
Cell phone works, science is good.
Food supply is safe, science is good.
Water is safe, science is good.
Stove works, science is good.
Climate changes is bogus can't trust science.
*sigh*
You can refuse to do business with and therefore not give your money to a corporation.
Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you.
You can try, but then those corporations get laws passed to either require you to purchase from them, or they get massive government subsidies to prop up their "slumping industry" and you pay for it anyways. It doesn't seem a lot of people are aware of the extent non-human entities have captured our government.
"But those don't count, because you can find new people to pay for your basic survival needs!"
--My imagined straw libertarian reply
An interesting thing specifically about the term "landlord": It's a title leftover from when property ownership was synonymous with political power. The person who owned where you lived, also more or less owned you. When the lines between wealth and official authority that democracy ushered in weren't present. Anarcho-capitalists would have believe that isn't the inevitable consequence of removing the power struggle between the politically powerful and the financially powerful, but history isn't exactly rife with counter-examples.
Fair enough. No one is forced to trust any scientist. But the least a "non-truster" can do is not be a hypocrite. If you don't want to "believe in" climate change, vaccinations, evolution, the age of the universe, etc. then fine, you have that choice. But to be consistent you should stop using the internet, cell phones, airplanes, cancer treatments, MRI's, and hell even fucking oil because extracting it now requires extreme geological engineering and materials science since all the easy to get to stuff has been burned up.
Science made your daily life possible and here is the thing people apparently don't get...all those same physical principles that let you tweet (quantum mechanics, wave theory etc) are applied in all the other areas of study that they apparently don't trust. But tweets get fucking tweeted all the time! The proof is in your pocket!! Americans should realize that for the past hundred years or so they've been trusting science with their lives. If they don't trust scientists maybe they should move to a sustenance farm in kansas (which may only last a few decades since the ogallala aquifer has been draining at alarming rates but thats science for you again...)
Reasonable grammar is for conformist sheep!
We really need to stop doing that. When science is seen as being a part of politics, the public assumes that the facts we discover by observation of nature can be manipulated and bargained away in the same way as the laws made by legislatures.
Scientist is just a label that any one can give to themselves. There is nothing preventing any human from calling themselves a scientist.
And it is so true with those that manipulate the populous for their own profits. Only a fool would have to llook further than the global warming billionaires.
An intelligent leader does not need to be a scientist, however, an intelligent leader needs to be scientifically literate. I feel that the lack of scientific literacy and statistical literacy as a whole has created a great gap between understanding what is going on and trusting people who have the bests interests of the people at heart. However, some exceptions exist. I honestly feel Pope Francis has been one of the best leaders of the Catholic church in the last century. I don't know if he will exceed Pope John Paul II or not, but in a short time, he has undone a lot of damage that his predecessor did. I feel his scientific background has assisted in this.
On top of that, we have an economy built on short term gains. This has created a lot of negative perceptions on things that need to be done. We can't push alternative energy because we will destroy the economy, but China and Germany have been doing just that and their economies are booming.
Sadly, what we are being told by this study is that our researchers need a PR team. Everyone can imagine what that will do to the cost of research and development. On a positive note, we might now have justification for employing the people who spent all of that time getting marketing degrees.
Place something witty here
For every study that suggests (or is construed to suggest even though it clearly doesn't) that climate change isn't occurring there's at least a hundred that says it is.
Ummmm, I think there are zero serious scientific studies that claim that climate change isn't occurring. Most people are aware that the climate has always been changing. You know, ice ages and so forth.
You know what I find hilarious? Just for making this observation, many people will peg me as a "climate change denier".
You only 'own' the land within the framework of the state's legal system, just like when you are renting a property it is 'your home' within the framework of the lease. Others can not take it away unless the framework allows them to, which generally benefits both landowners and renters since without this protection other random people would probably take it from them simply because they want it.
When "scientists" discuss harsh facts that may have disastrous consequences, people think they're exaggerating, trying to be persuasive, and not being impartial.
There is such a thing as a proven theory
You cited examples of mathematical theory, not scientific theory. While they overlap they are not the same thing. Mathematical proofs can and do exist independent of any real world phenomena as they are pure logical constructs.
All scientific theories are falsifiable. This does not mean they are wrong but rather that there is always the possibility (however remote) that a new piece of data will disprove the theory. If it cannot (theoretically) be proven wrong then it is not science. Theories that cannot be tested through observations of real world phenomena are not science.
But keep in mind that all of those "chemicals" in your food and medicines were passed upon by the FDA, which is the most notoriously conservative testing organization in the world. Even Europeans routinely get drugs that may not be available in the US for years. We can alost consider it a promotion board for medial tourism.
Science is about learning and building on past experiments and evolving knowledge. That's not a bad thing. It just means people won't trust you cause you're wrong a lot.
>Peer review has nothing to do with trust
Of course it does - not with trustng the scientists, but with trusting the results. Every single human is rife with personal bias, self deception, and carelessness. Peer review is the process in which you distinguish the results that are reflective of reality, that can be trusted, from those that are reflective of human faliability. People are right not to trust the findings of individual scientists - neither do scientists. It wasn't until that distrust was incorporated into the heart of the scientific method that science began making rapid leaps forward - because those results that pass the gauntlet of scientific distrust are solid enough to build upon.
The question is how do we explain to the non-scientific public the fact that scientists saying X one day and the opposite a few years later is a GOOD thing - that it's the the result of scientists double- and triple-checking each other's results because they know they're all falliabe human beings. And that it means something VERY different when hundreds or thouands of scientists say something than it does when only a handful are making the claim.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a big cuddly bear, delivering science as carefully and enthusiastically as he can.
And there were pitchforks.
No, if you don't want to know something, hearing it from somebody warm and fuzzy won't fix that.
My mom says I'm cool.
Because most Americans are seen as stupid, drooling idiots by the rest of the world.
So, your opinion about scientists is neither surprising, nor does it change our opinion about stupid Americans.
A country full of uneducated, illiterate morons whose religion supercedes facts, and whose ideology makes you oblivious to the real world around you.
But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment
Isn't this showing of concern the very reason certain US and other religious political groups drive wedge between the general population and the scientists? The more they care and show love for the humanity the more they are mistrusted and resisted, and eventually crucified in the arena of public opinion.
I'd rather trust an elected government than corporate leaders I can do nothing about. Politicians are far from perfect, but they are one step up from capitalists, and unlike capitalists, the people have the power to kick them out every four or so years.
You assume that the politicians are under control of the electorate ("the people"), and not under control of the capitalists.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
The problem with your position is that you put the reporters in a position of deciding what is true or not.
The question is, even if they all had enough eduction to make a competent guess, do you really want anyone deciding what you need to read about?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Nurses, who, as my Mom used to say, "Aren't the smartest people," but per some polls are the most trusted.
You are conformist sheep. Look at the number of your population who still believe your the best at everything or believe in Angels or trust money grabbing pastors.
Still believe your a rebel?
If there can be an award for "most wrong statement" about the people of the United States, it would be "You are conformist sheep".
1)"Look at the number of your population who still believe your the best at everything"
OK, I give. how many is that?
Here's a study for you done in 2014.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Most Americans don't even say that the USA is the best country in the world, much less the best at everything.
2)"believe in Angels". The stidues that I saw for for angel belief in the USA vary from 55 to 75%. So, from a half to a fourth don't have this belief.
3)"trust money grabbing pastors" Now you're just showing your own prejudices. ...", so I assume you must have some idea of what you're talking about.
You said "look up the number of your population who
Now it is your turn to produce some numbers on "trust money grabbing pastors".
Answer this: How many "money grabbing pastors" are there, and how many people trust them?
In a place as corrupt as the US, you shouldn't trust anyone or anything.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
This has nothing to do with your statement of untrusted landlords who expect you to pay rent.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I like Pope Francis, but he probably spent more time bouncing people out of nightclubs than in a lab. Appeal to authority, and all that.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You can refuse to do business with and therefore not give your money to a corporation.
Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you.
You can try, but then those corporations get laws passed to either require you to purchase from them, or they get massive government subsidies to prop up their "slumping industry" and you pay for it anyways. It doesn't seem a lot of people are aware of the extent non-human entities have captured our government.
In this example government is still the bad guy.
Maybe what we need are more scientists with public relations skills...people like Neil De Grass Tyson, who can dumb down concepts to a level the general public can understand without appearing condescending or threatening. It would help to also better educate the general public on matters of science. Then it would be easier to meet half-way.
... most scientists view Americans as incompetent and untrustworthy.
If Americans don't trust scientists, then who do they trust? Politicians? Celebrities? Talk-radio hosts? One of the reasons people don't like science is that it often tells them things they don't like. Reality is harsh, and most people would much rather believe comforting lies than unpleasant truths. Clearly, More Research is Needed.
Whenever I read shit like this I think about the movie "The Campaign "where the "America. Jesus. Freedom" slogan comes from.
It sums it up pretty well.
While I consider myself more of a conservative, I don't espouse nonscientific beliefs.
But keep in mind that all of those "chemicals" in your food and medicines were passed upon by the FDA...
Citation needed. Appears to presume that FDA has awareness of what every farmer in China puts on his crops.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
than that.
It's not that the public doesn't trust the abilities of scientists.
It's that they don't trust their motives. We have a long literary tradition that meditates on scientists that "only cared about whether they could, not whether they should," and the politicization of sciences makes people wonder not whether scientists are incompetent, but whether they have "an agenda," i.e. whether scientists are basically lying through their teeth and/or pursuing their own political agendas in the interest of their own gain, rather than the public's.
At that point, it's not that the public thinks "If I argue loudly enough, I can change nature," but rather "I don't understand what this scientist does, and I'm sure he/she is smart, but I don't believe they're telling me about nature; rather, they're using their smarts to pull the wool over my eyes about nature and profit/benefit somehow."
So the public isn't trying to bend the laws of nature through discourse, but rather simply doesn't believe the people that are telling them about the laws of nature, because they suspect those people as not acting in good faith.
That's where a kinder, warmer scientific community comes in. R1 academics with million-dollar grants may sneer at someone like Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers, but that sneering is counterproductive; the public won't understand (and doesn't want to) the rigorous, nuanced state of the research on most topics. It will have to be given to them in simplified form; Alan Alda and others in that space did so, and the scientific community needs to support (more of) that, rather than sneer at it.
The sneering just reinforces the public notion that "this guy may be smarter than me, but he also thinks he's better and more deserving than me, so I can't trust that what he's telling me is really what he thinks/knows, rather than what he needs to tell me in order to get my stuff and/or come out on top in society, deserving or not."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
There are just too many ignorant people who have absolutely no idea about the scientific process. Most scientists are well educated people, with moderate views, and a desire to make progress in the interests of humanity.
The problem in the United States, is the sheer level of corruption that permeates much of society, particularly in positions of power. How can you know if scientists are expressing their impartial scientifically determined view of something, or instead the view chosen by some part of the corrupt corporation, or some faction of the ruling junta.
I haven't yet seen this in my own country - normally these types of people get discredited quickly here - but bad science is more pervasive in the United States. Sometimes I despair to read some of the publications that support the views of the lunatic fringe extremist right (eg. anti-abortionists, creationists, or other superstitious godites). Of course, there is also a lot of good science in America, and it is unfair to tar the majority of the US scientific establishment with the same brush, but with the kind of regime that exists in Washington these days, you have to draw parallels with some of the 'science' that was produced in Nazi Germany, in the name of propaganda - particularly the kind of science that supports the agendas of far right religious zealots, like some parts of the Republican faction of the ruling elite. I hold little hope for restoration of US democracy in the short to medium term, but like the plundered Nazi/European science on which the industrial United States was built, the good ideas will survive and prosper.
Too many people listen to the celebrity because the media is all too willing to give them a platform to spread their misinformation.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
That would be because they're trying to scam you.
TFS quotes the lead author as saying:
"... do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality. ...
But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment."
"Showing concern for the environment", in a scientific paper, generally means at least the appearance of pushing a "green" agenda. The first sentence applies to me, I do not trust people trying to persuade me to their agenda, I want impartiality. That means her proposed solution is precisely the opposite of what would work with me - I want the facts, the numbers, and the numbers don't have care and concern, for humanity or the environment. The facts are what they are. Give me the facts and let me decide what I most care about about, which concern takes priority.
One of my favorite papers* goes through each potential national energy source and gives the benefits and drawbacks of each. It says "geothermal produces X kwh, in these locations, at this cost". It doesn't try to promote any of the options, but just lays out the facts about each. The closest it comes to advocacy is calculating approximately what percentage of energy needs COULD possibly be provided by each source, based on hard facts.
* My opinion of this particular paper is highly subjective - I wrote it. :)
It's a title leftover from an earlier period of centralized law
FTFY - when you argue against lords, you are not arguing with anarchists
The crux of the problem is that very few of us hear anything directly from scientists. The sources of information are primarily:
1) The media. Everything from the media, including the news, is primarily entertainment rather that information. The sad fact is that they would starve otherwise (most people would be bored silly). Consequently, anything the media presents has to be presented in a sensationalist/combative/skewed manner that usually misrepresents the bare facts. It's not an outright lie, but doesn't convey the truth either. Understanding this leads to automatic scepticism concerning any dramatic message from the media.
2) Marketing. Often closely tied with the media, which further obscures its message. Facts are only interesting to marketing insofar as it helps sell something. Are the facts bad? Put spin on it to make it a positive. Use smoke and mirrors to distract attention. Obscure the message so the negatives are easily missed. Marketing wheels out 'scientists' every other day to tell us all kinds of ridiculous 'facts; (think toothpaste or hair product adds for example). Net effect? The message is a load of rubbish even if they wheel out 'scientists'.
3) Politicians. Connected to the media and marketing, and exhibiting all the worst traits of both. Need I say more? A scientific message is wasted in the mouths of politicians.
"Scientist" do a pretty good job of doing that themselves, especially when they publish articles that are blatantly false such as the "red heads will go extinct" study.
You think those politicians aren't capitalists? LOL!!!!!
You're either a fool or a troll. You have much more power to decide who gets your money than you do over who gets elected.
once you can fake it, you've got it made.
You're on the same level who claim that people who use any technology born from the research of Josef Mengele are also Nazis. Stop being such a goof.
It's actually pretty easy to prove there's no god:
Start by researching the composition of the human body. You can easily find this online. For example, the human body is composed of 57% water. You can further break it down by element, such as 65% oxygen, 18.5% carbon, 9.5% hydrogen, 3.2% nitrogen, etc, etc.
Gather all these elements in their purest form. You don't want to contaminate your experiment at this early stage.
Next, put all these elements into a big vat. We'll call this our "primordial soup." You can mix this as desired, just make sure you have the right ratios of elements from above, and whatever you do, don't forget anything!
According to the best scientists, it's a fact that life be came from Abiogenesis, NOT creation. In fact, the outdated theory from neanderthals and others not enlightened is something called "Creation." However, those in the know call it a "Creation Myth" so you know where that fiction stands.
Stir your soup, and think of what really happened 4.25 billion years ago. Focus on what life was like before global warming, flora and fauna. Concentrate your energy on zapping that soup with lightning bolts, you can probably get a Tesla coil going to help you out here. Just remember, stir the soup and zap it. Remember there were earthquakes, so shake it every once in a while.
Now since you made your soup from elements that make up a human in the proper concentrations, you should slowly see a human form, just like it does when a sperm and egg combine in a womb. You'll see cells form, then start to divide. Once you see this you need to stop the lightning bolts because that might kill your newly formed life, unless you designed it to withstand lightning (Darwin's theory of evolution can help you here ).
Feed the cells love and emotion, prenatal vitamins, song, dance and other things that a typical embryo needs. Except since you created it yourself you can probably get away with 2 dads, 3 moms, maybe a dog or cat, heterosexual or homosexual or any combination. Let your imagination go wild!
Soon (like within 9 months if you are really slow), your new baby will emerge from that primordial soup, and you will have your brand new life form! Enjoy!
Title 21 of the US Code of federal regulations (21 CFR) lists all of the ingredients approved for use in the US food supply, whether for humans or animals. The US is a net exporter of corn and soy, and China is a net importer, so your example is not the best but I get your point.
More importantly, so does the FDA. They are currently working on the second draft of the proposed rules to cover verification that imported food products are produced to US standards as part of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). FSMA is the most extensive revision of US food and feed laws since the original 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. One of the proposed regulations is to cover Foreign Supplier Verification, by which importers must certify (through inspections) that foreign companies are following the same rules as US based companies when producing their products for export to the US. Furthermore, the FDA plans to begin on-site inspections of foreign sites at a minimum of every 3 years. For those sites that are classified as a higher risk level, they will be inspecting every year, and only the first inspection is free. The FDA will bill the company for the cost of follow up inspections if problems are found and a re-inspection is deemed necessary.
Also, FSMA gives the FDA vast new enforcement powers. Currently, they can recommend a product recall, but the manufacturer ultimately decides. Once the act is in place, they will be able to sieze all product in the supplychain, issue recalls, and close down manufacturing sites on the suspicion of a problem. They don't need to have any hard evidence like testing data or sick people.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
If you own the land instead, and stop paying your property taxes, the government will take your property away.
I thought they'd put a lien against your property so they get it when you sell it or die; not that they could take it away while you were living on it.
People trust scientists who aren't scared of losing their funding. They don't trust scientists who only receive funding according to a politician's agenda.
The solution to trustworthy scientists is to get politics out of research and research funding.
For example, Scientist A, a respected immunologist, says that vaccines prevent disease and are good. Celebrity M, a former Playboy model, says they're filled with icky stuff and should be banned. Too many Americans would listen to the celebrity over the scientist or give their views equal weight when there is no comparison: The scientist should win out.
Pfft -- we've seen Celebrity M naked! That's as honest (cough) and (cough airbrushed) unobstructed as you get! Not like Scientist A has ever done anything forthcoming like that. What's s/he hiding behind that opaque white coat anyway? I'll bet there's a tree-hugging dirty agenda-ridden hippie under there, that's what.
Well, then they shall learn to FEAR me!!! Mwah ha ha! HA HA HA!! HaHaHaHaHa!
Anyone who seems to think that applying for grants is a good way to make money, or even to guarantee to get rich quick, clearly has never actually gone through a grant application. "Quick" certainly does not apply, "rich" even less so and "guarantee" is more like a 5% chance that the grant review committee just came back from a good lunch and are in a good mood when they skim your application. And if you by chance do end up being lucky, then your institution decides to take its cut in order to pay for another football stadium.
Scenario 1:
You keep a webcam focused on a dam to monitor whether it fails. You see cracks. You watch as the dam washes out, but you warn no one. You are a scientist. You have broken no laws.
Scenario 2:
You are paid to monitor the dam and to issue warnings when appropriate. You see cracks. You watch as the dam washes out, but you warn no one. You are an element of the public safety system and you willfully and criminally left people unprotected. It doesn't matter if you were a scientist under contract.
Frankly, I have no wish to see Scientist A naked. We really need scientists who are as hot as Celebrity M. I would totally trust them in that case.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
What? They're 2 different people, you need to treat them as such. Two different stories can come from two different people without any sort of conflict. One may be wrong, or they both may have reached two different conclusions given the same facts. In this case, they're probably reiterating stories that they heard from other people, or the news media. If that's true, I certainly wouldn't blame them for coming up with two different rationales.
In a place as corrupt as Earth, you shouldn't rust anyone or anything.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
But I know I can trust them! They told me so, and trustworthy people don't lie.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I study the weather, so naturally, you should let me dictate what kind of car you drive and how many children you can have.
Or perhaps scientists stick to facts? If I wanted to hear about theories and other guesses, I'd stick to religion.
Reasonable grammar is for conformist sheep!
which makes me suspect the poster is also an Amercan.
And not some witchcraft hooties jumbo booties. (Fill in your own ending, from "silence them with fire" to "erase the collective written memory" and "replace reality with my own way of seeing things that be."
Many places will put the land up for sale, so someone can buy it by paying the back taxes. This is how you hear about grandmas loosing their house for $1.50 in taxes owed. It isn't an immediate thing, but it is used when they want their money.
By the way, I'm not commenting on what I think of this procedure, just that governments do stuff that landlords could only dream of.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It seems that an occupation dependent on warmth and competency is also not doing well...
because we are dumb. and getting stewpiter by the minute.
It is what it is.
Is this gamespot now, rehashing the same articles with different titles?
We get it, Americans hate science unless it's used to blow something up and even then only if it isn't expensive.
John Paul II was even more of a reactionary than Benedict XVI. The only difference, he was charismatic and Benedict XVI isn't.
Give me some credit. It was intended as humorously demanding the impossible and as commentary on internet discussions, with how people can swoop in and "correct" you two completely different ways.
I think mostof this distrust stems from the fact that the medical field told the American people certain foods were good, then that those same foods were bad, but then they were good again, and the nonsense keeps flip flopping on a constant basis. Most Americans don't even know the term quantum mechanics or string theory or big crunch or any of hundreds of other scientific concepts - they just pay attention to those things that might be mostly relevant. And then when those things are challenged, they stop listening.
You are conformist sheep.
Us Americans are known for our ability to uniformly agree on things and not hold anything back with petty bullshit.
I hold no illusions that we live in a democracy, democracy is an impossibility under capitalism, in practice we live in a semi-plutocracy with limited influence (mostly minor issues, not system-critical issues) of the people. But that limited influence is still infinitely more than that which we have over capitalists.
I'm certain some politicians are capitalists, but that's not really the point, they are nominally elected by the people to do the peoples bidding. A capitalist, btw, is not someone who favors the capitalist mode of production, but rather someone who controls capital and can live off capital returns (i.e. the work of others, the working class) without having to him/herself produce something of actual value.
Answer this: How many "money grabbing pastors" are there, and how many people trust them?
Not the Op, but consider in a country of somewhat in excess of 300M people, if said 'money grabbing pastors' can get 1% of the population to give them 10% of their income(traditional tithe), at an average of something like $4k per person, that's $12B going to said money grabbers, which while still a really big chunk of change to individuals is still peanuts on a national scale and indicative that the problem isn't actually that big.
I don't read AC A human right
because it is based on truth and only truth.
any deviation from truth is bad science, let alone stupid, useless, and (of course) BAD ETHICS.
if more people understood that
they'd sure trust us scientists better.
yours,
a well-trained bioscientist
I don't care how warm and friendly a scientist is, I just want them to not form/publish erroneous theories. I realize the scientific process isn't perfect, but these days its getting so bad in some areas (especially medicine related) that half of the published papers are disproven a few years later because of egregious mistakes our outright falsified data.
You may choke while laughing.
Admittedly it's all about perceptions and not facts, but here's some results:
The study rates prostitutes as the lowest competence and lawyers nearly the highest competence with similar warmth.
The exact opposite of my experience.
Asians, Jews and men are lumped closely together while women are shown to be much less competent, but warmer than those three.
Is this a study of how stupid the average person is? Or is it a study of how stupid the researchers think the average person is?
"Water, fire, air and dirt
****ing magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all mother****ers lying, and getting me pissed"
I may not agree with the researcher of this article on everything, but I have to agree with her about how people do not trust scientists who are perceived to have persuasive agendas. In such cases, the more intelligent the scientist may mean that he is even more distrusted. And as far as respect goes, fear is also a form of respect. That's because in such cases they respect/fear how good the scientist(s) may be in getting themselves and others to do things that might be disasterous.
I wish she put more detail of what examples people gave that caused them to become distrustful.
"2)"believe in Angels". The stidues that I saw for for angel belief in the USA vary from 55 to 75%. So, from a half to a fourth don't have this belief."
55-75% of the population of the United States believes in imaginary and invisible fairies who serve an all-powerful invisible mega fairy. The mega fairy supposedly conveyed messages to illiterate ancient people's indicating that you will suffer for all eternity in the afterlife if you don't choose to believe in the mega fairy by proxy his normal human messengers without any evidence whatsoever but must have "faith." The lack of any evidence or sign is to assist you with believing without any basis for belief aka "faith." Oh, and those messengers want to dedicate their lives to spreading his message, so if you have faith you must give them a certain percentage of the annual income you work for so they can avoid doing any work. Oh and they shouldn't pay taxes because they are dedicated to the big fairy. Oh but you get something in exchange! If you confess all your blackmail material to them, they will forgive you for all your wrongdoings on the magical fairie's behalf so you don't have to feel bad about the horrible things you've done that have hurt others.
Seriously? You don't see ANYTHING wrong with that? There is more evidence for alien abduction and crop circles than any organized religion. That isn't a prejudice it's sanity. And while money grabbing is inflammatory phrasing it is an accurate assessment of what is happening. Even if the person asking for the money is legitimately one of the 55-75% who have somehow gotten this odd idea any of that could be rational or sane that only relegates him to the same rank as the crazy bum begging in the subway.
Not an anti-vaxxer, not by any means, just saying there are lots of things we think absolutely must have been tested to be completely safe when it turns out that it probably isn't as great for you as you'd like to have thought. That's all.
First, nothing is "completely safe." Everything has a limit beyond which it exceeds the capacity of a human to absorb it. On top of that, no injection or vaccination is ever 100% risk free. There is risk of infection, of allergens, of tainted products, etc. And there are also the risks of adverse side effects in some measure of the population.
People don't really understand statistics. They certainly don't understand a "one in a million" chance, as evinced by the profitability of the lottery. They also don't understand the consequences that result from these decisions.
I think a lot of that comes from a pile of numbers that people can't easily relate. Consider that a vaccine may have a 1:1,000,000 chance of causing the disease it was intended to prevent or causing a debilitating side effect. It may also have a 1:100 chance of causing an inconveniencing side effect. Its primary effect is to confer a 98% level of protection against a disease. The disease has a 20% chance of causing a debilitating condition. Unvaccinated people have a 10% chance of catching the disease. Herd immunity kicks in at an 80% immunization rate, and reduces my chance of getting the disease to 5%. Even though they're all based on probabilities, they're not even using the same units of measure for display. How does a layperson put all those numbers together to make a decision whether or not to immunize their child?
The flip answer is "they don't." Too many people lack the education needed to understand the numbers, to combine them, and to compare them; so they turn to experts. But how do they trust an expert? A few people are willing to claim to be an expert to drive their personal profit or agenda, instead of to serve the truth. And some people will cherry pick their list of experts to align with their agenda. It's the latter that are the corrupting influence, and those are the ones that need to be stopped.
John
I want them to be right with reasonnable expenses, not trustworthy.
Someone else can take care of the PR and sounding "warm".
A capitalist is someone who owns 'means of production', like a computer. That would be you.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I assume the vote is not rigged and the ballot box not stuffed; I assume our elections are 'real'. So then, what the 'capitalists' do, or don't do, is fairly irrelevant. (btw, we are all 'capitalists')
If that is the case, then the politicians are indeed under the control of the electorate. The fact that the electorate rarely chooses to control their politicians is another matter.
I imagine it differs from state to state at least somewhat, but here in Michigan I think you can go about 3 years without paying your taxes, maybe 4 or 5 if you pay parts of them, before your property has a "Sheriffs Deed" recorded on it effectively making it property of the State/County/City/Village government. Then said municipality can auction it off, keep it for public use or sell it to someone specific. If you're living on the property at the time the Sheriffs deed is filed what happens varies from municipality to municipality, mine for example just auctions the property off a few months later whether or not the previous owners are still occupying it. It is up to anyone who purchases it at auction what to do about any inhabitants (rent, evict, etc). Its not a perfect process to be sure, but people get multiple warnings (mailed, newspaper, posted & signage) & years of leeway so it seems to be pretty reasonable.
A capitalist is someone who owns the means of production and can live off the returns, i.e. the surplus from the work performed by the working class. Simply owning a tool is in no way sufficient to be a capitalist, it is not the same as owning the means of production. If it was, anyone in history who owned a hammer would have been a "capitalist", which is in no way the case.
I'm currently reading Capital btw, I suggest you do the same if you want to find out where terms like "means of production" comes from and their meaning, so that in the future you can avoid abusing them.
You can argue about definitions all day long. Marx doesn't get to make up the definitions BTW.
A Capitalist is someone who believes in the system of capitalism. Same as a Communist is someone who believes in the system of Communism.
Neither side gets to redefine the other. I own shares, I own part of a company, I employ people. I am a capitalist even if I work on things other than finance.
BTW marx was mind boggelingly wrong on all of his historic predictions. Why do you bother? His work belongs in the dust bin of history along with the dunces.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
All the results presented in the linked article show measures of perceived warmth, not trustworthiness. The author of the article clearly thinks a measure of warmth is also a measure of trustworthiness, but makes no attempt to justify making that highly dubious association, nor states whether she got it from the researcher (given the tone of the article and the title of the paper, I suspect she did.)
Yeah, like you can believe deGrasse Tyson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk
I agree, except that in this case, Celebrity M was mouthing the thoughts of Scientist W (Andrew Wakefield), who is British and misled a whole bunch of people around the world, not just Americans.
Everyone is susceptible to confirmation biases, conspiracy and wishful thinking and any number of issues that prevent them from seeing things clearly. This is by no means unique to, nor exceptionally more problematic for, Americans.
scientists to be "persuasive", presumably so that the public can be led and their actions and thus be manipulated by the logical fallacy of authority (as opposed to being persuaded by, um, fully-disclosed scientific experiments with reproducable results
President Wilson was one of those EVIL "early 20th century progressives" who wanted to create a one-world-government, and bought into eugenics and racial supremacy nonesense (He was the Democrat president who segregated the US Government!!!!!, an act that required THREE later presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson) to undo...). True-to-form, the modern acolytes of Wilson still spend their time at their "think tank" trying to dream up ways to manipulate the public to create "better" people for a "better" world..... and they will happily manipulate and politicize science and scientists to do it, becase the ends justify the means in that ideology. Remember that after Wilson was completely disabled by a stroke and probably mentally incompetent, his wife and aids hid this from the public and she effectively was president to the end of his term while the CONSTITUTION (that "pesky" old piece of parchment that is so often inconvenient to those in power) mandated that power go to the Vice President.
This politicizing of science it toxic... it is helping the political left at the margins, which is why they are doing it (even if it only affects 0.1% of the vote, it can help them in some races) but it is horribly damaging to science and scientists. Those scientists who go along with this stuff are more dedicated to progressive politics than they are to science and they are therefore not to be trusted in their scientific pronouncements; every one of them who participates offsets the work of a large number of K-12 science teachers who have tried to instill a life-long love of, and confidence in, science into their young students.
Of course Americans don't trust scientists, just look at the IPCC who completely falsified data and the hockey stick graph.
And yet Slashdot still posts stories about the IPCC as if they are actually still a credible scientific entity LOLLLLLLL
Scientists have been regularly fudging the numbers to promote financial and corporate agendas for a very long time, and this is why the Americans don't trust them.
That and the bad Monsanto science, and you regularly scheduled chem-trails, the scientific community has become a devious laughingstock.
Queue damage control reponses
The American public seeks "impartiality", but doesn't trust those who follow the best and most reliable method of impartially deriving conclusions ever devised.
Are_you_that_fucking_stupid.jpg
Grammar reasonable. For "is" sheep. -- Conformist.
That is all.
They are only capitalists. If it wasn't that one person voted into office, it would be another and they would still be paid to pass laws by corporations. They call this "lobbying" and it is the disease undermining capitalism.
Sharks, hyenas, and clowns. Always tied for #'s 1, 2, and 3.
That is all.
Science!=Scientist.
Science doesn't trust individual scientists ether. Hence peer review.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Thomas Midgley, Jr. was a scientist, and was able to make some very amazing strides in chemistry. but those chemicals have caused some of the largest damage to our environment in human history. While much of the blame of how his discoveries were applied can be blamed on Charles F. Kettering (a businessman, not a scientist) there is still an air of danger around science and the havoc it can wreak.
Perhaps science is less arrogant than it used to be, and more aware of the power it can wield, but history has been burned into public opinion a very negative view on the ethics of science.
Blah, blah blah blah blah naked. blah blah blah [title inflation] blah blah blah hot as Celebrity M. I would totally trust them in that case.
Which is probably what collectively has brought us to our current situation.
Sheldon on The BBT once observed, after talking about Dr. this or Dr. that, how many science fiction and comic villians have advanced degrees. /., any subject including Barbie Doll's measurements will get steered to global warming in less than 24 posts), but I don't trust scientists working for evil corporations who cover their eyes over the possible disasters they could be hatching. One lesson of 1950's science fiction movies is that a lot of mad scientists didn't know they were mad.
All I can say is, after watching a lot of movies over decades, many currently showing up on Svenghouli, is that scientists really need overseers.
A lot of talk here has been on grant money and global warming (it's
What's s/he hiding behind that opaque white coat anyway?
In the case of one scientist, my girlfriend and I have seen. She (the scientist) was a guest of honor at a convention several years ago. My GF and I were at an adults-only party in the hotel's largest suite - which had a large hot tub. Around midnight, the scientist showed up. Trust us, she was very sexy. (More importantly, a damn good scientist in her field.)
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
We can't truly "own" land, anyways. We only lease it from the public commons, and property taxes are one way to balance this out.
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
Nurses, Pharmacists, and Grade School Teachers.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx
> You can refuse to do business with and therefore not give your money to a corporation.
That was one of the things against Obamacare. The Democrats were in full control and did this without a single Republican vote, so why'd they write this crap instead of single payer?
You don't follow that advice yourself, because you don't believe it.
Shaitland,
Save your knee-jerk response for someone else.
The comment I'm responding to isn't whether belief in angels is valid, nor whether it is right or wrong. ... "believe in angels"...
It is the statement regarding Americans that "you are conformist sheep" and "look at the number of your population who"
If a half or a quarter of the population does not share beliefs, then the statement "you are all conformist sheep" is incorrect.
So I repeat, applying the broad brush of "you are conformist sheep" to Americans is a false statement.
Are you a conformist sheep? Are all the people you personally know conformist sheep?
I'll just leave this here :D
Because the Republicans would never let "single payer" through, and so they went for the best solution they could feasibly pass.
You can use any definition you want to, but when I speak of capitalists, I have stated what I mean, if you have another definition that is your right, but we might have a difficult time communicating. The difference definition of the word does not change the meaning of what someone is trying to convey.
If you can live off the work of others, then yes, you are by definition a capitalist.
BTW marx was mind boggelingly wrong on all of his historic predictions. Why do you bother? His work belongs in the dust bin of history along with the dunces.
This coming from someone who doesn't understand a concept as basic as the means of production? Tell me, why exactly does "Capital" belong in teh dust bin of history? Or any of the more modern works based on the same ideas for that matter? And for that matter, who do you believe to be "right"?
I rather suspect not, though, despite the HI being politically motivated and every paper produced produced to support the political desires of the fundees.
They still have a higher approval rating than does the US Congress.
I think the metric system is a big part of the problem for Americans.
Scientists use it. And the only other people who use the metric system are foreigners and terrorists, neither of whom can be trusted.
I actually got through that with a straight face. Of course, a bottle of Nyquil and some Oxycontin helped some.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm certain..... politicians are capitalists,....
FTFY
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions..."
They are no longer scientists. Scientists do not make 'research suggestions'. They do not make suggestions of any kind. They seek truth. What society chooses to do with the answers is up to them.
Stop the contamination of science with suggestions and people will trust scientists more. There is nothing scarier than an expert with an agenda.
Underlying all of this, we have a complex interplay of sociology, psychology, politics, and logical reasoning or lack thereof. The issue here is that logical reasoning is the missing ingredient. It is the ONLY ingredient in the mix that combats corruption and addresses sociological and psychological problems. The failure of PEOPLE to communicate REASONS is the underlying issues here. In other words, it is a failure of LANGUAGE. You may say, "Well, language works just fine for me." That's great. But you are not the only person in the world. You may have been born with superior intelligence or perhaps grew up in an environment that nurtured your ability to understand that language. For many people, speaking and understanding words is not that forte. Or, perhaps, the language of mathematics is not their forte. The core issue here is that scientists need to DEVISE a language that people can UNDERSTAND and that is absolutely undeniable, even to the lesser intelligent people. IT CAN BE DONE. The question is, do we want to EMPOWER them with this language or not?
Clearly, I meant, "their forte" not "that forte". And, obviously, its much more than individual words that is the issue. It's the whole concept of communicating ideas. But, really, what I was getting at was the fact that individual words are what convey meaning, and relying on ambiguous phrases is a major problem with language. It's a powerful tool for those who have the intellectual capacity to use it. For those who do not, such ambiguous phrases come off as meaningless and nonsensical. For example, scientists talk about "global warming". It's a NAME. It's not mean to convey the entire concept. Yet, you have less intelligent people basing entire arguments against "global warming" solely based on the name itself. Clearly, that is a complete misunderstanding of language and WORDS.
What I am proposing here is that we need to make a concerted effort to develop a universal language INDEPENDENT of all other languages.
Wakefield would have caused a lot fewer deaths without McCarthy. Moreover, Wakefield simply wanted a move to the thimerosal-free vaccines that he had a financial interest in. McCarthy didn't stop there.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't know about where you live, but here politicians are quite often ordinary people, in no way wealthy enough to live off capital gains (i.e. the surplus value created by the working class, exploited by the capitalist class), especially on the left.