posted
The most recent global warming thread illustrates an alarming trend I've noticed in a large number of non-scientists, and that is a general mistrust of science. I think there are a few contributing reasons for this.
1) Many members of the general public do not understand the process of scientific research and peer review. They think of research as little more than someone's opinion with some numbers thrown in to justify it and peer review as simply a way to sift out dissenting opinion.
2) There is a huge knowledge gap between experts and laymen. I think that very few people outside of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers have any real understanding of the conceptual science and math that drives the research, and as a result, most people almost see science as incomprehensible magic.
3) This third reason, which was mentioned on the global warming thread, I think can only come about because of the first two. That is to say, if the public had a deeper understanding of math & science as well as the process of research & peer review, this third reason wouldn't exist. Anyway the third reaons is Politicians, lobbyists, and others use bad-science to try to undercut real science. The public sees fighting among people they are told are experts and decides that "science is bunk" because the "experts" can't agree.
The recent thread on global warming got me thinking about this, but I didn't want to post there and de-rail that thread. So, any thoughts on my hypothesis? Do you agree/disagree? If you do agree, how can we fix it?
Posts: 748 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, this is true. We must fix our schools in a very deep manner, a topic which is under discussion at another thread as we speak. Hopefuly, the enormous mental powere of Hatrack will spend some time on this subject, in these two threads and others, and reach a workable conclusion.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sarfa: I'm not anti-science. I love science. I love how science has made my life easier. I love how science entertains and fascenates me.
I just don't trust global climate change proclimations because it's selling fear.
Fear sells like hotcakes. It's the basis of many flavours of religion. Do-this-don't-do-that or you'll go to hell.
Fear makes a great scam and since nothing actually has to happen with global climate change until after the scammers are dead, it's a gravey train that they can ride their whole life.
And I don't think they do it conciously. People tend to see what they want to see. Doesn't matter if it's the bible or the results of a study. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. They see what they want to see.. what they need to see to keep their paycheck... and their mind stresses it. And they trumpet "Yes, indeed, we are doomed. We need more money for study."
posted
I never said anti-science, I said mistrust of science (there is a difference). And clearly you mistrust science (or at least one branch of it).
The climate change research field is just as meticulously researched and fairly peer reviewed as any other (as least as far as I've seen), and while the research I've seen does raise questions (especially if you only look at individual studies and not the entire body of research), they are questions of "when" and "how much" and not questions of "if." Is the global climate community trying to raise a panic, absolutely. Unfortunately they have to. No one listened to them when they were politely saying that there could be some catastrophic changes in the future. They have had to resort to some sensationalistic tactics just to be listened to. I've always been a little sceptical of the most dire of predictions, but my thoughts on global warming have always been "better safe than sorry."
Posts: 748 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I would qualify or amplify your third reason, though:
quote: The public sees fighting among people they are told are experts and decides that "science is bunk" because the "experts" can't agree.
It may not be that they distrust science or conclude that "science is bunk," but simply are paralized in choosing a course of action, because they have no basis for choosing between equally convincing (to the layperson) experts.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
You spread culpability to the public and the politicians, but have none left over for the scientists themselves. Science today, like art today, is primarily a commercial venture with a focus not on principles of discovery, but on creating marketable products. The peer review you tout is increasingly a tool for rewarding position and prestige rather than honest inquiry. The mechanisms set up by the scientific community to support scientific research (national and corporate funding, university ties, commercial exclusionary publications) are not conducive, and are sometimes detrimental, to honest and open research. I think science and scientists bear much of the blame for why science is regarded with mistrust by the public at large.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you blindly trusted science it would be faith, not science.
Science is flawed in that people are flawed.
Many people studying global climate change seem to assume it's happening as a premise of their study. Thus, they're studying the EFFECTS of GCC rather than figuring out it's happening. If GCC is a myth, all their study is for naught. Of COURSE they believe in GCC because if they didn't, they're useless.
This is on top of having their hand out for more money from the goverment.
Usually, when science is wrong, it gets fixed, but environmentalism has the power of fear behind it. Politicians like fear because it helps them get elected. And suddenly it's politicized and we can't criticize it without being a pawn of Big Oil as Rabbit said.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most recent global warming thread illustrates an alarming trend I've noticed in a large number of non-scientists, and that is a general mistrust of science. I think there are a few contributing reasons for this.
I think you need to add in Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as possible reasons for the mistrust. They have a LARGE following and they disdain *in my best Rush voice mocking the word* Acadamia.Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledge is a tool used by many people to attempt to influence and control others. Politicians, religious leaders, corporations, anyone with power or influence over people will use information to control people.
It's hard to know who to trust when you have equally powerful groups both using "science" to back up their claims. There is so much misdirection and outright lying with science used to back it up that people are rightly wary.
On top of that, many people in power attempt to discredit scientific knowledge because it contradicts their beliefs. Who is the lay person going to believe, a nameless scientist who may have mediocre speaking ability and who uses jargon and speaks over their head, or the jovial, charismatic person who speaks on their level and tells them that the scientist is just blowing smoke?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
You spread culpability to the public and the politicians, but have none left over for the scientists themselves. Science today, like art today, is primarily a commercial venture with a focus not on principles of discovery, but on creating marketable products. The peer review you tout is increasingly a tool for rewarding position and prestige rather than honest inquiry. The mechanisms set up by the scientific community to support scientific research (national and corporate funding, university ties, commercial exclusionary publications) are not conducive, and are sometimes detrimental, to honest and open research. I think science and scientists bear much of the blame for why science is regarded with mistrust by the public at large.
Can you actually prove these assertions?
I mean, scientists have always had to get funding from somewhere, whether it's from others, or through their own fortunate wealth. What seems to be the underlying current [EDIT: in your post] is that the principle of "science for it's own sake" of past scientific geniuses no longer exists to nearly the same extent today.
I have to disagree with that point (if that is the underlying assumption). I think, like most anything, in today's world of increasing connectedness, and more perfect information preservation, we see more reports that may lead us that way. In reality, given the boom general science has had in the last 50-100 years, I would be surprised if the actual nefariousness has gone up to encompass a signficant percentage.
Now I could be wrong, but I'd like to see information that supports any increasing trends of fraudlent or misleading research.
posted
I'd say there's a world of difference between mistrusting science and mistrusting scientists. Those who do the latter are invariably accused of the former. It gets old.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been in the other thread mentioned yet, but I think you have a good point sarfa, but one which needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes there are many unfair reasons that the general populus does not trust science as much as may be appropriate. I am reminded of some documentary on Sci-Fi dealing with robots: at one point an "expert" was asked some rediculous question about whether robots could take over and exterminate humanity sometime in the future. He couldn't give any legitimate answer other than 'yes, that's a possibility' even though the question was so far-fetched as to be pointless. However, this effectively means that an expert said that this event could happen...
At the same time we can't propose some kind of blanket trust of all scientists, or all claiming to be scientists. You mentioned that there are many "experts" out there that don't necessarily have any solid background, but claim to anyway. Additionally there are any number of people who can technically be considered a scientist, engineer etc that are more or less idiots. I know a handful of people here at work that could be described as "rocket scientists with 20+ years of experience" who I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoes... Additionally there are definately realms of science that are a lot more grey area than anything definite. If someone can come up with conclusive proof of drastic effects (or lack therof) of global warming (for instance) with no other valid opponents coming up with anything that could contradict it then I'll buy you a coke but in the mean-time very little science is definite yet, so making some claims to "trust science more" is still somewhat misplaced.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the problem is, those that do the latter, often object to results by attacking the person who did the science, not the science itself. So that gets pretty old too.
A scientist could be someone I wouldn't lend a nickel to, but the science does get vetted, unless you want to get into conspiracy theories.
posted
I'm sure I was one of the people you were pointing at in the other thread. I stopped responding in that thread because I really don't get paid enough to deal with dogpiles. Several different posters, all arguing different posts with me is just to draining. Honestly, I stepped out of it about the time someone told me I was arguing that we needed to respect our elders. I kind of figured that at that point, productive discussion was past.
I don't think I have a general mistrust of science. As a practicing electrical engineer, I have great respect for science, I use its principles every day at work.
However, I do have a degree of mistrust for scientists who have become greatly entwined with economics and politics. Global warming is just one example of that. Drug approvals is another. On the other hand evolution doesn't really ring that warning bell as much for me, even though as a religious person it has the potential to challenge my personal beliefs.
To specifically address your points sarfa: 1) Working with professors at the university I attended educated me on the research and peer review process. What are scientific studies if not the scientist's conclusions based on the results of his experiments? There are many purposes of peer review, a major one is to check the validity of the process and make sure the major conclusions drawn by the author is supported by the data. 2) Fortunately been kind enough to include engineers as people who don't see science as 'incomprehesible magic' 3) Definately a lot of truth to that. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to be able to read, understand, and evaluate scientific papers from hundreds of different fields in order to be educated on what's going on. There's a certain amount of trust that has to be vested in journalists- unfortunately this trust is often misplaced.
Lastly, you mention the peer review process. There are a lot of things that need improving in it, although no one on has seen fit to acknowledge its problems. While Philica is also not without its issues, it does remedy some of the various criticisms of the traditional review process.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, I argued that point, because of your (IMO, overreaction) to comments about the science conducted by the likes of Newton. I respect your choice to bow out (as I do that on occassion as well). I don't consider that as a concession of the point, either.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: If you blindly trusted science it would be faith, not science.
Science is flawed in that people are flawed.
Many people studying global climate change seem to assume it's happening as a premise of their study. Thus, they're studying the EFFECTS of GCC rather than figuring out it's happening. If GCC is a myth, all their study is for naught. Of COURSE they believe in GCC because if they didn't, they're useless.
This is on top of having their hand out for more money from the goverment.
Usually, when science is wrong, it gets fixed, but environmentalism has the power of fear behind it. Politicians like fear because it helps them get elected. And suddenly it's politicized and we can't criticize it without being a pawn of Big Oil as Rabbit said.
I don't get it, every point you make could be flipped back around and used against you.
GCC scientists aren't just studying the effects of GCC, they are, as part of a wider group of scientists, constantly looking for the history of the climate of the earth, checking to see what the causes are, when it has changed over time and what might have caused it. The fact that it is currently accepted as a believable hypothesis is because there is a weight of scientific data to support it.
What proof do you have to contradict it? And what exactly are they gaining by "selling lies?" They could easily get paid for something else, as teachers, or as scientists in other fields. How much does the average scientist make anyways? They aren't millionaires.
Total belief in the scientific process isn't blind faith, though total belief in the result of that process might be called that.
I don't see the source of your hostility Pix. What do you base your disbelief of climate change on, other than the basic belief that scientists are all just out to make a buck, saying whatever they must to do so?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's cool, no real harm done-I know it wasn't an intentional thing by anyone, it just happens if you have a minority view on a thread sometimes. I've just found I enjoy Hatrack more if I feel able to duck out of a thread and not go back to it if I feel its getting a bit too crazy. Thanks for understanding.
I do usually overreact to something when there gets to be 4 or 5 posters all responding directly to me about different points and everything gets way to muddled. I should probably learn how to avoid those types of situations better from the start. For example, you'll respond to one person about something specific that they wished to discuss, and a tangent from that response gets picked up by someone else. Then a tangent from the response to the tangent gets picked up by someone else, and wow...starts to snowball and get really confusing pretty quick.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, that's why duck out too (though I usually feel a bit guilty, since I hate to leave people hanging, or thinking they've "won"), I find it more healthy for me
posted
I love science and the scientific method - always have.
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I seem to remember that one of the main principles of the scientific method is that you are not supposed to totally trust scientists - or anyone else for that matter.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, At least you left on a post insulting me for making a factually accurate statement. That's gotta warm your heart a little.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll echo Lyrhawn in responding to your 2nd point; it's really quite impossible for any person, layman or not, to have enough knowledge to judge the accuracy of all fields of science. Sure, better schooling will help, and jounalists should do their part, but I think there's a lot of room for improvement among scientists as well. Scientists should learn how to explain things better to the layman. If the only primary source we have for an item of research is the peer-reviewed journal article riddled with technical terms and jargon, then how can John Q. Journalist possibly avoid misinterpreting the data?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cite valid reasons why some people may not totally trust scientists. I submit that there are other reasons as well. I can only say why I carry a big bag of salt around with me. But I seriously doubt that I am unique:
1) I’ve read of examples of old and reputable scientists who have displayed the same corruptibility as other people in power - such as bureaucrats, corporate leaders, and religious leaders. “Power corrupts . . . [yadda yadda] “ I’ll site just one example. (And if physics isn’t a solid science, loaded with math and a love of the scientific method, then I don’t know what is.) But regardless, Sir Arthur Eddington tried to destroy the career of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar just because that blasted upstart Chandrasekhar had the temerity to propose a theory that didn’t totally agree with stuff Eddington had already set in stone.
Can scientists always be trusted?
2) Then there is religion masquerading as science. And I’m not talking about just the creationist types. I’m talking about some practitioners of legitimate science who are starting to act like the religious zealots of the past. They have many of the trappings of the zealots such as authority that must not be questioned (“Trust me. I have a PHD“); the unwashed uninitiated masses who just are too ignorant to know what’s what; and the treatment of heretics. This new priesthood even has it’s own vestments. (And if you don’t believe that just take a gander at any college graduation or one of those ceremonies where some guy gets an honorary doctorate he didn’t earn.) Hey, if it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion . . .
Not only that, but all my life I’ve heard the mantra from intellectuals that I should always question religious leaders. Ok, that’s probably good advice. But I’ve noticed a whole lot of whining going on whenever someone questions the intellectuals.
3) About every fourth commercial on TV has either the phrase, “Clinically tested,” or “Scientifically proven to . . .” to try to get me to pay too much for the latest snake oil product that promises to enhance my manliness or melt the fat off my butt or grow my hair back or give my wife’s hair fuller body and luster - or some such. But hey, they used the magic word “science” so the product must work, right? Gotta trust that science stuff.
4) A couple of years ago I took a look at the web site of the SF author James P. Hogan. I don’t know why it took me so long to do that because I’ve enjoyed his books ever since his first one was published. Anyway, there are a lot of interesting articles about junk science in the bulletin board section. Then there is his new book “Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible.” If even some of the stuff about dogmatized science is true then that’s plenty of justification for people to not totally trust scientists.
In one of his early books, Hogan dedicated it to several children whom he called three young scientists who taught him to always ask, “Who says so? Who’s he? and How does he know?”
Years later I invented my own corollary, “And who’s paying him to say it?” Yes, I am cynical, but am I cynical enough?
No doubt there are a lot of scientists that are true to the scientific method, but I personally think it is high time that other’s apostasy from the scientific method be turned around. And maybe the peer review system needs a little peer review.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what we are dealing with is a misconception on the part of the public, the media, and scientists.
We are absolutely indisputably incontrovertibly in a warming trend. THAT IS, we are between Ice Ages, and we have not hit the peak between those Ice Ages. Between Ice Ages we have a Hot Age where the average global temperature peaks then starts to cool as we head toward the next Ice Age. I say, that fact is indisputable.
What is really being argued is not whether we are in a long term warming trend, but whether mankind's effects on the earth are accelerating that trend. I think it is very reasonable to assume that the immense amount of heat and green house gases we are pouring into the environment are certainly accelerating the warming trend. To think otherwise strikes me as absolutely blind and unreasonable.
But the real question is, How fast is this warming trend accelerating? How soon will global warming have a substantial global effect? 20 year? 30 years? 50 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? 5,000 year? etc....
In a similar thread, someone posted a link to the estimated temperatures over the last 2,000 years, and it has been relatively stable. There was a slight hot trend for a while, and there was a slight cold trend in the middle ages. Though 2,000 years in the grand scale of global temperature change is relatively small. That span between Ice Ages is measured in many many thousands of years.
On this scale, the warming trend we are certainly seeing now, doesn't seem that far out of proportion. So far, it is consistent with normal deviation. So, I can't say that I see a long term grand scale warming trend. Yet, that does not mean we are not accelerating a normal warming trend. (I wish I had that link.) A warming trend that may have taken 200 years, may now only take 50 years.
The next question is what in the past instigated the cooling trend that occurred in the Middle Ages. From memory, that short term cooling trend seemed to follow a short term warming trend. Yet, as I said, it is not clear what instigated either trend. I think the instigating factor in those past trends is a very important area of study.
The earth does have the ability to self-correct, but if change is too rapid or too extreme, the earth-correction can be very unforgiving. Think dinosaurs; their demise was the result of earth natural tendency to correct the atmosphere. Something instigated it, but the earth merely compensated for the instigating factor, and poof, no more dinosaurs.
If we aren't careful mankind could be corrected out of the equation.
I was searching for the Chart, but couldn't find it, but I did find this...
"his pattern includes a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth (Figure 1).
Scroll down slightly on the linked page above and you will see a relatively hard to read temperature average from 200 A.D. to 2000 A.D. The spike you are seeing at the end (in the present) is a projection.
Here is an additional chart from Wikipedia on Ice Ages.
Blue = temperature Green = CO2 Red = Dust and other particulate matter
This chart spans 400 thousand years.
Note a gradual warming trend to a sudden substantial upward spike that follows a substantial downward spike. That last substantial upward spike is followed by a rapid crash into the next Ice Age. So given the grand scale of long and short term warming and cooling trends. I'm not sure if we are on the threshold of a Hot Spike or the next Ice Age.
Perhaps what Global Warming will really do, is not accelerate global warming, but accelerate the coming of the next substantial crash in temperature as we force the beginning of a new Ice Age as earth self-corrects. As earth self-corrects a substantial portion of the human population off the earth.
Keep in mind that Ice Ages occur between 40,000 year and 100,000 years apart.
So are we on the threshold of an intense temperature spike, or is the current temperature spike a warning of the next immenent Ice Age? Who knows? Either way I'll be dead before it matters.
That's a soft science, not a hard science. It's invented.
Correlation is not causation.
There's more than one side to this issue.
Not everyone agrees.
The dissenters are ignored by the scientific world.
It's only a theory. It's never been shown to be fact.
Unfortunately, some of those (Especially correlation != causation) are usefull responses to people who greatly misrepresent science to further their own agenda.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
An organization, with finanical ties to the Oil Industry, takes conclusions that support Global Warming, and twist them to deny Global Warming. And I've seen those twisted conclusions show up here, in honest debate about global warming.
Basically, Scientist at University of Missouri in Columbia predicts that increased temperatures in Antartica will allow increased snow fall to reach the interior of Antartica. The CEI (Business backed Competitive Enterprise Institute) twists that as proof that Global Warming is a myth, since their is record snowfall in parts of Antartica, thickening that ice sheet. (The fact that the edges of the ice sheet melt off signifigantly more than is being added to the center wasn't passed on.)
The scientist who's theory was proven by these figures is a bit miffed that his conclusions are being so misused.
The CEI is also famous for their ads on Carbon Dioxide. "Since Carbon Dioxide is essential to life, it can not be a danger." Water is essential to life too, so drowning must be a myth.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think people have any less grounding in scientific knowledge than they have in the past. In fact, I think most people understand science much better than they did in past eras, because of our somewhat improved education system.
The real problem, I think, is that science has been granted way too much authority by our society. Politicians, the media, and scientists (among other people) abuse it in order to try and suggest it proves things that science cannot prove. They will suggest things like "Science has proven live evolved through natural selection" when it in fact can only speculate about the past, given its observations of how things operate in the present. They will suggest things like "Science has proven global warming is a crisis we must take drastic measure to deal with immediately" when science can't really completely predict how global warming will pan or make a value judgement as to what degree it is worth doing what it would truly take to prevent it. Science is used to make countless moral, political, ideological, historical, religious, metaphysical, or other nonscientific claims, and an attempt is often made to put the full weight of scientific authority on the truth of those claims when science cannot truly prove them.
What surprises me is how scientists and other supporters of the scientific method fail to see the way in which abusing science in this manner undermines our trust in science. It's a bit like when a preacher tells us God wants us to vote Republican, when the reality is that it is the preacher who has interpreted religious texts in such a way that he think it suggests we should vote Republican. The preacher should not be surprised when people begin to not trust religion. Advocates of science often make the mistake of taking the opposite approach - they refuse to admit any limits of science unless forced to, thinking that giving any ground to the "other side" will only give them more excuses to question science. But I think that ultimately has the opposite effect. By refusing to correctly and openly identify the limits of science, they cast doubt on the whole of science, because people can see that not everything being said in the name of science is truly proven. And thus the problem gets worse.
Science does experimentation and based on that experimentation can test whether universal propositions (theories) are false. This is all science can truly do - but this alone has shown to be a powerful method of figuring out how the world operates, by elimating all the ways we can prove it does NOT operate. But beyond that, we are merely using science, extending science based on our own interpretation of it and our own assumptions, and we should not try to extend the full authority of science to those conclusions. We should admit that that is what we THINK the implications of science are, rather than saying that that is what science has PROVEN. If we do that, and give science exactly the authority it deserves and no more, I think people will be able to trust it much more. But if we don't, I suspect many people will always be suspicious that it is being misused, and will not be informed about science enough to tell misuse from proper use.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, some of those (Especially correlation != causation) are usefull responses to people who greatly misrepresent science to further their own agenda.
Absolutely! I'm talking about them when they're used in mantras.
Truth be told, the above sentiments are, more often than not, abused and applied in a gratuitously nonscientific way.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
