from the views-based-on-media-reporting-vs-views-based-on-science? dept.
The Associated Press and ABC report on a new poll by the Pew Research Center.
Poll Shows Giant Gap Between What Public, Scientists Think:
From the Article:
Scientists are far less worried about genetically modified food, 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.
These tend to all be topics of interest here on Soylent. Also interesting is that the opinions of the scientists don't appear to follow policital lines.
The gaps didn't correlate to any liberal-conservative split; the scientists at times take more traditionally conservative views and at times more liberal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:54AM
Scientists are different. Engineers are different. College professors are different. Janitors are different. Making any sort of analysis about people that use a specific methodology in their highly specialized fields of research being compared to the population at large is laughably bad. Might as well analyze what various species of crustaceans do when placed on smartphones and how that differs to sea life in general.
(Score: 1) by gnuman on Saturday January 31 2015, @04:03AM
Scientists are different. Engineers are different. College professors are different. Janitors are different.
Shouldn't they are all more different from each other than from the general group?
Making any sort of analysis about people that use a specific methodology in their highly specialized fields of research being compared to the population at large is laughably bad.
I think you misread the summary of summary. They are talking about scientists and asking them questions, in general, not specific disciplines about specific topics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:39AM
Shouldn't you are all more different from each other than from the general group?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:28AM
I think you misunderstood my analogy. Choosing to select a specific sample from within a population by their bias, then comparing that sample size to the whole population is violating fundamental principles as to why statistics sometimes is meaningful. Any absurd comparison would do for an analogy. The Earth is wet. Why aren't all planets wet? Pens found in garbage cans frequently have no ink. Clearly there is something wrong with every pen that still has ink left. So on and so forth...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @04:05AM
I disagree! I don't think this is correct! What do you have against crustaceans? Where is my "disagree" mod tag?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:13AM
yeah... why the crustacean hate all of a sudden :p
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @04:41AM
A reemergence of its Northeast Republican wing. These were folks who were Wall Street conservatives on economic issues, but moderate or even center left on social issues. And they weren't anti-science. They would be pushing for action on climate change, I think.
The GOP has been overtaken by the know-nothing Tea Party crowd that takes direction from the ridiculous talk radio entertainers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:02AM
folks who were Wall Street conservatives on economic issues
Yeah, we need a lot more of those folks because y'know Capitalism has worked so well for the last 30 years.
55 Percent Of Americans Are Within 4 Months Of Financial Disaster [commondreams.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:15AM
who bailed out the crooks on wall st again?
dude, you don't even know the definition of capitalism
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @08:53AM
The definition of capitalism is "crony capitalism", just like the definition of communism is "soviet communism". That is, when somebody says capitalism, everyone thinks of crony capitalism, just like when somebody says communism, everyone thinks of soviet communism. It doesn't matter what the definition of either is in theory, because both lead to cronyism and corruption as soon as they hit the real world.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:30AM
A scientist goes to the market to buy an apple. There are three bins of apples. They are labelled "GMO", "GMO and covered in pesticide", and "heirloom". Which apple does the scientist pick?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:18PM
For starters neither of those are GMO.. However most likely the scientist would actually pick the GMO simply out of curiousity and since they consider it a queer thing indeed. However after the initial amusement wears off they would go back to buying their normal kind of apples - which are non-GMO.
Now for "heirloom". Depending on who you ask it is a plant (not individual, but "type of fruit") that existed either before 1940 or 1951, or it is a plant that is more than 50 or 100 year old.
And now for pesticides "covered in" would probably not appear, however here in matters quite a bit just what pesticide, for instance nicotine is a brutally effecient pesticide that most people wouldn't mind, but take Zyklon-B (Hydrogen Cyanide) which also is a brutally effecient pesticide but it is one that people would mind.
So, your question basically is "a scientiest goes to a badly defined and weird market set up by some enviornmentalist nutjob study-group and are coerced into buying an apple he most likely isn't interested in - will be pick whatever will get him out of there the quickest or would he pick something that would have him chuckle for days?"
And just to have it even more fun - in 2026 we will start to get plants that both are heirloom and GMO at the same time.
But just keep in mind. The next time you buy a Royal Gala apple you are neither buying a GMO nor a heirloom fruit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @08:09PM
Granny Smith and Red Delicious are heirloom no matter what
...right up to the point where the guy the next plot over plants GMO apples and the wind or avian pollinators cross-breed his frankenfood with your heirloom stuff.
nicotine is a brutally [efficient] pesticide
That depends on your definition of efficient.
EPA Finds Little Benefit to Pesticide Linked to Bee Declines [soylentnews.org]
That junk kills bugs, sure--but it exterminates the beneficial ones while it's doing that--for no notable increase in the bushel count.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Saturday January 31 2015, @09:29PM
Wait? Just what do you mean here? That the neighbour plants GMO plants next to your lot and suddenly all of your tress will die off and magically be replaced?
First up it takes 2-5years until first harvest for the granny smith (if GMO can shorten this I would consider it to be great - to bad we would have to recreate the entire apple-variety for it).
Secondly you do not want your trees to grow willy-nilly if you want a decent production so you must likely would only have tress specifically planted and most likely bought from a decent school.
Thirdly the granny smith isn't exactly stable so even if you where to mix two granny smiths the seed they carry would not produce another granny smith (they are propagated via grafting) - this is btw true of most apples (and most F1-hybrids)
Fourth it is essentially only the seed that will contain the new DNA - the flesh of the fruit will be from its "mother plant" only - otherwise your granny's would taste awfully different depending on which polinating tree is used (yes, it is common with fruittrees to polinate from another kind of cultivar than what the mother plant is)
Regarding the entire "crosscontamination" issue.. it would only be a problem for stable (ie "true to seed") species, and then only if you don't want to grow specific strains. However, with the "true to seed" plants you can often (assuming the seeds are viable) backcross the modification out of it (however most likely you would only want to backcross to get any modifications other that the intended bred out of it)
(pesticides - btw, thank you, I never have learned what makes effecient and efficient differ, if somone has an article about this I would be interested)
Any decent poision used for pesticide where the purpose isn't eradication but rather control should kill the individual before it reaches the hive - so if it causes the hive to die it is only less efficient than it should be.
Yes, both poisons I listed kill off _a_lot_ more than intended, which is why I chose to use the word "brutally" instead of "neatly".
And in general with use the of pesticides - if done properly one should select pesticide on what kind of crop and pest one wants to kill (just throwing any pesticide at it would be bound to cause problems). So don't call it "junk" just because people use it wrong (if you insist on calling it junk then tell me what systemic pesticide that breaks down quickly and that also works against burrowing insects you would recommend instead).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:39AM
Do you trust Monsanto to tell the truth about their research/products?
Are patents on genes a good thing for the future of the biosphere and the world economy?
What happens when all of the bees and other natural pollinators are all dead (extinct)?
Would you move your family's residence to within 1/2 mile of a nuclear power plant tomorrow?
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Funny) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:32AM
Do you trust Monsanto to tell the truth about their research/products?
If I read it on teh Intarwebz it must be trues!
Which corporation do you trust to tell the truth about anything it isn't in their interest to tell the truth about?
Are patents on genes a good thing for the future of the biosphere and the world economy?
That depends on which patents, which biosphere and which world.
Are patents on software a good thing for the future of the technology sector and the world economy?
What happens when all of the bees and other natural pollinators are all dead (extinct)?
Some plant species die off, others adapt and survive.
What happens when the humans are all dead (extinct)?
Would you move your family's residence to within 1/2 mile of a nuclear power plant tomorrow?
Depends. Which nucular (it is nucular, you know) power plant are you talking about?
Would you move your family's residence to within a 1/2 mile of a CIA black site tomorrow?
But you really didn't want answers, did ya Gewg?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:20AM
You are a boor and a bore.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:57AM
Wow, both barrels. Or bores, if you will.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:09PM
Why thank you! That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me in days!
Can I wash your car for you or something?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 31 2015, @08:48PM
Actually, the bores were aimed at you, for being a bore/boor. So you do not have wash my car.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 31 2015, @09:06PM
Rockin'! Keep up the good work. I'm pulling for you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @09:50AM
Wow, what a contrary cunt you are. You should change your username to something more apt, such as Douche Nozzle, though I'm not sanguine that you'll even consider it before dismissing it.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:03PM
Wow, what a contrary cunt you are. You should change your username to something more apt, such as Douche Nozzle, though I'm not sanguine that you'll even consider it before dismissing it.
How sweet! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:53PM
Form over function FTW!
Everyone knows that if you are an asshole with pretty words that makes you a superior person while the asshole who just gets to the point, he's a terrible guy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:03PM
How sweet! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
I'd kiss anyone's mother with this mouth.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @09:57AM
Ninety-eight percent of scientists say humans evolved over time, compared with 65 percent of the public.
So 2% of scientists don't believe in evolution? Not trolling, just honestly curious. Can someone explain that without the rhetoric and contempt normally reserved for creationists?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @10:45AM
When discussing Science, can we use "accept as fact" or "acknowledge as true" or "see strong evidence supporting" or some such.
"Believe" is a religious word.
Religion is the OPPOSITE of Science.
Science: I'll accept it after I've seen the proof.
Religion: If I just believe enough, it will come true.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @11:55AM
I believe you are correct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @12:13PM
> "Believe" is a religious word.
It is a religious word, but it is other things too.
At some point everybody must choose to believe because no one has the time to seek out proof for every idea they come across in life. We must all choose to believe based on the best evidence we have and nearly all of that evidence is nothing more than hearsay that has passed through multiple people before it finally hits ours ears.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Saturday January 31 2015, @01:41PM
I believe that Philosopher Bertrand Russell was correct when he wrote :-
"'Religion is based...mainly upon fear...fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.... My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.'"
Those suffering from this all pervasive mental disease deserve compassion not derision.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:38PM
All three of you are wrong, including Russell (did he get raped by a priest as a boy or something?). Some people accept religion out of fear, certainly, but many grow up among the religious, and many have religious experiences. A religious experience is simply seeing something you previously refused to see the existence of.
To say "Religion: If I just believe enough, it will come true" shows a complete and utter lack of understanding what religion is. He is correct that religion and science share nothing, though.
Half of the world's scientists profess to some sort of religion. There is no argument between science and religion, only between athiests and especially anti-theists like Russell.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @11:59PM
Half of the world's scientists profess to some sort of religion
Religion requires that you have a part of your brain where everything you have learned in your day-to-day experience that is true and useful gets shoved aside and magical thinking gets free reign.
Science and religion existing in the same brain is logic twisted beyond all recognition.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:15PM
So 2% of scientists don't believe in evolution? Not trolling, just honestly curious. Can someone explain that without the rhetoric and contempt normally reserved for creationists?
1. They made a simple mistake - either they heard the question wrong, or pushed the wrong button.
2. They're trying to fuck with the survey-takers. Yeah, don't tell me you've never done that.
3. They're not actually scientists.
4. Data-entry errors by the underpaid interns who put the data together.
Any of those things could explain the 2%. Hell, there's probably more I haven't thought of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @05:55PM
5) dont know one way or the other so I vote what I belive
It is like asking a molecular biologist if mergesort is better than quicksort. (the answer is it depends)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:37PM
5. Some of them might indeed be creationists but work in fields where the theory of evolution and the age of the Earth play basically no part, such as quantum physics.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:45PM
2. They're trying to fuck with the survey-takers.
Bingo! I was involved with the IT behind surveys in the '90s and had access to everything from the paper that came back on up, and it's pretty damned obvious that all four of the things you mention happen all the time. LOTS of people just want to fuck with the numbers, and there are ways weed these out; e.g., asking the same question three different ways.
#4 isn't likely, if the people in charge are competent the entered data will have been gone over with a fine toothed comb over and over (at times I was holding the comb).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @04:52PM
Belief is stronger than reality. What would be intensely more interesting is attempting to find how many lied for the sake of their paycheck.
(Score: 2) by Joe on Saturday January 31 2015, @11:12PM
I know a microbiology professor that doesn't accept human evolution. He is religious and incredibly smart. At least he can inform the deeply religious about other less charged topics and they will trust him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01 2015, @12:34AM
That sounds like a low-skill worker who repeats the same mechanical process over and over all day long without even thinking about what he's doing.
An actual scientist in the microbiology field would be familiar with the common cold mutating constantly and the flu bug being different each year and pathogens developing resistance to antibiotics.
If he is a scientist, he has to be the worst in his entire field to not be aware of the experiment that has tracked E.coli mutations over the span of 60,000 generations done by Michigan State. [wikipedia.org]
This reminds me of Bill Frist, M.D., a US senator and the most anti-scientific PoS you'd ever want to encounter.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01 2015, @12:53AM
An actual scientist in the microbiology field would be familiar with the common cold mutating ...
Maybe they are familiar with it but they just don't believe it. ;-)
(Score: 2) by Joe on Sunday February 01 2015, @01:16AM
Well, he is a scientist and he definitely is not the worst in the field.
He accepts evolution of microorganisms and possibly other animals, but he doesn't accept an evolutionary origin of humans due to his religion. Thankfully, he keeps his personal beliefs to himself and it doesn't seem to influence his work. His belief may even be a net positive - he did a hell of a job going to local churches and speaking about Ebola virus.
P.S. I remember when that study came out - it is great and I'm glad you know about it. It is a shame that these creationist types can't be reasoned out of their position.