Gap of what public thinks, scientists know

[bobm]

AP by Seth Borenstein: In today's " The Columbian " paper ... " American public and U.S. scientists are light -years apart on science issues. And 98% of surveyed scientists say it's a problem that we don't know what they're talking about. Scientists are far less worried about GMO modified foods, pesticide use and nuclear power than is the general public, according to matching polls of both the general public and the country's largest general science organization. . Scientists were more certain that global warming is caused by man, evolution is real, overpopulation is a danger, and mandatory vaccination against childhood diseases is needed." " In 8 of 13 science- oriented issues, there was a 20 % point or higher gap separating the opinions of the public and members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. according to survey work by the Pew research Center. In the most dramatic split 88% if the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat GMO foods, while 37% of the public said it is safe and 57% say it is unsafe. 68% of scientists said it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28% of the general public." ... Etc. ... " The trouble is that scientists don't think the public knows the facts. The surveys said 84% of the scientists said it is major problem that "the public does not know very much about science" and another 14 % said it is a minor problem. And 97% of the scientists criticized the educational system. Three quarters of the scientists said not enough science and math. education is a major problem and another 22 percent said it was a minor one. "IT's not about being smart or dumb." Lesher said. "It's about whether , in fact, you understand the source of the fact and what the facts are." "

 

[digitS']

" ... to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public.

Ninety-eight percent of scientists say humans evolved over time, compared with 65 percent of the public. The gap wasn’t quite as large for vaccines, with 86 percent of the scientists favoring mandatory childhood shots while 68 percent of the public did.

Eighty-seven percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity, while only half of the public did ..."

Ask the two groups enough questions and it is inevitable that every single person in either group, who has an opinion, will find himself or herself siding with the minority scientific opinion. That would be true even if only 10% or 12% of the scientists fall within the minority. All it would take is for the survey to include enough questions.

"... there was a 20 % point or higher gap ..." Yes, but there's a 37% gap on the global warming/human activity issue.

We could pick and choose which questions could be bones of contention on TEG.

Steve

 

[so lucky]

Well, my bone of contention would be that the "facts" that the scientists are basing their findings on can be picked and chosen, too. Depends on who is funding the study. And I doubt if it matters whether you are pro or against an idea. If you are in favor of it, you are going to base your findings on tests that favor your opinion or at least favor your intentions.

 

[TheSeedObsesser]

I tend to go with the Buddhist way of thinking here - that knowledge is an illusion created by our minds. We are victims of our own desire to learn more. That doesn't mean that I don't have my own opinions though.

 

[digitS']

I like that, SeedO .

Yeah, we tend to go looking for what we believe we may find. ...

Let's remember that some folks have really, really gotten into the weeds looking for things. Yeah. They have given up years of their lives and learned from others. They have held up what they have found for others to comment on, run with, or just to denigrate.

Very nearly our entire culture has been "put together" by people like these remarkably curious folks.

Steve

 

[Ridgerunner]

Very true, So Lucky. As an engineer I know how important your basic assumptions are when setting up a problem to solve. And you have to ask the right question or you won't solve the right problem. I also dealt a lot with "certified" materials, equipment, and processes. It did not take long to learn that the quality of the certification depended on the integrity of the person putting their signature on that piece of paper. Trust but verify.

The way the scientific community should work is that someone studies a problem, comes up with a theory, and presents the evidence. Other scientists then try to duplicate the results independently to see if they are consistent. Some create different experiments of their own to see if they can devise a way that shows the theory does not work. If they cannot prove the theory is flawed then it is accepted as a working theory until someone proves it wrong or comes up with something better. Not a fact, a theory that probably applies until something better comes along. That's the value of peer review.

Of course you are dealing with people. Most people have preconceived notions and that will influence them. Some can be outright bought. It takes a lot of money to do most of this research and the money has to come from somewhere. There is a lot of pressure in research to find money. People with the money often have an agenda.

When I see polls like that, I'm always skeptical. When someone calls to do a survey, especially a political survey, I ask who is paying for this. If they can't answer to my satisfaction, and they usually can't, I politely hand up. On rare occasions I do take the survey. How the questions are worded and the setting is very important to what answers you get. In this specific survey, were the scientists questioned specialists in the field where they actually have some knowledge or is it just a general opinion. The name of the organization includes "to advance science". These particular people may have a basic agenda that is different than the general community of scientists so their answers may be exaggerated compared to the general scientific community. I think the trend is right but maybe not the extreme numbers.

My personal opinion, based on the things in my field of expertise, is that the public is very poorly informed. Most news reports get it wrong. Reporters are people trained to get a story that will entertain and draw people so they can draw advertisers and get ratings. They don't have the technical knowledge to have a clue whether what they are reporting is even close to right. They often look for the crackpots to interview too since that improves ratings. They also look for crackpot studies and results. Better ratings. They are not going to go beyond a five second sound bite and give good background information. That's boring and hurts ratings.

A lot of the stuff put out on the public is put out there by people with money and an agenda, on all sides of the political spectrum. One tainted study is presented as a majority opinion.

You do need a certain amount of education to understand even the basics of these issues. Most of these things I don't have good enough math and engineering knowledge to be able to have an informed opinion and I'm an engineer. I did not specialize in those specific topics. I have my own preconceived ideas, a lot of that based on things I know but some just me, and I think the public overall is very poorly educated in math and science.

It's not in my nature to blindly trust that the "experts" know what they are talking about and let it go. It's the integrity of the people involved that I don't know and their personal agenda. I try to look at the actual questions and who is presenting the information before I trust anything and even then I an skeptical. I don't have a way to know who is telling the truth.

 

[Chickie'sMomaInNH]

i've seen the link for the article but haven't read it yet. do they mention how many of each type of scientists they selected for this 'study'? because i imagine this could be slighted to one side over the other as to which field of study they chose to take the most 'scientific' opinions from.


also, has any one noticed we no longer call it 'global warming' but instead go with 'climate change'? that is because the world is in constant flux on weather, natural disasters, AND human patterns of change.

 

[digitS']

Here is the study: Opinion Differences Between Public and Scientists

Of course, weather is all interconnected. I saw something recently about how the early telegraph operators would share weather information. This led to a realization of this connection. There is local weather but there are major forces which alter and create local weather. Nowhere is that more important, and apparent, than hurricane predictions and watching those windstorms come out of Africa!

@Ridgerunner , I'm gonna argue with you just a bit. Imagine the lack of information that person on the US Gulf Coast had prior to the telegraph. Imagine, the difference in a few generations.

A pbs show on Edison related how he was so fixated on DC power rather than AC. Someone observed that higher math skills were required to work with AC electricity. Edison was lacking that knowledge. Imagine. M magine!! Edison!

You may better comprehend AC power than Edison. Thousands of Americans ... Tens of ... okay, I'll stop.

Steve

 

[Ridgerunner]

Steve, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Probably my fault. I'm married. It usually is my fault.

I lived on the Gulf Coast for a few decades. I appreciate how much progress we've made in hurricane predictions and computer weather models in general. Different computer models show different predictions. Should we base our hurricane evacuation plans on a poll of which computer model the general public thinks is right this time? In Edison's time should we have based our investment in Ac or DC electrical current based on the opinion of the general public?

We are making scientific progress. It eventually trickles out to the public, though there can be resistance for a long time. Some people still believe the earth is flat, maybe even some forum members. We have to depend on the experts who have detailed knowledge, but a lot of public policy and ultimately funding depends on public perception. The public does not have the detailed knowledge to make an informed decision. They can't. We can't specialize in that many things. I think a lot of these decisions are made more on showmanship than actual fact.

Why is there so much controversy on a lot of these things. Partially follow the money. Sometimes good science requires spending extra money by business or government. That can hurt profit margins or cause budget problems. There is also a faction so anti-business or anti-government that they have no scruples about what they say or do. As long as they can harm business or government they will. I've seen this attitude from both sides. But that's just my opinion. I've been married long enough to know what my opinion is worth.

 

[bobm]

I was born on a farm, my dad was a Veterinarian and owned his own farm , my mom also owned her own farm as well as a general store. During WW2 they lost everything and eventually came to the USA ! I attended a Catholic school where the nuns stressed science and math. I was raised near a University town and scientific research and education was always stressed and we were always encouraged to question everything that was in front of us. I attended a University and was amazed at the number of public school graduates that had to take remedial courses in English, Math. and Science. So my background always made me to question and look at who, what, where and why, or the scientific method. I worked at a University and I worked on some original research that eventually led to genetic ID and parent verification. There is almost never an area where only one individual is involved with an experiment at the University but a staff of people with different backgrounds ( ideas contributed from the professors with a PhD, to staff with MS and BS degrees to maintainance staff ) and always offer different ideas or slants to step by step results , set up new experiments to test their observations then continue on those steps that confirm the initial results or not . We always reported and pear reviewed our work before it was published. any different results that were originally postulated or different from the wanted results that the grant money people provided. This is so that the people that paid for the experiment could potentialy avoid a law suit. However, there are some so called "researchers" with an axe to grind with business or government or group that publish non peer review work then they go about to spout their agenda for their own gain and often lead the general public astray through passionate speeches to crowds and through news mouth -pieces known as "reporters" that parrot these so called "experts" . Then there is the public school system staffed with union staff with their own agenda views which places the public school graduates at the lower end of test results on the global stage . All one has to do is ask these graduates even simple general knowledge of running a household , science, and math questions, heck even political or where food comes from and judge their answers for yourselves. We are now in the computer age . We no longer have to listen to some pied pipers alone. We have an advantage to further our education and look at all sides of who, what, where, and why with just a click of the mouse without a closed mind.