Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday November 04 2014, @05:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the by-ignoring-it dept.

What influences the conclusions that non scientists draw about science? Is it a scientist's job to persuade the general public to agree with their scientific opinions?

This worry wasn’t just about climate change, but also stem cells. Genetically modified food. Vaccines. Nuclear power. And, of course, evolution: Challenging scientific reality seems to be an increasingly common feature of American life. Some researchers have gone so far as to accuse one political party, the Republicans, of making "science denial" a bedrock principle. The authority attributed to scientists for a century is crumbling.

It is a disturbing story. It is also, in many ways, a fairy tale. So says Dan M. Kahan, a law professor at Yale University who, over the past decade, has run an insurgent research campaign into how the public understands science.

If you think there's an unhealthy gap between expert and public opinion on important scientific issues (or, if you think (paradoxically) that the existence of this gap itself is a common misconception which doesn't stand up under expert scrutiny), then this article may be of interest.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:10PM (#113007)

    Through a magpie synthesis of psychology, risk perception, anthropology, political science, and communication research, leavened with heavy doses of empiricism and idol bashing, he has exposed the tribal biases that mediate our encounters with scientific knowledge. It’s a dynamic he calls cultural cognition.

    Aw, crap. I thought this was going to be something backed up by real science.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:32PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:32PM (#113010)

    You turn science into politics and the results should not surprise anyone. Yet it does; revealing the lack of clue in the confused.

    Science has been slowly turned from a search for the laws of nature into a weapon to be wielded in political disputes, almost exclusively by one side. Now nobody trusts it because they while most people don't consider themselves qualified to judge the science they DO feel qualified to make a much simpler judgement: Is the guy in a labcoat acting like a scientist or a politician? Since we DO know what a politician is we feel (rightly) competent to recognize one. And we all lose if we can no longer depend on science.

    And no, you can forget your smug fantasy about Republicans don't believe in Science because they are dumb while us good smart Progressives believe in Science. Ya, many Christians[1] question evolution but just as many Progressives question vaccines. Regardless of the scientific merit, nobody will die from disbelieving evolution and the opposite is clearly not true. The opposition to GMO is mostly a trope of the Progressives, the undisputed fact that without them to feed the teeming masses many of them, almost all black and brown, will DIE matters not a bit to them. Meanwhile many on the right oppose stem cells from fetal tissue but not the current, actually productive, lines of research. Again, one side's bugaboos get people killed and the other side might have thrown a bit of sand in the gears.

    And let us not forget the whole phobia the left exhibits over the N word. They howl like bansees about the evils of CO2 but retire to their fainting couches if you suggest the logical notion that if we must forswear burning fossil fuels then we should reassess the risk/reward of new safer[2] nuke plants.

    [1] Note that while all Republicans are not Christians, for all intents all practicing Christians are now Republicans.

    [2] Safer, since just like there is no safe sex there probably isn't safe nukes either. At least at our tech level.

    • (Score: 2) by mattie_p on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:55PM

      by mattie_p (13) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:55PM (#113016) Journal

      Yo, practicing Christian here, not a Republican. Thank you. Unless you're trying to pull a scotsman on us.

      Also, Gallup [gallup.com] (warning, .aspx page and contains javascript for those who are sensitive to such things).

      Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments.

      • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:23PM

        by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:23PM (#113021) Journal

        ah mattie - let them think you'll vote for them. nothing better than making polsters look at the final results as say wtf? i thought this was locked up.

      • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:52AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:52AM (#113105)

        Yo, practicing Christian here, not a Republican.

        There are of course a few remaining. But very few who in the Democrat/Progressive camp outside a few 'non-denominational' believe anything types. There are also a few diehards who simply can't imagine changing.

        Living in the South I see a similar mental incoherence on the race issue. LBJ flipped the Democratic Party from fillibusters of Civil Rights legislation to supporting it if combined with a Welfare State. Now you can either believe LBJ changed his mind (he used to lead some of those fillibusters) on race or that he only changed tactics. (Civil Rights as a bargain to also pass Welfare to keep blacks on a 'plantation' even more horrid than any but the worst of the Jim Crow offenses.) Either theory is defensible but what isn't is what happened here in the South where diehard closet Klansmen all kept voting straight ticket D at the very same time as blacks shifted to 90%+ straight D voting. Both theories as to the motives of the new Democratic Party can't be true, one just about has to be delusional.

        Same with Christians who still vote D; They refuse to accept the new reality that Progressivism is not just hostile, it is inimical to their existance. Bold statement but totally backed by fact. Google up the Ten Commandments and for each ask the following question.

        Is the current policy of Progressives/Democrats regarding this Commandment:

        [ ] Their view is that this Commandment is sound public policy.

        [ ] They take no position on this one, you can be a good Democrat and keep this Commandment or break it.

        [ ] Their policy is that this commandment is bad public policy. As a Democrat in good standing you should not obey it.

        [ ] They consider breaking this commandment is a good thing. They would probably support passing a law requiring everyone break it.

        If you are honest you will notice that most fall into the bottom two answers. If you are really generous and don't consider euthanasia or abortion/infantacide to be murder you can get a grand total of ONE commandment into the first category. Or in other words, almost exactly 180 degrees opposed.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:30AM (#113185)

          democrats tend to be into the keynesian economic model (though there are probably republicans that do too)... keynesianism is the main reason why america (and much of the world) is in so much economic strife

        • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:35PM

          by Magic Oddball (3847) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:35PM (#113216) Journal

          There are of course a few remaining. But very few who in the Democrat/Progressive camp outside a few 'non-denominational' believe anything types. There are also a few diehards who simply can't imagine changing.

          Living in the South ...

          That might be the case for the South, but they're extremely common in at least some other parts of the country. In my particular region, political & religious beliefs seem to be pretty thoroughly decoupled. (FWIW I'm agnostic raised 'outside the church' with very little religious training by "cafeteria" Catholics, unless you count attending a Presbyterian preschool/kindergarten.)

          Civil Rights as a bargain to also pass Welfare to keep blacks on a 'plantation' even more horrid than any but the worst of the Jim Crow offenses.

          Aid for Families with Dependent Children (the program known as "welfare") began as part of Roosevelt's "New Deal" way back during the Great Depression — it didn't need to be 'passed' as it had already existed for decades by the Civil Rights Era.

          Same with Christians who still vote D; They refuse to accept the new reality that Progressivism is not just hostile, it is inimical to their existance. Bold statement but totally backed by fact.

          It's not accurate, in part because you can't get results based in reality by lumping all forms of Christianity together, as their beliefs ultimately turn out to be far too different on just about every topic. I don't just mean in terms of how to regard gay people or equal rights for women, either: many churches teach the Bible as a series of allegorical stories that need to be re-interpreted to make sense in modern times, particularly as it has been substantially rephrased, re-translated, and edited by one generation after another to suit whatever norms the government & church wished to promote.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:36PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:36PM (#113024)

      Yeah, let's kick science out of politics! Because the world was so much better when politic decisions were read in the viscera of butchered animals.

      • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:32AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:32AM (#113102)

        Yeah, let's kick science out of politics!

        You seem to think science can become involved in politics one-way, that it can influence politics and remain free of the reverse, of politics influencing science. But this is not a sound position to take. Do you really think scientists are going to be better at politics than politicians? No, of course not because any scientist who found they were really skilled at politics would almost certainly switch since politics pays so much better and offers POWER. And science is a lot more susceptible to political influence than politics is to any sort of logic or reason.

        Now consider the long term implications. To the extent that science can influence politics it is of course a good thing. However it is very hard to pull off. Meanwhile, just a small amount of politics leaking back into science causes both immediate and long term harm to science. Once the public loses trust in science, and face it, it has, repairing the break is going to be a long hard slog.

        • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:25AM

          by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:25AM (#113189)

          Please name me any field of human activity where politics don't "leak back into".

          Your position is pushing a boogeyman to fulfil an agenda. But it's too obvious, really.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:39PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:39PM (#113026)

      Science has been slowly turned from a search for the laws of nature into a weapon to be wielded in political disputes, almost exclusively by one side.

      What if the laws of nature do in fact favor one side of a political debate? Would you not want scientists to say something about that? After all, whether or not you agree with a law of nature, it's going to happen that way, and I would consider it irresponsible for somebody to have strong evidence that a government policy would necessarily lead to disaster or a major boon and not say anything.

      I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. I'm sorry if that forces a re-examination of deeply held beliefs and opinions. But to say "that's science getting political" is to engage in classic cognitive dissonance behavior of simply discarding any information that doesn't fit your existing ideas, and that does not lead to to the truth.

      To use one of your examples: I highly doubt that those who were looking to do embryonic stem cell research were relishing the chance to kill embryos, but were instead saying "We've got all these embryos just sitting around not doing anything and in many cases never will do anything, and I can think of some useful lines of research we could use them for." That doesn't mean that the conservative position is wrong (I can certainly see a moral argument against doing that research), but there is absolutely no reason to think that behind that first argument was "Hey, we could use this excuse of needing to do research to convince more people to kill their babies, which will get them voting Democrat!"

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:14PM (#113042)

        I think you took GP's post the autist way. Let me have a try at rephrasing it:

        Public speech about science has been slowly turned from an insight out of the search for the laws of nature into a weapon [of misinformation, ie. not connected to actual science] to be wielded in political disputes, almost exclusively by one side.

        Not science itself (although there's a little bit of that, too, see Monsato, but that's not in the scope of this discussion).

        • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:11PM

          by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:11PM (#113077)

          Public speech about science has been slowly turned from an insight oto fervently of the search for the laws of nature into a weapon [of misinformation, ie. not connected to actual science] to be wielded in political disputes, almost exclusively by one side.

          Which is funny, because that side is precisely the one that the GGP seems to support.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:13AM (#113094)

        the laws of nature do in fact favor one side of a political debate

        Admit it: You're really Stephen Colbert. [google.com]

        The thing I noticed about TFA was that TeeVee was only mentioned once, in passing ("NOVA"--which has made a noticeable shift to the Right since the old days).

        A huge portion of the populous still get home and plop down in front of the boob tube.
        Just as Tim Berners-Lee said that if you aren't on the web, you don't exist, if you aren't on TV, for Joe Average you don't exist.

        If you aren't getting to Joe Average, how do you expect to sway public opinion?
        ...and to get on TV, you have to get through a really non-porous filter.

        One day long ago I noticed that in their Conservative/"Liberal" discussions, the PBS NewsHour had Mark Shields representing the "Left" because he wasn't quite as far Right as the Reactionary they had.
        At that point I realize the coup had been successful and all of TeeVee had surrendered.

        Ever see a real scientist together with the Sunday Gasbags?
        Of course not. Meet the Republicans has a narrow list of Yes Men who get the nod.
        That's TeeVee for the last decade-plus.

        If you're a scientist and want to alter public opinion, figure out how to get on TeeVee.
        Good luck with that.

        -- gewg_

      • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:18AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:18AM (#113098)

        What if the laws of nature do in fact favor one side of a political debate?

        Then that side wins. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about one side in a political debate seizing control of science. Ever heard of Lysenkoism?

        I highly doubt that those who were looking to do embryonic stem cell research were relishing the chance to kill embryos

        At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law.... At the end of WWII the Allies found vast troves of research data on human physiology collected by the Germans. Research that would be extremely useful and all but impossible to collect in any ethical way. In other words, a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire pure scientific knowledge. The Allies destroyed it. Now you either believe that was the right call or you don't. Science can't answer that question since ethics are outside the scope of science. But if you agree on destroying that data you should also at least understand why a large faction thinks any knowledge derived from fetal stem cells should be off limits as well. Some knowledge comes at too high a cost in temptation.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @03:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @03:28AM (#113133)

          The data wouldn't be reliable since nobody would be able to replicate it.

    • (Score: 1) by Deinfector on Wednesday November 05 2014, @07:37AM

      by Deinfector (219) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @07:37AM (#113167)

      ... the undisputed fact that without them to feed the teeming masses many of them, almost all black and brown, will DIE matters not a bit to them.

      Citation please.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:47PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:47PM (#113013)

    Does the opinion of the public matter? They have no voice in governance. Yes I see the irony of this being election day. Our one party will win, and nothing will change. One of the two PR teams funded by the one party will win, but that doesn't really mean anything when most people vote for a PR team by demographics anyway.

    Nobody seems very worked up about the general public having the "wrong" opinions about Doric vs Ionic columns or lose vs loose on the internet. If the general public likes science as a PR weapon, that very nice, or if not, that's OK too.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:12PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:12PM (#113060)

      Nobody seems very worked up about the general public having the "wrong" opinions about Doric vs Ionic columns

      You'll pry my Corinthian columns from my cold dead hands!

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 05 2014, @08:12PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday November 05 2014, @08:12PM (#113343) Homepage
        I love it when you talk dirty
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:55PM (#113033)

    New study A shows [eggs|cheese|beer] are BAD for you.
    New study B shows [eggs|cheese|beer] are GOOD for you.

    New study X proves [global warming|big bang|monkey shit] to be TRUE.
    New study Y cats doubt on [global warming|big bang|monkey shit].

    It _always_ comes down to this ONE fundamental question: WHO PAID FOR THE STUDY?
    And this piece of data is often obfuscated, hidden or kept secret.

    So many scientists completely violate the "scientific method" and produce bunk - nobody believes them any more.
    Because it is almost impossible to tell which apples in the barrel are rotten, the whole cartload of scientists have a huge credibility and trustworthiness problem right now. The major universities and research places have deep political and financial links - these taint their results.

    For example would you trust a study from Big Ivy Name that finds GM foods are harmless, and their Biology building is sponsored by Big GM Seed Co and named after a high official of theirs? Would you trust a study paid for by Big Mobile Telco stating that radiation from cellphones is harmless? Or a study by Big Oil stating diesel fumes are actually healthy for you? Or how about Big Mining sponsoring a campaign to push one of their worst hazardous waste products off as a health additive to your drinking water?

    "Science" has turned to dust and rubbish.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:16PM (#113044)

      You're sort of what the whole article is about.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:59PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:59PM (#113072) Journal

      New study Y cats doubt on [global warming|big bang|monkey shit].

      Aren't cats just skeptical about everything?

      It _always_ comes down to this ONE fundamental question: WHO PAID FOR THE STUDY?
      And this piece of data is often obfuscated, hidden or kept secret.

      I think you are implying that it was cats that funded the study, but that is obviously disinformation. Who would fund a new study about cats doubting? The immediate suspects are mice! Possibly white mice, . . . whoa! Douglas Adams was right! The entire Earth is just a scientific experiment paid for by white mice to find the question to "Life, the Universe, and Soylent News"!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:07PM (#113076)

      Have you ever read a scientific research article?

    • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday November 05 2014, @03:49PM

      by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday November 05 2014, @03:49PM (#113268) Journal

      Parent AC is absolutely 100% correct.

      And the AC below who says "Have you ever read a scientific research article?" is why we have this problem. The article is about "public perception", not the perception of a Soylent News reader. Very few in the general public read research articles. I don't even read them! It takes too long and most of it is out of my depth. I have to rely on more experienced people to summarize it for me and explain to me why it is important or even if it is important. The media does not do this properly. I know a lot of media reports are crap because I can spot a lot of logical errors. It also doesn't take a lot of brain cells for the public to realize that it doesn't make sense to them either.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @04:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @04:48AM (#113147)

    > It’s a frequent question from Kahan, who ignores cant or status in favor of good, productive talk.

    > It was a bold talk, a coming-out moment.

    > most of all Cashin remembers his appeal during elections

    Wow, he sounds like an amazing guy, what a dream.

    But I am just gonna throw the article in the bin now. What a waste of 5 minutes of my life.

  • (Score: 1) by Synonymous Homonym on Wednesday November 05 2014, @08:34AM

    by Synonymous Homonym (4857) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @08:34AM (#113173) Homepage

    Science is not a matter of opinion.

    Opinions don't matter. What you think of science, of scientific theories, doesn't matter.
    It is not the job nor the purpose of science (nor scientists) to convince anyone of anything.

    The only arbiter in all matters scientific is reality itself.
    Reality is not amenable to arguments.
    You ignore reality at your own risk.

    That is all.

    • (Score: 2) by threedigits on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:28AM

      by threedigits (607) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:28AM (#113184)

      Absolutely.

      People with an agenda should stop pushing this 'Scientific Opinion' stuff. Yes, there are scientists, and yes, they have opinions. But that doesn't make those opinions 'scientific' in any meaningful sense. What's more, outside their field of expertise, those opinions should not be given more value than that from any random person.

      What does Stephen Hawking think about climate change? We should NOT care much.

      (Also, mod parent up!)

    • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:30AM

      by mtrycz (60) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:30AM (#113203)

      Science is not some extra-human entity. As a human produce, as each and all of human products, it's subject to laws of human nature (which aren't "laws" at all); and as such it's *our* common view of reality, with a sufficient share of *common* in it.

      In particular, why should "reality" arbiter anything? And most of all, why should it arbiter human views of it. I'd bet 5 bucks that reality doesn't really care how we view it. Or does it?

      Recognizing that science is a (one of many) human view on reality, is the first, essential and inescapable base to do good science. Like, science at the service of humanity.

      --
      In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 05 2014, @04:29PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @04:29PM (#113275)

      Unfortunately, the reality is that human beings are extremely adept at ignoring reality until it's too late. A lot of that has to do with us being saddled with monkey brains that have a hard time understanding much more than "Hey, that other monkey has more bananas than I do! No fair!"

      For example, it's a documented scientific fact that the vast majority of humans, when confronted with definitive evidence that a deeply held belief is completely wrong, will proceed to come up with an excuse to ignore that definitive evidence ("The source is biased", "You're not my religion, so you must be lying to me", "Well, but this small subset of data says I'm right even if the rest of it says I'm wrong", etc). And being smart doesn't necessarily solve your problem: As Michael Shermer put it, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons."

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:46AM (#113192)

    I find the idea that there is no such movement of "science denial" deeply infuriating.

    FFS! Just look at the damage exactly that POV has had on the Australian political landscape!

    We have a PM who doesn't believe in climate change, and who has acted on it, making us Aussies look like right arseholes!

    And then he goes on to eliminate "Minister for Science" as a government position, folding what responsibilities the role had into the "Minister for Industry"....

    No evidence my ARSE! Dan M. Kahan is just a typically bloody American Imperialist - someone for whom the whole world apparently consists of just the USA; No need for considering what's happening overseas, fueled by the heavyweight multinational corps...

    The very meme that it's not a real thing is a full on attack on science culture itself!