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.
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.
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
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??
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.
Stop paying your landlord, or utility companies and see what happens.
Fixed your subject line for you. Enjoy!
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.
If you can cite a study to prove your point you have won the argument.
That's not trusting science too much, that's laziness. Usually the person citing the study has a tenuous grasp of what it really says, and in all but a handful of cases they are betting on the fact that few people will bother to look it up and read it themselves.
You can tell this is what's going on, because it only further polarizes people; if the "study" reinforces their existing view, then it's the best thing ever, and if not then the scientists who did it are clearly corrupt or they're just plain wrong. No attempt to understand, nothing changes, just reinforcement of bias.
=Smidge=
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
When "scientists" discuss harsh facts that may have disastrous consequences, people think they're exaggerating, trying to be persuasive, and not being impartial.
>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.
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.
Sorry - s/he should have said "the scientifically-literate world".
If they don't believe the science, then by the very definition they are not scientifically literate.
It seems you are confusing "deciding which steps to take to counter the issue" and "deny the issue exists while keeping on making it worse".
... most scientists view Americans as incompetent and untrustworthy.
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
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
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
Tyson's decision was based on the IAU's 2006 decision that to be defined as a planet, an object must have cleared its orbit (which Pluto has not done).
This definition was prompted by the discovery of other objects like Eris and Sedna and the likelihood that there were many more objects like them. If Pluto is a planet, then these objects must also be planets.
The asteroid Ceres had also originally been declared a planet, but they decided to reclassify it as an asteroid when other asteroids were discovered.
I think the IAU wanted to avoid having a long and ever increasing list of planets that third-grade teachers would ask their students to memorize.
because we are dumb. and getting stewpiter by the minute.
It is what it is.
You're aware, I hope, that in science, a "theory" isn't the same thing as an English prof's "theory" about whether Shakespeare was the greatest sonnet writer ever.
If you don't know the difference, please visit a site like this and find out:
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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
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'