Poll: Giant Gap Between What Public, Scientists Think

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A new poll finds that most people aren't scientists. On a related note, researchers are still spending tons of money studying things we already know. :rolleyes:

In the most dramatic split, 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe. And 68 percent of scientists said it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public.
 
"It's not about being smart or dumb," Leshner said. "It's about whether, in fact, you understand the source of the fact and what the facts are."

What.
 
Yea, but scientists have a flaw. They see things as that they need to create or research. Like Jurassic Park - they wondered if they could, not if they should. There are some things that could be done, but not too sure if they should be done.

That said, the things in the article are pretty spot on. I side more with the scientists more than the general public. I'd fall under the same flaw as above. I'd be for creating a sentient AI just to see if it could be done...
 
Yea, but scientists have a flaw. They see things as that they need to create or research. Like Jurassic Park - they wondered if they could, not if they should. There are some things that could be done, but not too sure if they should be done.

That said, the things in the article are pretty spot on. I side more with the scientists more than the general public. I'd fall under the same flaw as above. I'd be for creating a sentient AI just to see if it could be done...

Science doesn't ask why...it asks how!
 
Yea, but scientists have a flaw. They see things as that they need to create or research.

You consider it a flaw to want to ask questions?

Like Jurassic Park - they wondered if they could, not if they should. There are some things that could be done, but not too sure if they should be done.

A Hollywood movie is a scientist?
 
Yeah, I think the Jurassic Park movie thing is a pretty good example of the differences in how scientists and the general public differ vastly in thinking.
 
Yeah, I think the Jurassic Park movie thing is a pretty good example of the differences in how scientists and the general public differ vastly in thinking.

I thought it was because some guy wanted to profit. Quite a few scientists were against it in that movie. Been awhile since I've seen them though.
 
I thought it was because some guy wanted to profit. Quite a few scientists were against it in that movie. Been awhile since I've seen them though.

Above, you'll find a post in which Jurassic Park's plot is used to ponder how real world scientists think about doing or not doing any given thing. The point of compairson is to highlight how we, the general population, equate science to the Hollywood-invented plots as if they're somehow an example of reality or can be used as the basis for thinking about science. That doesn't have much of anything to do with the making of the movie or the money that changed hands as a result of it.
 
Yea, but scientists have a flaw. They see things as that they need to create or research. Like Jurassic Park - they wondered if they could, not if they should. There are some things that could be done, but not too sure if they should be done.

That said, the things in the article are pretty spot on. I side more with the scientists more than the general public. I'd fall under the same flaw as above. I'd be for creating a sentient AI just to see if it could be done...
RKIrAmD.jpg
 
Science doesn't ask why...it asks how!
Science doesn't ask why, it asks who...

Who is going to fund me to do a study, and what do they want the result to be? Its not exactly a mystery that various industries simply shop for "scientists" to concoct studies to support their agenda.

Even the US government has admitted to doing it frequently in the past... heck that's how marijuana was banned!

And the other issue of course is that perception of scientific consensus is often very political, and those in power get to paint the narrative. Is aspartame safe, or does it cause cancer? Well, scientists that are funded by industries that profit tremendously from the multi-billion dollar diet soda and other such food markets will say its perfectly safe. Others might point to some studies that show there may be long term consequences.

Regarding questions of "food safety" though like in their example, its actually better to err on the side of non-scientists. Scientists after all proclaimed in the past that various things were perfectly safe, only to change that opinion as evidence was collected to the contrary.

That means that scientists won't say something is unsafe until they can PROVE its unsafe, whereas the average consumer generally looks at it from a totally different perspective assuming something is unsafe to eat until its PROVEN that it is safe (usually by vetting it over a long period of time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtmKU9xYF_Q
 
It's the age-old conflict between ignorance & knowledge. Ignorance breeds superstition (like GW, for instance, or the US Democrat party...;)) whereas facts usually dispel superstition. In every generation, many people prefer ignorance to knowledge, unfortunately.

Ignorance can't just be thought to afflict only the uneducated as sometimes the most educated/successful among us react the most ignorantly: take B. Gates, E. Musk, and S. Hawking, for instance. The thing they all have in common is an irrational fear of Artificial Intelligence. They are already scared, now, when there is actually no such thing--at least, as they envision "AI." They are scared to death of a fiction, more or less. The state of AI at present is "monkey see, monkey do"--the "best" AI humans can program is 100% mindless and incapable of independent thought--computers don't "think"; not even close...;) It's a simulacrum--an imitation--of human intelligence--a mimic. But the most advanced AI computer on earth is no more "intelligent" than the light switch on your wall.

It's crazy people we should be afraid of...;) They are the ones who might hook up nuclear missiles to a non-sentient, non-intelligent light switch and ask it to "safeguard the country." Be very afraid of that kind of ignorance, because it certainly exists.
 
Can't afford an exclusively natural diet, so I side with the scientists.


^ See that's good science, right? :p
 
It's all about volume.

Tetraethyl led, tobacco smoke, coal mining, DDT, and more recently genetic manipulation of food and global warming have taught us one thing: Whether it's right wing crack pots, left wing cooks, or industry groups, you can shout down science for a while but it gradually becomes harder and harder to cast stones.

Norman Borlaug is probably the most important human being of the 20th century. People can try to drown out the science all they want, but for every million the Nazis killed, Borlaug saved over 100 million. That was genetic manipulation. These special interest groups say things, yell things, threaten, and try to prevent things. Science does things instead, action will eventually drown out the braying and neighing of the fearful and the self-interested.
 
It is a shame that science is not valued as much as it should and as a result our society pays a hefty price.

The thing with science is that, at the end of the day, it undeniably WORKS.
But yeah we live in a world filled with deluded peoples who think that vaccines are "evil", that human bears not responsibility in climate change and the universe is 6,000 years old... Good luck with that.
 
Lead in fuel and paint was at one time scientifically proven safe. Studies were released that showed smoking was not only safe but actually healthy. When I was in grade school in the 60s, we were taught in science class that spreading oil on swamp water was an effective mosquito control. And allowed to play with liquid mercury. Climate scientists were worried about the possibility of an impending ice age. And in the 70's, nuclear power was considered end of the world bad and coal fired plants were an acceptable alternative.

So please excuse me if I now have a large amount of skepticism about what is scientifically stated to be safe or dangerous or impending. Especially when 'scientists' say that the science is done as many of the advocates for man caused global warming state. I have never heard physicists talk about the Law of Relativity even though the Theory of Relativity has been around far longer and far more tested then the Theory of Human Caused Global Warming.
 
A field of science that has no philosophical presuppositions or can usually be trusted. If, grant money is a non issue.
There are fields of science that are rooted in some philosophical assertions that are questionable and should be challenged. Throw in substantial grant money and you have MSNBC in lab coats.
 
Throw in substantial grant money and you have MSNBC in lab coats.

This is the problem with society as a whole not just science. It's more about who has the most productive govt tit than the whole truth. That said the real truth usually rears it's head in the end. It just takes a while (thousands of years in some cases?) for people as majority to accept the facts and not what they've been trained to think are the facts.
 
Science is a process, not an end. It's also an ideal. Unfortunately, that kind of sentiment has been politically hijacked by the other side, and I fear the pro-science crowd has suffered an all-too-human defensive response, coming down on the wrong side of what science ought to be.
 
Science is largely based on peer review. To participate in the argument one has to have the base of knowledge to properly interpret methodology, without it it's like teaching linear analysis in english to a egyptian 8 year old. Far too often people just assume results equate to facts when it's just an interpretation which may or may not be widely accepted. Methods could be flawed the interpretation of the method could be flawed. Further duplication of methodology leading to same or similar results increases acceptance and leads to something close to a fact. Hard statements is not what science deals in. Probability is what is deals in, people seem to forget that. The problem has been the decrease of science journalists over the years, people who don't have an solid understanding of science trying to report on something they don't understand.

Anyone who knocks science on this forum should be aware the it's through science we have computers to bitch on forums with. Unless you think practical applications come out of no where as if engineers just build things without a clue what they are building will do.
 
Lead in fuel and paint was at one time scientifically proven safe. Studies were released that showed smoking was not only safe but actually healthy. When I was in grade school in the 60s, we were taught in science class that spreading oil on swamp water was an effective mosquito control. And allowed to play with liquid mercury. Climate scientists were worried about the possibility of an impending ice age. And in the 70's, nuclear power was considered end of the world bad and coal fired plants were an acceptable alternative.

So please excuse me if I now have a large amount of skepticism about what is scientifically stated to be safe or dangerous or impending. Especially when 'scientists' say that the science is done as many of the advocates for man caused global warming state. I have never heard physicists talk about the Law of Relativity even though the Theory of Relativity has been around far longer and far more tested then the Theory of Human Caused Global Warming.

I'm not sure how progress in scientific understanding can breed skepticism, this is almost a universal requirement for advancement in anything. Yes consensus can change over time, but only through the application of refined methodology and new evidence.

You might as well suggest that people shouldn't give their kids benadryl for a cough because scientists used to tell us to take a mix of opiates and marijuana extracts for a good nights sleep.
 
It's all about volume.

Tetraethyl led, tobacco smoke, coal mining, DDT, and more recently genetic manipulation of food and global warming have taught us one thing: Whether it's right wing crack pots, left wing cooks, or industry groups, you can shout down science for a while but it gradually becomes harder and harder to cast stones.

Norman Borlaug is probably the most important human being of the 20th century. People can try to drown out the science all they want, but for every million the Nazis killed, Borlaug saved over 100 million. That was genetic manipulation. These special interest groups say things, yell things, threaten, and try to prevent things. Science does things instead, action will eventually drown out the braying and neighing of the fearful and the self-interested.

Sadly most people don't have a clue who Norman Borlaug is or what he did for the world. It's all too easy for people to dismiss things with the proliferation of people clicking "like" on some propaganda spread by some crack pot.

For those who don't know, he's a guy who deserves a few minutes of your time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
 
I'm not sure how progress in scientific understanding can breed skepticism, this is almost a universal requirement for advancement in anything. Yes consensus can change over time, but only through the application of refined methodology and new evidence.

.

scientific does not equal consensus.

Just because someone has the label of scientist does not make them correct. Too many so called scientist fall under the same corrupting influence as so many others do. For many it's grant money, or filling some pre conceived ideal as opposed to just seeking the truth. With the political correctness and government being involved in so much of the funding, the corruption of research has hit historical levels.
 
I'm not sure how progress in scientific understanding can breed skepticism, this is almost a universal requirement for advancement in anything. Yes consensus can change over time, but only through the application of refined methodology and new evidence.

You might as well suggest that people shouldn't give their kids benadryl for a cough because scientists used to tell us to take a mix of opiates and marijuana extracts for a good nights sleep.
Yeah, I don't see how his examples are a critique of science. We should be happy that we have a field where constant improvement is encouraged, unlike some others that stick to thousand year old ideas long past their period of usefulness.

And yes, there is room for *healthy* skepticism. That would include the general knowledge that our ideas on any subject aren't perfect, and there is always room for improvement. That doesn't mean you ignore a huge scientific consensus on a topic just because things may change in the future. That's like refusing to buy a great video card to replace your ten year old outdated one because a better card will come out at some point in the future.
 
They are scared to death of a fiction, more or less. The state of AI at present is "monkey see, monkey do"

How about a real world example: the flash crash of 2010. 9% of the stock market wiped out and restored in minutes. Automated algorithmic trading led to massive selloffs causing the drop of 1000pts. Then thanks to another automated computer intervention, pausing of trading, it was all reversed...and this reversal of 1000pts took place with only a 5 second pause.

Things like the flash crash of 2010 are going to become increasingly more common as we increase the sophistication and ubiquity of automated systems. Particularly when there are many automated systems "dueling" with one another. Today its the stock market. Tomorrow it could be your self-driving car interacting with a different manufacturers car AI (the BMW ai is very aggressive and leaves less space when changing lanes), which goes badly resulting in your death.

as for Dead parrot: How can you reflect on the history of science and arrive at this skeptical concluson? Consider that anatomically modern humans appeared ~250,000 years ago. It took 249,500 years to reach the renaissance, which is where modern science as we know it (earlier, what we think of as science was called natural philosophy--think Aristotle or Plato) began. In just 400 years since francis bacon laid out his formulation of the scientific method, we have achieved incredible progress.The kind of progress that would be considered magic just half a millenia before.

Of course there are wrong turns. Yes we once thought the earth was flat or that the universe revolved around the earth, or that nerves were hollow tubes filled with gas and that the lungs cool the blood. You can go on and on.

Sounds like maybe you just don't want to accept the possibility that anthropogenic global warming is happening. Even if you are skeptical--say you think this is a natural geological warming event, that would have happened regardless of our presence and industrial activities--dont you think it would be prudent to try not to exacerbate the problem? Claiming that our industrial activites (ie release of enourmous quantities of all kinds of gases and fine particulate) couldn't possibly affect the global weather seems incredibly naive. Point is: either way we should be worrying what we do to the planet.
 
scientific does not equal consensus.

Just because someone has the label of scientist does not make them correct. Too many so called scientist fall under the same corrupting influence as so many others do. For many it's grant money, or filling some pre conceived ideal as opposed to just seeking the truth. With the political correctness and government being involved in so much of the funding, the corruption of research has hit historical levels.

Science is working towards consensus and by design its impossible to reach total consensus due the very nature of the Universe.

Nothing else even comes close to science in understanding the Universe even though science is inherit to error as everything else is.

The idea the scientists are someone "100 percent" on any topic is a completely boneheaded argument. I've never met more divided people honestly and frankly that's a good thing. It allows science to constantly question even the most concrete of theories or supposed "laws" of nature with the presentation of hypothesis , theory and evidence. Nothing is truly known entirely because understanding the entire nature of things is beyond our (current) grasp.

Pseudoscience however has become easier to accept for the mass populous because it bends towards a metaphysical belief system which has no right to call itself science at all. I agree that far too many grants are given out for absolutely absurd reasons under shame circumstance.

Anyway..

So yes science is certainly flawed but even on its worst day it provides far more evidence then anything spiritual or "faith" based I can even remotely think of.

Funny enough actually praying , scientifically speaking , is conclusively proven time and time again to relieve stress. It has yet to prove anything else though..
 
I thought it was because some guy wanted to profit. Quite a few scientists were against it in that movie. Been awhile since I've seen them though.

Hammond wasn't looking to profit, it was the lawyer that that got all greedy and said they could charge a fortune to visit the park. Hammond wanted the park for the world to come and see his dinosaurs.
 
I thought it was because some guy wanted to profit. Quite a few scientists were against it in that movie. Been awhile since I've seen them though.

All the scientists they brought in were against it. The only one that was for it was the lawyer and the wealthy industrialist.
 
I think the confusion comes from the fact Luddites learned to better propagandize. Instead of tilting windmills against science and the spread of technology to improve the lives of the masses. They hijack the mantle of what seems to be science to stop the spread of technology and progress that improves the lives of the masses. Killing science with [what is sold as] 'science'.
 
Lead in fuel and paint was at one time scientifically proven safe. Studies were released that showed smoking was not only safe but actually healthy. When I was in grade school in the 60s, we were taught in science class that spreading oil on swamp water was an effective mosquito control. And allowed to play with liquid mercury. Climate scientists were worried about the possibility of an impending ice age. And in the 70's, nuclear power was considered end of the world bad and coal fired plants were an acceptable alternative.

So please excuse me if I now have a large amount of skepticism about what is scientifically stated to be safe or dangerous or impending. Especially when 'scientists' say that the science is done as many of the advocates for man caused global warming state. I have never heard physicists talk about the Law of Relativity even though the Theory of Relativity has been around far longer and far more tested then the Theory of Human Caused Global Warming.

I was going to point out the giant flaws in your argument, then I realized you don't even understand the definition of Law and theory vs hypothesis when it pertains to science. So it would probably all be for naught anyhow given you still don't understand that very basic fundamental concept.
 
Lead in fuel and paint was at one time scientifically proven safe. Studies were released that showed smoking was not only safe but actually healthy. When I was in grade school in the 60s, we were taught in science class that spreading oil on swamp water was an effective mosquito control. And allowed to play with liquid mercury. Climate scientists were worried about the possibility of an impending ice age. And in the 70's, nuclear power was considered end of the world bad and coal fired plants were an acceptable alternative.

So please excuse me if I now have a large amount of skepticism about what is scientifically stated to be safe or dangerous or impending. Especially when 'scientists' say that the science is done as many of the advocates for man caused global warming state. I have never heard physicists talk about the Law of Relativity even though the Theory of Relativity has been around far longer and far more tested then the Theory of Human Caused Global Warming.

Don't mistake studies from industry groups for actual science. It's reverse science, they start with a conclusion and then seek questions and evidence to fit it. Scientists and doctors that weren't from tobacco companies started blowing the whistle on tobacco in the 1800s. DDT was already under dire warnings from scientists before it was sprayed on the first field. Quick sliver was considered a toxin by scholars in ancient China but they were gagged, mercury was convenient and pretty. In the modern era the massive body of evidence was suppressed by industry through lobbying and less legal corruption. Actual scientists started warning about the dangers of leaded gasoline when the auto industry was still convincing everyone it was the new hotness, they were ignored because of the volume, more money = more db.

There are still lots and lots of scientists who think we might be headed for an ice age in the next few thousand years (warming is more than likely part of that). We know the globe is warming, we know we affect it, we also know that it has happened before, so we don't know how much we affect it. We might be a minuscule influence, we do know we aren't the lone cause, that's as far as any responsible science has gone.

Blaming scientists because more money is used to gag them than to fund them is like fighting cancer by killing all the doctors.
 
A field of science that has no philosophical presuppositions or can usually be trusted. If, grant money is a non issue.
There are fields of science that are rooted in some philosophical assertions that are questionable and should be challenged. Throw in substantial grant money and you have MSNBC in lab coats.

no form of science can separate itself from philosophical presuppositions.
 
I was going to point out the giant flaws in your argument, then I realized you don't even understand the definition of Law and theory vs hypothesis when it pertains to science. So it would probably all be for naught anyhow given you still don't understand that very basic fundamental concept.

The definitions as I understand them:
Law: Proven with no contra-indicating experimental evidence.
Theory: Large amount of supporting experimental evidence.
Hypothesis: someone's wild ass idea waiting for enough experimental evidence to either support becoming a Theory or being disproved.

May not be the exact Scientific definitions but probably close enough for this place.
 
The definitions as I understand them:
Law: Proven with no contra-indicating experimental evidence.
Theory: Large amount of supporting experimental evidence.
Hypothesis: someone's wild ass idea waiting for enough experimental evidence to either support becoming a Theory or being disproved.

May not be the exact Scientific definitions but probably close enough for this place.
Thus making his point.
 
Please bear in mind many of these scientists are paid to say it's safe . Huge companies like Monsanto rely on good PR to achieve this. Remember when Doctors said cigarettes were safe and even encouraged smoking ?:eek:
 
Back
Top