SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Tuesday September 23 2014, @01:56PM
and why not? Scientists are about as far away from hollywood as you can get. the people writing them have never been, and never associate with scientists.
So there must be something wrong with them. Or anyone who isnt an writer/actor/director.. or male..
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday September 23 2014, @04:55PM
In fact, because Hollywood plays on common perceptions and stereotypes, people may feel closer to Hollywood than they do to actual scientists. They have no way to relate - and scientists are these remote beings who are subject to all manner of misperceptions and visibility bias (i.e. the ones who go on television form the impressions of the entire group, subject to the spin of whatever documentary or program they're part of). It doesn't help that many of them work 80-hour weeks and hardly interact with anyone other than research partners, and their mannerisms do not line up with the average viewers.
As far as the average person is concerned, science is a bunch of ivory-tower wizardry only tangentially related to reality (AKA the daily grind); The Big Companies put the scientists in some sort of closed bubble and let them do their arcane Science Magic and every once in awhile a new pill or techno-gadget pops out. And yeah, they mostly work, and yeah they seem to have good intentions, but you just can't trust somebody who doesn't seem to be grounded in your reality.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"