Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#11

Post by Robin_Message »

gizmo wrote: post #2

> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity, medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse? People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.

I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#12

Post by calcnerd256 »

If the scientific community's portrayal in the media only tells the story of one side of a controversial issue, that is going to make the public think that the entire community agrees with that stance. How often are things portrayed as "scientific fact" or some other such when they are still widely debated within the scientific community? Each of those issues erodes the public's trust of the entire community, even those that are adamantly declaring, "We don't know yet" about the issue.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#13

Post by gizmo »

Robin_Message wrote: post #11
gizmo wrote: post #2

> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity, medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse? People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.

I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.

The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing.

The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#14

Post by biohacker42 »

ori_b wrote: post #6
biohacker42 wrote: post #3

... finds that some of science's conclusions are widely mistrusted, and hints at a widening partisan divide. Obviously. Lets face it, the majority of kids don't actually think through and convince themselves of everything they are thought. Partly because kids are like little fact sponges for facts that come from adult authority. And partly because they don't have to think to pass exams. The earth goes around the sun.…

> it hurts (their) kids is not something you can help with. The problem is that it's not just their kids that it hurts. It affects the textbooks and lesson plans of schools across the state and country (especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks). If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed - I don't think children should be punished for the failings of their pare…

especially since Texas more or less dictates what goes into high school textbooks

Only as long as Texas doesn't go too far out there and the parents in other states are not too involved with school.

If Texas really goes out on a limb, and you have parents in say Vermont very actively engaged with their kids' school, I bet we can finally split the market and get Texas & Co. off our backs.

And that is better for everyone (except kids in Texas) and also more likely then us being able to pull Texas towards reason.

If it only hurt their children, I would still be disturbed

Sure, but how can you help someone else's child? How could the government rescue children from their parents? I don't see any way in a non-creepy world.

And as far as America's innovative edge goes, the US or key parts of it, still produce amazing discoveries, and they do it with a lot of immigrants. It would be nice if we added more home grown brains, but that's all it would be: nice.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#15

Post by yummyfajitas »

biohacker42 wrote: post #3

... finds that some of science's conclusions are widely mistrusted, and hints at a widening partisan divide. Obviously. Lets face it, the majority of kids don't actually think through and convince themselves of everything they are thought. Partly because kids are like little fact sponges for facts that come from adult authority. And partly because they don't have to think to pass exams. The earth goes around the sun.…

I don't see why you assume it is anti-Darwinists. I suspect a sizable fraction of that 16% are other anti-scientific types.

There are the "science gave us nukes and pollution" environmentalists, the medical anti-science types (vaccines -> autism, acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy), and some even weirder types.

I've had people express anti-scientific views to me while extolling the virtues of this product:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_ball

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#16

Post by philwelch »

gizmo wrote: post #13
Robin_Message wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.

The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing. The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.

I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#17

Post by Retric »

philwelch wrote: post #16
gizmo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing. The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.

I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.

Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago.

PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#18

Post by philwelch »

Retric wrote: post #17
philwelch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.

Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago. PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.

I'm not talking about western style poor, I'm talking about post-nuclear war style dead, or post-nanotech style grey goo that used to be people. That's why I said "existential threat" (i.e. threats to our existence), not "existential angst".

I don't disagree that science is a net win, but there's some chance that we will use science to extinct the human race or make the earth uninhabitable, in the long run.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#19

Post by Retric »

philwelch wrote: post #18
Retric wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago. PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.

I'm not talking about western style poor, I'm talking about post-nuclear war style dead, or post-nanotech style grey goo that used to be people. That's why I said "existential threat" (i.e. threats to our existence), not "existential angst". I don't disagree that science is a net win, but there's some chance that we will use science to extinct the human race or make the earth uninhabitable, in the long run.

Post-nuclear war there would still be more people than before science. We don't have grey goo so suggesting it's an issue is probably overblown.

PS: Killing off 99.5% of the world's population would be really hard, and there would still be more people alive than before science.

Re: The public trusts scientists—but not their conclusions

#20

Post by jpwagner »

Locke1689 wrote: post #9
nice1 wrote: post #4

I think scientists are partly responsible for their loss of credibility by bowing to leftist pressure and endorsing slogans like "global warming", "global cooling", "the population bomb" and other such nonsense.

I looked up "the population bomb"[1] and it seems to be another Malthusian crisis book. The funny thing is that you criticize scientists for this. Ehrlich is an entomologist . The Wikipedia article states that demographers and a large section of the scientific community widely panned the book. Honestly, if you get your view of the scientific community from Neil Cavuto on Fox News, you're kidding yourself into believi…

This response is solid, however I don't think the OP suggested that "True science is political." (Although it's hard to tell when people don't express themselves clearly.)

There have been many scientists to have admitted that they have kept their mouth shut when they oppose the status quo for fear of losing jobs or failing to gain funding. The concept of "a few bad apples" is certainly not new.

Post reply on HN