Poll - How "we" feel about Science

[Swift]

I have significant doubts about the wide-spread applicablity of polls, particularly on-line polls of specific readerships, but I thought there would be some interest here in this recent poll.

As policy decisions on climate, energy, health and technology loom large, it’s important to ask: How badly have recent events shaken people’s faith in science? Does the public still trust scientists?

To find out, Scientific American partnered with our sister publication, Nature, the international journal of science, to poll readers online. More than 21,000 people responded via the Web sites of Nature and of Scientific American and its international editions. As expected, it was a supportive and science-literate crowd—19 percent identified themselves as Ph.Ds. But attitudes differed widely depending on particular issues—climate, evolution, technology—and on whether respondents live in the U.S., Europe or Asia.

The difference geographically were particularly interesting.

[HenrikOlsen]

The difference geographically were particularly interesting.

I suspect it has a large part of its roots in the different amounts of politically motivated skewed advertisement that is shown on the subjects in different countries.

[Trakar]

I suspect it has a large part of its roots in the different amounts of politically motivated skewed advertisement that is shown on the subjects in different countries.

I didn't realize that there were a lot of such advertisements on European television?

[Donnie B.]

Keep in mind that the poll's respondents were readers of those two publications, so not necessarily representative of the public at large. Selection bias could be strong in this one.

[Trakar]

Keep in mind that the poll's respondents were readers of those two publications, so not necessarily representative of the public at large. Selection bias could be strong in this one.

True, if the poll link was spread through any of the political blog echo chamber (right or left), it could have been easily spoofed, at least to some degree. ...or were you intimating that intelligent, rational and thoughtful people have a biased view of reality that somehow isn't appropriate?

[Donnie B.]

No, just that they are probably not representative of the overall population. For example, they may be better educated (on average) and have higher income (on average) than people who don't read science mags. (Or the other way around, for all I know...)

[Strange]

Keep in mind that the poll's respondents were readers of those two publications, so not necessarily representative of the public at large. Selection bias could be strong in this one.

True. But they admit that in the article. However, the online version of Sci Am seems to attract a pretty odd audience. Judging by the comments on the articles, at least, it can be a pretty anti-science crowd.

[geonuc]

Thanks for posting this, Swift. Very interesting.

I find the results a little discouraging. My industry - nuclear power - still scores low despite the passage of time since the last significant event. Doubt in the causes of autism is also troubling to me as it probably indicates a lack of trust in vaccines.

[Swift]

Thanks for posting this, Swift. Very interesting.

I find the results a little discouraging. My industry - nuclear power - still scores low despite the passage of time since the last significant event. Doubt in the causes of autism is also troubling to me as it probably indicates a lack of trust in vaccines.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think the chemical industry is thought of much better than nuclear power.

One thing I found interesting, in a bad way, was that particularly if the poll population is biased to people at least interested in science (as Donnie B says), that there were a lot of anti-science feelings, across a variety of issues and topic. If that is the science crowd, imagine what the general population must feel.

[Van Rijn]

I was sad about the nuclear bit as well (we aren't going to build the plants we need without more support) but at least it looked like things are getting better in the U.S.

I was pretty annoyed at the use of the terms "Climate Denial" and "deniers" in the text of the article. Folks, if you want people to respond emotionally, rather than look at a subject intellectually, this is a great way to do it.

[AdamL]

... there were a lot of anti-science feelings, across a variety of issues and topic. If that is the science crowd, imagine what the general population must feel.

An interesting poll indeed.
We need to differentiate, though, between anti-science and anti-scientists feelings.
I think people are mostly suspicious about scientists and their human shortcomings, which in the end of course also results in a general suspicion about science itself.
At least, that is the case in Europe. People simply don't trust scientists and strongly question their neutrality in many fields (in Europe particularly medicine, but also chemistry and many others).

And rightfully so, I might add.
Just look at how many scientists work for the military-industrial complex, especially in the USA.
How can you possibly trust people who spend most of their time researching more and more devious and disgusting ways to kill? I certainly don't.

[Salty]

I didn't see a link to the poll.

I've been blue collar most of my life and have only 12 college credits. So, I want to chip in my two cents' worth, anyway.

I see "Science" as one of several establishments in our civilizations. There is more than one civilization on this planet.

Anyway, from childhood up, there's the religious establishment, military establishment, economic establishment (includes commerce and banks), education establishment, industrial establishment, political establishment and etc. Medical, Chemical et al are subsidaries of the science establishment, nowadays. When I was a youth, there was still a medical arts building in Fort Worth, TX.

Anyway, each of these establishments have their respective places in the civilizations on earth. In different civilizations, different establishments control different civilizations. Some are controlled by the military, some by a religious establishment, some by a business establishment and some by a political establishment. I strongly feel that government, not science nor any other establishment, should lead or control or rule our civilization. With my upbringing, I favor a government openly and actively chosen by the people. If there's going to be other than that for a world government, then we may as well go back to monarchical forms of government, imho.

[Gillianren]

And rightfully so, I might add.
Just look at how many scientists work for the military-industrial complex, especially in the USA.
How can you possibly trust people who spend most of their time researching more and more devious and disgusting ways to kill? I certainly don't.

Is that all you think the "military-industrial complex" does? What a curious world you live in.

[AdamL]

Is that all you think the "military-industrial complex" does? What a curious world you live in.

What made you transform "most" into "all" and thus misrepresenting my post?

[AdamL]

I didn't see a link to the poll.

Click on the words "in this recent poll" in Swift's first sentence. They are slightly blue-colored, might be hard to see.

I strongly feel that government, not science nor any other establishment, should lead or control or rule our civilization.

In a world where the requirement for being a member of a government would be wisdom and insight, instead of power-hunger and money-control, I would agree.
But that is not what I see happening on this planet - anywhere.

But that is probably considered a political discussion...

[slang]

Just look at how many scientists work for the military-industrial complex, especially in the USA.
How can you possibly trust people who spend most of their time researching more and more devious and disgusting ways to kill? I certainly don't.

Ok. How many? How many in all other fields and applications of science?

[AdamL]

Ok. How many? How many in all other fields and applications of science?

As far as I am concerned one single scientist working for the killing machine called "military" is one too many.

[Gillianren]

That's a remarkably simplistic view, you know.

[SeanF]

That's a remarkably simplistic view, you know.

And don't you feel especially bad about conflating "most" with "all," now that you know that "most" really means "one single scientist"?

[Jens]

Keep in mind that the poll's respondents were readers of those two publications, so not necessarily representative of the public at large. Selection bias could be strong in this one.

That's got to be the understatement of the year. Not necessarily?

[AdamL]

That's a remarkably simplistic view, you know.

Maybe I am just not as gullible to military propaganda as others are?
And when it comes to killing or inventing more and more disgusting means of killing then yes, it becomes really simple for me.
But, you know, that is just me...

[slang]

Maybe I am just not as gullible to military propaganda as others are?

The possibility exists, it's a vague enough remark to likely have some truth to it. Another possibility is that you are just as gullible as you perceive others to be. Just to different propaganda.

But, you know, that is just me...

Which reminds me of the joke about the escaped lunatic, who is pounding the doors of the asylum with both fists, screaming: "Let me back in! Everyone out there is crazy!".

[AdamL]

... you are just as gullible as you perceive others to be. Just do different propaganda.

I take it that with "different propaganda" you mean the categorization of scientists who research killing devices as sub-human and not trust-worthy, then yes.
I wouldn't call it propaganda, though, although that you would characterize it as such speaks for itself...

Which reminds me of the joke about the escaped lunatic, who is pounding the doors of the asylum with both fists, screaming: "Let me back in! Everyone out there is crazy!".

I guess, as far as BAUT is concerned, I am indeed "crazy". And that is a good thing. A very good thing!

[geonuc]

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think the chemical industry is thought of much better than nuclear power.

One thing I found interesting, in a bad way, was that particularly if the poll population is biased to people at least interested in science (as Donnie B says), that there were a lot of anti-science feelings, across a variety of issues and topic. If that is the science crowd, imagine what the general population must feel.

[my bold]

The heart of the discussion, I'd say, and very, very discouraging.

[slang]

I take it that with "different propaganda" you mean the categorization of scientists who research killing devices as sub-human and not trust-worthy, then yes.

No.

I wouldn't call it propaganda, though, although that you would characterize it as such speaks for itself...

But I said no such thing. This is your interpretation of a nonspecific, general remark from me. This strawman arguing is tedious.

I guess, as far as BAUT is concerned, I am indeed "crazy". And that is a good thing. A very good thing!

I hope that putting crazy in quotes means that you understand that I had no intention to suggest anything about your mental health.

[Gillianren]

Maybe I am just not as gullible to military propaganda as others are?
And when it comes to killing or inventing more and more disgusting means of killing then yes, it becomes really simple for me.
But, you know, that is just me...

First off, not even every scientist working for the military is working on "more and more disgusting means of killing." In point of fact, means of killing haven't changed as much as you might think over the last fifty years; the most disgusting one I can name hasn't been used in combat since it was banned post-World War I. (Horrifying is a different question.) We saw the results of it, as indeed we see the results of most truly horrific events of war, and didn't want that happening to our children. History is a very complex mechanism of which science is only one small part.

Second . . . sometimes, you really do need a military. Some people need to be stopped, and even the most enlightened country in the world can't prevent it by diplomacy. You might argue that the person needing to be stopped shouldn't have had the military, and it was true. Both as a matter of fact and a matter of international treaty, in the case I'm trying so hard not to mention. However, one was raised, and armies were needed to counteract them. I've even read suggestions that stopping his army then would have been easier.

No, it's not propaganda. It's clear, reasoned awareness of history, psychology, and where science dollars are really spent.

[captain swoop]

Lets not turn this into a pro/con military thread. AdamL your post #11 that started this diversion could be seen as a hijack of the thread.
Lets stick to the OP

[Salty]

Click on the words "in this recent poll" in Swift's first sentence. They are slightly blue-colored, might be hard to see.


In a world where the requirement for being a member of a government would be wisdom and insight, instead of power-hunger and money-control, I would agree.
But that is not what I see happening on this planet - anywhere.

But that is probably considered a political discussion...

Thanks for stating location of link for me: unless I've just cleaned my glasses, I can miss something like that.

Well, ummm, I'l just say I tried to cover that in the original post with "a government openly and actively chosen by the people", leaving a lot unsaid but implying that the people can change things.