The Mistrust of Science and Scholarship

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something that has been bothering me lately is the general mistrust of scientific and academic research in American society...when there is a consensus among the experts in a given field, it seems like we should defer to their judgment. So why doesn't this happen?



[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of an established scientific claim that the general public rejects?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 3 examples have been given, Human caused Global Warming, Evolution, and the Big Bang.

That's not a long list.

[/ QUOTE ]

The list is really long.

Atrazine
DDT
Alar (actress meryl streep single handedly destroyed the scientific community)
tobacco for 20 years despite the obvious connection
CFC/Ozone - for a long time at least
Dangers of certain "natural" organic foods
According to Rduke, the dangers of MDMA
Species extinction
There are quite a few people that think the Grand Canyon is less than 6K years old.
The transitional fossil record.
Ethanol fuel from corn
Peak oil (consensus is constantly twisted beyond recognition)
The utility of Jack-12 and the lower tertiary gulf oil wells
A lot of gun control laws are passed despite claims from the CDC and the FBI that certain laws don't do a damn thing. I'm pretty sure the waiting period law is one of those.
Hydrogen fuel cells
Electric cars

That's just a few off of the top of my head.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with science is that the mainstream media is willing to lie their ass off about what scientists are actually saying. In the 70's Newsweek lied cuz it fit their liberal agenda. Now the WSJ is lying cuz it fits their conservative agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this part is pretty key. The media does cloud issues either because they have a hidden agenda or they are trying to dumb it down for their audience.

But when there is an internationally recognized scientific consensus I feel like we should be past the point of media distortion. The vast, vast majority of scientists whose expertise we should trust believe in evolution and anthropogenic global warming. Somehow this doesn't seem to matter.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem with science is that the mainstream media is willing to lie their ass off about what scientists are actually saying. In the 70's Newsweek lied cuz it fit their liberal agenda. Now the WSJ is lying cuz it fits their conservative agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this part is pretty key. The media does cloud issues either because they have a hidden agenda or they are trying to dumb it down for their audience.

But when there is an internationally recognized scientific consensus I feel like we should be past the point of media distortion. The vast, vast majority of scientists whose expertise we should trust believe in evolution and anthropogenic global warming. Somehow this doesn't seem to matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cloud stuff? They make facts up. Here is a WSJ article that made facts up about the recent IPCC report lacking Mann's hockey stick:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2...orting_06.html

Here is Alexander Cockburn citing an "expert" that also makes facts up. Facts that are easily debunked with 10 seconds of google searching.
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2...-cockburn.html

Heck even Disney faked the suicide acts of lemmings.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

This isn't "clouding" this is a fabrication of news.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem with science is that the mainstream media is willing to lie their ass off about what scientists are actually saying. In the 70's Newsweek lied cuz it fit their liberal agenda. Now the WSJ is lying cuz it fits their conservative agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this part is pretty key. The media does cloud issues either because they have a hidden agenda or they are trying to dumb it down for their audience.

But when there is an internationally recognized scientific consensus I feel like we should be past the point of media distortion. The vast, vast majority of scientists whose expertise we should trust believe in evolution and anthropogenic global warming. Somehow this doesn't seem to matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cloud stuff? They make facts up. Here is a WSJ article that made facts up about the recent IPCC report lacking Mann's hockey stick:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2...orting_06.html

Here is Alexander Cockburn citing an "expert" that also makes facts up. Facts that are easily debunked with 10 seconds of google searching.
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2...-cockburn.html

Heck even Disney faked the suicide acts of lemmings.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

This isn't "clouding" this is a fabrication of news.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. I'm just saying that once we hear about what the IPCC is and how it was organized, shouldn't we side with them instead of the Wall Street Journal? Why don't we?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
normal



"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe a better example is parental disciplining. the intellectuals say never spank, never scold, time out at worst, put your kids on drugs when they don't behave ... , when the peasant mentality is to discipline kids including spanking and keep them off drugs.

So you can see the clear difference in values there.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

maybe a better example is parental disciplining. the intellectuals say never spank, never scold, time out at worst, put your kids on drugs when they don't behave ... , when the peasant mentality is to discipline kids including spanking and keep them off drugs.

So you can see the clear difference in values there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have anything to back this up with? I've spent a good deal of the last seven years in and around prestigious universities with lots of 'intellectuals'. I've never heard anyone say to never scold your kids, that time outs are the worst punishment you should dole out, or that drugs were the way to go.

I understand that you think this is true, but why? How many 'intellectuals' have you actually spoken to who hold this viewpoint.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
This ties in nicely with the "rejection of Sklansky" thread. People see scientists having a constructive debate -- for instance, about whether average temperatures will rise 2 or 4 degrees in the next century -- and conclude that since they can't even agree with each other they must not have anything worth the rest of us listening to. Or they hear scientists admit that something isn't completely certain to be right, and instead of hearing that there's a 99% chance of something being right, they say "either its right or its not, oh see, an idiot professor flipping a coin."

It's a fundamental problem, IMO, with the way almost all non-scientific argument is conducted. Political discussions, sermons, votes, legal trials, and a bunch of other things are conducted adversarially, each prsenter deliberately presenting convenient half-truths and concealing inconvenient half-truths. Some fool, ages ago, decided the having people from opposite positions take turns presenting half-truths was a good way of bringing the full truth to light, which it isn't.

People have no experience with the process of bringing a full and balanced truth to light. They don't see it happening around them, and they are not taught to do it - in fact, starting around age 10 or 12, people are taught that good articles/papers/etc must have a "thesis" as opposed to sticking to the facts. It's not just a mistrust of science, it's a flaw in how the vast majority of people, even thinking people, present information and expect to see it presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post should be framed and hung on the wall of every humanities department of every university.

Seriously though, this message is crucial, and it is exactly what is needed to combat the problem of public mistrust. Nice work.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have anything to back this up with? I've spent a good deal of the last seven years in and around prestigious universities with lots of 'intellectuals'. I've never heard anyone say to never scold your kids, that time outs are the worst punishment you should dole out, or that drugs were the way to go.

I understand that you think this is true, but why? How many 'intellectuals' have you actually spoken to who hold this viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about the "party line", not individual viewpoints.
I mean a lot of it has been codified into law, re: not spanking, "forced" drugging of children, etc.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
..."forced" drugging of children, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean "forcing" children to take antibiotics because they have a bacterial infection? If not, what exactly do you mean, doctor?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean "forcing" children to take antibiotics because they have a bacterial infection? If not, what exactly do you mean, doctor?

[/ QUOTE ]
the whole ritalin thing.