The Mistrust of Science and Scholarship

[Taraz]

Something that has been bothering me lately is the general mistrust of scientific and academic research in American society. Obviously it is good to be skeptical and critical of all new information you hear. But 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?

It's not like scientists and academics get paid a lot of money for their work. And they usually don't choose their fields for any reason other than they are fascinated by it. They have chosen to devote their life's work to a subject! So aside from a few individuals, why would we expect that they are misleading the public with their claims?

I don't buy the argument that researchers are just going along with the status quo. It seems like they would have much, much more to gain if they could prove the general consensus wrong. Imagine if you scientifically proved that gravity actually behaves differently than we now think. This would be huge news. You would get so much face time, notoriety, and FUNDING to do further research.

So what gives? Why does the public seem to discount the claims of the academics?

[Archon_Wing]

Look no further than the likes of William Jennings Bryan.
There is a belief that academics are somehow disconnected with reality and thus their findings are not relevant to daily life, which most people care about. People fear and despise what they can't understand and are convinced that the academics will use concepts and language to confuse and mislead them. When you introduce theories that strongly conflict with current belief, such as evolution, you get a lot of friction. Heck, evolution is still disputed

There's the thing with funding. People may be suspicious that researchers may compromise their research to get funding. Whether this is true or not, it still still creates problems as the few stories of unethical researches get passed around. Now since the government plays a significant role in academia, (who funds and manages all those great public universities) we have this whole big brother fear going on.

And don't forget how the public uses receives findings for research-- not through research journals typically, but through popular media which typically has to break it down into some soundbites.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Look no further than the likes of William Jennings Bryan.
There is a belief that academics are somehow disconnected with reality and thus their findings are not relevant to daily life, which most people care about. People fear and despise what they can't understand and are convinced that the academics will use concepts and language to confuse and mislead them. When you introduce theories that strongly conflict with current belief, such as evolution, you get a lot of friction. Heck, evolution is still disputed

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point about academics talking over the public's head. It is pretty tough for experts to put their results in layman's terms because they don't like to simplify complex situations. They definitely need to do a better job of this.

[ QUOTE ]

There's the thing with funding. People may be suspicious that researchers may compromise their research to get funding. Whether this is true or not, it still still creates problems as the few stories of unethical researches get passed around. Now since the government plays a significant role in academia, (who funds and manages all those great public universities) we have this whole big brother fear going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the second something becomes a consensus in a community, it seems like you'd get more funding if you could prove it wrong. I'm talking about established theories and facts that people are skeptical of. But, I take your point though.

[ QUOTE ]

And don't forget how the public uses receives findings for research-- not through research journals typically, but through popular media which typically has to break it down into some soundbites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also a good point. Especially since a lot of news these days comes in the form of panels who disagree. So even if there is a 90% chance that something is true, you hear both sides equally so the viewer will think that both sides are equally reputable and probable.

[jesse8888]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I think a lot of people live life by this rule quite literally. In any facet of their life they go about their business believing the "experts" until any one of them is proven to be wrong. Once that happens, the average person wants to "protect" herself by not believing anything.

I personally did this with my car. I trusted mechanics at the dealership completely until I had evidence that one of them tried to rip me off. Now, I don't trust any of them, even if they say "well, you might want new tires, that one is pretty bald" and I can actually see my reflection in the tire.

Just ramblings on a slow Friday at work....

[Metric]

I think there's more skepticism in some fields than others -- particularly the fields where the findings are used by politicians to get us to do something. I study physics, which is pretty clean in this regard, and I don't encounter much skepticism at all.

One problem is that science is supposed to gain our confidence by sticking its neck out with new predictions -- if it survives, then we assign it some credibility. If the head gets chopped off, however, we are more likely to toss that particular idea aside.

The problem with climatology, etc. is that it combines the worst of both of these issues. "Sticking your neck out" amounts to making predictions for the future, perhaps decades down the line -- but the last time they did this, with the whole "global cooling" scenario in the 70's, the prevailing idea was, in fact, chopped off and thrown aside. And yet we're asked to make crucial economic policy decisions based on global warming models without much of an opportunity to see them succeed or fail. This is quite simply a recipe for intense skepticism, regardless of whether the models turn out to be right or wrong, or how much evidence the actual scientists working on these models believe they have.

This is aside from the whole "generate money and attention by creating a scare" argument, which may or may not be valid.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
but the last time they did this, with the whole "global cooling" scenario in the 70's, the prevailing idea was, in fact, chopped off and thrown aside.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry can you point to one single NAS or SCOPE report that predicted global cooling? oh ya... there aren't any.

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.

The scientists tend to get caught in the middle of this mess . What makes the situation even more disgusting is when a physicist (like the one I'm replying to) gets fooled by this nonsense.

[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?

[Philo]

[ 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?