Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the who-CAN-you-trust? dept.

Phys.org reports:

If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit "warmer," according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm.

[...]

Focusing on scientific communication, Fiske and Dupree administered another online survey asking adults to describe public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically to provide a clearer picture of the public's seemingly mixed feelings. The researchers used a seven-scale item of distrust that included motives derived from pilot work on scientists' alleged motives. These included such motives as lying with statistics, complicating a story, showing superiority, gaining research money and pursuing a liberal agenda, among others.

The abstract for the paper can be found here.

Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences’ respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists’ trustworthy intentions.

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:19PM

    by Zinho (759) on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:19PM (#97159)

    The plan is:
    1. Crank up taxes on the little guy
    2. .....
    3. Magically the environment is saved!
    #2 has no logical connection between #1 and #3

    I disagree. Fuel taxes are a great example of this; in Europe cars have had much higher fuel economy than U.S. cars, largely in response to high taxes on the fuel. Turbo/supercharger technology is ubiquitous there, many cars get 50+ mpg. And if want to argue that they're not powerful enough at that mileage, drivers on the Autobahn would like to make some counterpoints. A similar shift happened in the U.S. when gas prices exceeded $4+/gal during an economic downturn - people started buying smaller, more efficient cars instead of pickups that will never haul a load or go off-road.

    Evidence shows that taxing energy use is effective, and causes no harm to those taxed for it. There was even an article here [soylentnews.org] on the 21st saying as much. Of course, it was a scientist saying that, and you're probably American, so you're having trust issues.

    I think one of the most insightful comments in this discussion so far is that scientists don't tell the right lies. Sometimes the world simply isn't what you'd like it to be, and people who care more about what is right (instead of who) and seeing what's really there will tell you uncomfortable truths occasionally. Personally, I'd rather believe what the world is really like than delude myself that the world is really like I believe.

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:35PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:35PM (#97170)

    "so you're having trust issues"

    With our corrupt .gov, yes. The scientists are merely a big hand wavy excuse for yet another sales/excise tax.

    If the scientists were running the tax I'd trust them, but what we have is organized crime using them as spokesmodels in a PR campaign. Of course the PR campaign exists solely to screw us over, thats the only thing they ever do. Its not the scientists fault someone chose them as spokesmodels for this particular scam.

    Cars are a fad / style purchase choice here in the USA. That complicates things. The SUV fad had peaked and was dying at that time anyway. Meanwhile conspicuous consumption, the root of the problem, doesn't get discouraged by increasing prices, if anything it encourages it. Nobody buys gold, diamonds, and yachts because they look nice or made economic sense, its because they like showing off how much money they spent. Raising the cost of a good like that (by taxes or whatever) is not going to discourage sales at all.

    You'll never hear an american, at least in the mass media, say something like "Better not buy real estate, look at how prices are going up up up!"

    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @03:33PM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday September 23 2014, @03:33PM (#97189) Journal

      > Nobody buys gold, diamonds, and yachts because they look nice or made economic sense, its because they like showing off how much money they spent.

      Are you saying that if cars were as expensive as yachts, everyone would own them anyway? Yes, some rich people would buy them as status symbols but I'm pretty sure the majority of the population would be taking the bus.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @06:51PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday September 23 2014, @06:51PM (#97298) Journal

      You'll never hear an american, at least in the mass media, say something like "Better not buy real estate, look at how prices are going up up up!"

      Real estate is an investment. Gas is a consumable.

      Of course you wouldn't hear someone say not to buy real estate because prices are going up. Because the plan is always to sell that real estate again at some point. You can't sell gas after you've used it. It's more like food. I have heard people say for example that they'll have to stop buying bacon because prices are going up.

      Maybe the ultra-wealthy will still buy the big SUVs as a status symbol, but the vast majority of Americans can't afford status symbols.

      Of course, that's not to say that raising fuel prices is always good. The people who can't afford higher fuel prices probably can't afford a more fuel-efficient car either...

      Although all of this also ignores the fact that, despite how many cars are on the road, they're not the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly a third of all US emissions come from electricity generation. Go big with nuclear, solar, wind and other carbon-neutral sources and that will come pretty close to meeting the IPCC's estimates required to limit warming to 2C. But we'd have to do that before 2020....

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 23 2014, @09:39PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday September 23 2014, @09:39PM (#97348) Journal

    I disagree. Fuel taxes are a great example of this; in Europe cars have had much higher fuel economy than U.S. cars, largely in response to high taxes on the fuel. Turbo/supercharger technology is ubiquitous there,

    I suggest you check your facts. European cars do not fare all that well in fuel economy, turbo charged or not. Many that appear to have reasonably good mileage all seem to require premium fuel.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Mercedes-Benz2014.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Audi2014.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Fiat2014.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]

    For a while I was lusting after a Mini Cooper, only to find it wanted premium gas, and got worse mileage that my middle of the line detroit monster of the same year.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:29AM

      by Zinho (759) on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:29AM (#97411)

      Fair enough; in my experience European gas stations only sell one gasoline grade, and it's premium. Putting a turbo on a gasoline engine doesn't add much in the way of fuel economy, either; it just gives more horsepower at high RPMs.

      What you're not accounting for is that the best fuel economy on Euro cars is in their diesel engines; here are my alternate links for your consideration:
      Merecdes [fueleconomy.gov]
      Audi [fueleconomy.gov]
      Volkswagen [fueleconomy.gov]

      That's where your turbo technology gives a big win on fuel economy. Most of my European friends drive diesel at home, and in my opinion it's high time for the U.S. to get over its phobia of diesel as a fuel.

      PS - sorry for substituting VW for Fiat; Fiat doesn't sell any diesel cars in the U.S. market.

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    • (Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:44AM

      by albert (276) on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:44AM (#97477)

      Convert MPG and fuel prices into $/mile or mile/$ or similar. The premium cars are usually a bit more fuel efficient, so they come out ahead despite the higher cost fuel.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:09AM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:09AM (#97491) Journal

        Not in the US. And Not without a turbo.
        I've done that math. (Its been years ago).

        You might see a payout if you drove cross country at highway speeds, but it all disappears in typical in-town traffic usage.
        Its very difficult to find comparable cars/engines where one is set up for premium and the other is set for regular.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday September 24 2014, @01:19AM

    by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday September 24 2014, @01:19AM (#97426) Journal

    Evidence shows that taxing energy use is effective, and causes no harm to those taxed for it.

    not exactly tax... but here when fuel prices went up due to the illegal wars so did all our food prices, due to overall transport costs increasing. They haven't come back down again. that has harmed my bank balance.