Interesting article about Americans' declining trust of scientists & scientific journals

[Cricket]

I'm gambling here. The scientific methodology is the most reliable means by which we can familiarize ourselves with the world around us, but there is a fear of it, a sense of distrust. This thread seems to have been created to encourage that mistrust. There are other means by which people have sought knowledge: astrology, conversing with the dead, reading hidden messages in things like tea leaves, crystals, or numbers, religions. The Christian religion is a popular alternative to science, especially in the United States where most WTM members live. It's your religion, if I'm not mistaken. If you think science cannot be trusted, it's not a risky gamble to assume you think religious insight is more reliable. That's why I asked the question. It's a follow up question to the implication the OP made, and continues to make on these forums, the implication that science cannot be trusted.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that science can't be trusted, only that some scientific studies are ultimately proved to be incorrect so keep that in mind when hearing about the latest scientific breakthrough. Even scientists ( and I know you) would agree with that so I'm confused as to what the problem is. As you have stated before, when new information becomes available, what was once accepted as true is revised. I fail to see how this is a science vs. religion argument.

[albeto.]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that science can't be trusted, only that some scientific studies are ultimately proved to be incorrect so keep that in mind when hearing about the latest scientific breakthrough. Even scientists ( and I know you) would agree with that so I'm confused as to what the problem is. As you have stated before, when new information becomes available, what was once accepted as true is revised. I fail to see how this is a science vs. religion argument.

 

 

Mine is an epistemology argument. Religion is not the only irrational belief system. Religious people are not the only irrational thinkers. We all are irrational thinkers. We've evolved that way. It's a byproduct of the very thing that benefited our ancestors - pattern recognition and assumed intent between events. The scientific method rationally works out these natural thinking impulses. So mine is not a science vs. religion argument. The implication I'm interpreting (and reading) here is that because science cannot be trusted 100% it is suspect, and therefore we do best to rely on our own subjective thinking.

 

No one has said, "Science Can't Be Trusted" I agree with that. The OP titles this an "Interesting article about American's declining trust of science and scientific journals." She then repeats the word "interesting" twice in her OP. She's not back to explain what she meant, so we're left with what she said. We can also refer to previous posts of hers to glean some more insight. While no one said "science can't be trusted, you noted that a problem starts long before capitalism enters the picture, implying the problem is with the science itself, not tangential variables such as capitalism funding the research.  

 

And let me repeat this to be absolutely clear, this is a pattern of behavior I'm calling out, not one single, isolated thread. This pattern of behavior is not aimed against the OP, but aimed at a growing fear-mongering of science, a growing acceptance of anti-intellectualism (google it). I think anti-intellectualism should be called out just like racism should be called out, just like misogyny should be called out. I think any ideology that encourages a thought process that ignores information and instead functions to protect a deeply held belief should be called out. I'm calling it out here. Others call it out elsewhere, in different contexts. 

[Cindy in FL.]

From Wikipedia: "Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternatively, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly, and perhaps more accurately, used description for this phenomenon."

 

I can't speak for everyone else involved in this thread, but I am not hostile or mistrustful of intellect, intellectuals, or intellectual pursuits. I don't deride education, philosophy, literature, art, or science as impractical or contemptible. I simply do not bow down to science or any other pursuit as if it were God.

[SKL]

Anti-intellectualism IMO includes not accepting the value of people thinking with an open mind and questioning and pointing out weaknesses in what is reported as a scientific finding / "fact."

 

To me the person here accusing many of anti-intellectualism is guilty of it.  So many of that person's posts insist that people who question what the scientists say are basically stupid/pathetic.  Calling smart people stupid (or implying same) would seem to be one aspect of anti-intellectualism IMO.

 

If I were running a high-level science education program, I would hope all of my students came in with the attitude that scientific concensus should be challenged.  Otherwise I'm not sure what is the point.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Anti-intellectualism IMO includes not accepting the value of people thinking with an open mind and questioning and pointing out weaknesses in what is reported as a scientific finding / "fact."

 

To me the person here accusing many of anti-intellectualism is guilty of it.  So many of that person's posts insist that people who question what the scientists say are basically stupid/pathetic.  Calling smart people stupid (or implying same) would seem to be one aspect of anti-intellectualism IMO.

 

If I were running a high-level science education program, I would hope all of my students came in with the attitude that scientific concensus should be challenged.  Otherwise I'm not sure what is the point.

 

Scientific consensus should always be challenged.

But it should be done using science.

Not woo. Not personal beliefs. Not religion. And not random anecdotes.

[Momof3littles]

My husband has a doctoral degree in a science discipline, and interacts regularly with scientists across many fields.  I was a major in a healthcare field, but also engaged in designing and running research projects in my field in graduate school and beyond.

 

We both are passionate about science, but definitely think there are times to be skeptical. 

 

In a different discussion here on the forums a few weeks ago I posted about the practice of medical ghostwriting, which is something we've followed for years. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/08/10/a-former-pharma-ghostwriter-speaks-out/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post/spooky-medicine-drug-companies-hire-2009-08-05/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-health-ghostwriting-idUSBRE93813720130409

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/health/research/05ghost.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-drug-company-money-undermining-science/

https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/01/ghostwriting-rampant-medical-journal-art/

http://chronicle.com/article/Medical-Academics-Could-Be/130443/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/18ghost.html?_r=0

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

Please try to take this gently, but I have often noticed your tendency to turn posts about any number of unrelated topics and turn them into "religion is bad, science is good" threads. Nobody here has mentioned religion or anything related. Mostly, people have been voicing their frustrations with drug companies and doctors pushing minimally effective drugs on people that are usually better off without them. Can we please skip the part of the conversation where anybody who has experiencd anything supernatural or religious in any way is told that we are imagining it?

 

Religion does influence this issue, it is pertinent. There are homeschool groups we cannot join because we don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't want to join those groups because I don't want my kids told that anymore than they want my kids telling their kids that they are wrong. (we haven't yet managed to get my six year old to understand how to say "pass the bean dip")

 

IMO the whole debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye illustrates the topic of the thread.

 

 

http://www.skepdic.com/sternberg.html

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/

 

I am religious but I choose to separate the two. I believe they can coexist but I prefer not to use one to disprove another.

 

Climate change is a HUGE issue between Conservatives and everyone else.

 

I saw this video recently where Neil DeGrasse Tyson was discussing religion and science with a student

 

 

Here is a video with Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking with a former GM exec regarding Climate Change. (Bill Maher is there too but try to ignore him I know he can be a bit of a butt)

 

[Aelwydd]

Albeto, it occurred to my subconscious brain during the night that you are the first real person I've encountered whose belief in science appears to have many of the same qualities as religious belief. You're the first person who has articulated the puzzle pieces in such a way that it all clicks for me.

To say something like that, you need to to elucidate. What qualities do you refer to? What do you mean by "belief in science?"

[Cricket]

Mine is an epistemology argument. Religion is not the only irrational belief system. Religious people are not the only irrational thinkers. We all are irrational thinkers. We've evolved that way. It's a byproduct of the very thing that benefited our ancestors - pattern recognition and assumed intent between events. The scientific method rationally works out these natural thinking impulses. So mine is not a science vs. religion argument. The implication I'm interpreting (and reading) here is that because science cannot be trusted 100% it is suspect, and therefore we do best to rely on our own subjective thinking.

 

No one has said, "Science Can't Be Trusted" I agree with that. The OP titles this an "Interesting article about American's declining trust of science and scientific journals." She then repeats the word "interesting" twice in her OP. She's not back to explain what she meant, so we're left with what she said. We can also refer to previous posts of hers to glean some more insight. While no one said "science can't be trusted, you noted that a problem starts long before capitalism enters the picture, implying the problem is with the science itself, not tangential variables such as capitalism funding the research.  

 

And let me repeat this to be absolutely clear, this is a pattern of behavior I'm calling out, not one single, isolated thread. This pattern of behavior is not aimed against the OP, but aimed at a growing fear-mongering of science, a growing acceptance of anti-intellectualism (google it). I think anti-intellectualism should be called out just like racism should be called out, just like misogyny should be called out. I think any ideology that encourages a thought process that ignores information and instead functions to protect a deeply held belief should be called out. I'm calling it out here. Others call it out elsewhere, in different contexts. 

 

1) I think it is fair to say that even though someone doesn't swallow every scientific study hook, line and sinker she can still believe science will eventually figure out how the natural world functions.  How do you go about judging scientific studies? 

 

2) I had misread your original post when I said that about capitalism.  I assumed you were saying that capitalism is the reason some studies are later "debunked."  I was pointing out that the problems within the studies later found false were within the studies themselves.  When I re-read what you wrote, I realized I completely missed what you were saying. 

 

3) Recognizing that many scientific studies are eventually labeled false is not fear-mongering or anti-intellectualism.  I agree it can be used in an attempt to discredit science as a whole but I disagree that that is what is happening in this thread.

 

ETA:  Isn't it amazing that we irrational thinkers could devise something as ingenious as the scientific method? 

[Aelwydd]

Climate change is a HUGE issue between Conservatives and everyone else.

It doesn't matter anymore. We're well on our way to 5 degrees or worse. We have maybe 50 years of life-as-we-know-it before we get to the great unraveling of not just human society, but global ecology.

 

By the time conservatives (and dopey liberals that think recycling their Starbucks cup is saving the planet), realize this, and that Jesus/Moses/Buddha/ Allah/etc. isn't going to save us from our stubborn refusal to accept that Earth will go on with or without us, we will be done.

 

And what's left of our kids' generation will have to cope with a planet full of starving, dying plant, animal, and human life.

[Laurie4b]

This is an interesting article about the philosophical sea change that science has undergone/is undergoing/ , especially with regard to objectivity. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php  . http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/what-physics-learns-from-philosophy.html?_r=0   

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

It doesn't matter anymore. We're well on our way to 5 degrees or worse. We have maybe 50 years of life-as-we-know-it before we get to the great unraveling of not just human society, but global ecology.

 

By the time conservatives (and dopey liberals that think recycling their Starbucks cup is saving the planet), realize this, and that Jesus/Moses/Buddha/ Allah/etc. isn't going to save us from our stubborn refusal to accept that Earth will go on with or without us, we will be done.

 

And what's left of our kids' generation will have to cope with a planet full of starving, dying plant, animal, and human life.

 

I agree.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

Here is a video with Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking with a former GM exec regarding Climate Change. (Bill Maher is there too but try to ignore him I know he can be a bit of a butt)

 

 

 

He is a perfect illustration of a point I made upthread. He's a liberal atheist who believes in a bunch of anti-science, pseudoscience, woo. :)

[Slartibartfast]

He is a perfect illustration of a point I made upthread. He's a liberal atheist who believes in a bunch of anti-science, pseudoscience, woo. :)

 

I find him really annoying. :lol: I just don't care for those who need to put people down in order to make a point.

[Mrs Mungo]

Billy Graham did a good job of summarizing how many people (including myself) feel:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

 

That said, I have most *definitely* had the experience of hearing anti-science preached from the pulpit.