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.'"
Eh. I don't entirely disagree, but...
It could be Italy, where failing to predict an earthquake lands you in jail.
Or it could be China, where grants don't actually cover the costs of your experiments, and many scientists publish faked results on some work to pay for the science they want to do.
Or it could be Iran, where being a scientists in the wrong field nets you a free gift box of bullets delivered straight to your cranium, courtesy of the CIA(okay that's the US's fault too).
Let's not forget that only few decades ago, in the Soviet Union, several entire schools of academics(like sociology) were considered outright verboten to study, on the grounds that they weren't Marxist.
And the US still has the single biggest science economy in the world, even if that's massively and disproportionately military in nature.
The problems are voters have with understanding and appreciating science definitely hold us back, but it could be a lot worse.
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.
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 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.
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.
This isn't a problem unique to science. For decades, IT people have been told that they need to focus less on technology and more on "the business".
F**K! If they don't focus on the technology, who will? Or can? Might as well not have technology people.
Yes, there is very much a place for the people who can plant feet in two different worlds. But don't go around expecting much progress if you demand that everybody be that kind of person.
The biggest problem is that anyone can call themselves a scientist. There really is not definition of what it takes to be qualified as a scientist. One who practices science regardless of comptence?
The press is much to blame, never checking qualifications or accomplishments when reporting the work of so called 'scientists". Due to that, so much bullshit is promulgated that never comes to fruition, people naturally become skeptical. Promises of fuel cell being ready for mass adoption, promises of medical cures on the way, etc.
The media should also distinguish between engineers and scientists, but the fact they never do is a great indicator that they don't have a clue. That falls back on the technology and science reporters themselves often being quite unqualified.
>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.
Most of the bogus scientific breakthroughs are "amazing medical advances" and "promising cancer treatments" that have no business being in the popular media at all - given their untested status at the time they're released. This is largely a media problem (isn't everything these days), driven by an over-competitive media landscape in which consumers' attention is all that matters. But it's also a trap scientists themselves can fall into. There often are large financial involvements at stake, and the media are all too easily manipulated. None of which is to say that the scientific method and peer review don't win out in the end. Science pursues all kinds of dead ends - we're just not supposed to hear about them. And that's not any kind of cover-up; it's how the process works - and it does work.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I think that critical thinking skills are something that scientists cannot trust American citizens to have. We are lead to believe that someone would have around 16 years of higher education, and take a job that pays at least a third of what they could make with the math and technical skills if they became stock brokers or media pundits -- and they do all this so they can lie about a passion for seeking truth and knowledge. It shows a complete lack of empathy or understanding of human nature.
If I'm wanting to rip people off, I'll open a pay-day loan or a bank and charge bounce fees to poor people -- I don't need to waste time with difficult science to fudge a climate report in the desperate hope of getting a meager research grant.
The Crooks that own the media and hire think tanks to make every controversy like dealing with the Tobacco industry -- they are to blame. They are a cancer on society. We have to do something about these idle, useless rich people gaming the system to ruin it for everyone else. What, are they not able to afford a prostitute and enough steak to eat? These entitled parasites need to be shut down. We face a few existential crisis right now but we can't deal with Climate Change or the end of cheap labor (replaced by robots) because money owns politics and the media.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
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?