Scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were not more credible than businesspeople or issue advocates.Scientists were viewed as more credible when discussing technological issues than when discussing non-technological social issues such as health, education and employment.Three forms of distrust – concerns abo...
I want to scratch the surface and look slightly deeper at this. I think we all agree on the one hand “Science, duh.” and this kind of headline is of course dispiriting.
It sparked an interesting thought for me though. What role does “trust” actually play in science? Scientists certainly don’t operate on trust with one another. The entire practice is based on peer-critique and no one’s results are trusted until someone has repeated them.
Yet somehow we think there is a boundary on this, a sort of outer membrane past which everyone who is outside any scientific field is just supposed to “trust science,” when science itself is a huge, distributed, diverse, and not always especially accountable or even identifiable conglomeration of different people. Not all science is carried out with the same rigor, the same sample size, and there is membership card. A corporation can conduct science. A private individual can conduct science. Exactly who and where is this “Science” we are meant to even trust?
Every study I’ve ever seen shared on Lemmy is looked at critically. There’s no “trust” about it.
So not to trust science honestly sounds like the most scientific thing for a smart person to do. Science also doesn’t require trust. It operates on proof, openness, repeatable experiments and data. Science never asks for “trust.”
We should expect the results that scientists have tried to debunk and failed to be trusted. You know, the repeated results after the initial claim. Unfortunately most of the people at least in the US don’t understand any part of the way science works to come to a conclusion that’s accepted by most scientists.
They’ve been raised in a culture that has taught them “freedom” means being addicted to entertainment and convenience, and that everyone who doesn’t look, act and believe like they do is an existential threat.
It’s about style. Who are you going to believe, academics who are careful in what they claim and are forever hedging because even 6 sigma isn’t 100% or business people who are absolutely certain when they speak whether their certainty is warranted or not?
My suspicion is social media. The hustle culture and billionaires are glazed over; as in there is subliminal messaging to condition to the plebians to worship the rich and lick their boots.
People are emotionally driven. Everyone is, to an extent. Scientists are less likely to use that to support their point, or they’ll have emotionally displeasing things to say.
Well pretend your science is more emotional, Mr scientist! We need to convince the masses, throw a “damn” or two in your sentences, save our planet and pretend for a second science has led to innovation after innovation that has changed quality and ability of life for billions… Yeah, damnit, nothing emotional about science, let’s just keep it boring
Eh… shitty people exist outside of the United States. We just happen to be very loud about it.
Take, for example, the British. They’re huge assholes, too. Have been for centuries. And everyone hated them the most long before we Americans came along. And, of course, it makes total sense that our country is one of their offspring, so to speak. Funny how the Canadians turned out to be so polite. The jury is still out on the Australians…
What the fuck is wrong with people?
I want to scratch the surface and look slightly deeper at this. I think we all agree on the one hand “Science, duh.” and this kind of headline is of course dispiriting.
It sparked an interesting thought for me though. What role does “trust” actually play in science? Scientists certainly don’t operate on trust with one another. The entire practice is based on peer-critique and no one’s results are trusted until someone has repeated them.
Yet somehow we think there is a boundary on this, a sort of outer membrane past which everyone who is outside any scientific field is just supposed to “trust science,” when science itself is a huge, distributed, diverse, and not always especially accountable or even identifiable conglomeration of different people. Not all science is carried out with the same rigor, the same sample size, and there is membership card. A corporation can conduct science. A private individual can conduct science. Exactly who and where is this “Science” we are meant to even trust?
Every study I’ve ever seen shared on Lemmy is looked at critically. There’s no “trust” about it.
So not to trust science honestly sounds like the most scientific thing for a smart person to do. Science also doesn’t require trust. It operates on proof, openness, repeatable experiments and data. Science never asks for “trust.”
We should expect the results that scientists have tried to debunk and failed to be trusted. You know, the repeated results after the initial claim. Unfortunately most of the people at least in the US don’t understand any part of the way science works to come to a conclusion that’s accepted by most scientists.
They’ve been raised in a culture that has taught them “freedom” means being addicted to entertainment and convenience, and that everyone who doesn’t look, act and believe like they do is an existential threat.
It’s about style. Who are you going to believe, academics who are careful in what they claim and are forever hedging because even 6 sigma isn’t 100% or business people who are absolutely certain when they speak whether their certainty is warranted or not?
I know who I trust more but that’s because I’m not a product of the American education system
My suspicion is social media. The hustle culture and billionaires are glazed over; as in there is subliminal messaging to condition to the plebians to worship the rich and lick their boots.
they are stupid and don’t even believe basic history like palestine for the last 150 years
For the guys that get their opinions from businessmen:
Wat
Corporations own the media, not scientists.
People are emotionally driven. Everyone is, to an extent. Scientists are less likely to use that to support their point, or they’ll have emotionally displeasing things to say.
I’m a scientist, can confirm.
Well pretend your science is more emotional, Mr scientist! We need to convince the masses, throw a “damn” or two in your sentences, save our planet and pretend for a second science has led to innovation after innovation that has changed quality and ability of life for billions… Yeah, damnit, nothing emotional about science, let’s just keep it boring
Michael Gove
Eh… shitty people exist outside of the United States. We just happen to be very loud about it.
Take, for example, the British. They’re huge assholes, too. Have been for centuries. And everyone hated them the most long before we Americans came along. And, of course, it makes total sense that our country is one of their offspring, so to speak. Funny how the Canadians turned out to be so polite. The jury is still out on the Australians…
Australians are the Gen X of the world, a bunch of cunts, best ignored.
Canadian politeness is founded on ignoring the genocide at home.
Mmm I’m pretty sure I can be polite and recognize generational trauma of indigenous peoples
The Australian jury has gone down to the pub.
Not really sure what that has to do with my comment.
On a side note Australians are known to be racist cunts. New Zealander’s are by accounts the equivalent of Canadians
Rich people own and run the media. That’s just one thing that’s wrong with them.