Public trust in science has shown a certain resiliency, but it is being tested like never before.
See full article...
See full article...
Can public trust in science survive a second battering?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Answer: no, and this is by design. Look up "dark enlightenment" and check out the current administration's ties to Thiel et al. The goal is the death of democratic institutions and replacement by a corporation. Free thinkers and scientists are unwelcome until that goal is accomplished. It helps accomplish the total collapse of trust in existing institutions.
Upvote
184
(197
/
-13)
I am not sure there is a lack of faith in science. I think most people do not know what the science is because their information channels like news and social media portray a completely different picture of scientific consensus based on their political profile.
People do still get advised by what they consider trustworthy authorities, it is just that does authorities misrepresent science.
Edit: and I just realized that many Americans can not see the difference between religious and political beliefs and science. Which is a problem.
People do still get advised by what they consider trustworthy authorities, it is just that does authorities misrepresent science.
Edit: and I just realized that many Americans can not see the difference between religious and political beliefs and science. Which is a problem.
Upvote
160
(165
/
-5)
I don't have WSJ but I get the distinct feeling that article will make my blood boil. At the absolute worst, it was public policy that lost "trust". Science itself continues to chug along unabated.
And this framing of science as some supreme council of monarchs that must engage in politics to preserve things like "trust" is in and of itself stupid. If a government wants to boycott science and cripple its own national security, that's on the government. Not science.
Upvote
167
(171
/
-4)
Science didn't lose America's trust, the right wing and specifically REPUBLICANS destroyed America's trust in science for their own personal gain.
Upvote
221
(238
/
-17)
Artem S. Tashkinov
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Science is doing fine. This article was typed on and being read on a device made by science. You entire lifestyle is a thing thanks to science. Electricity, transportation, factories, airplanes, computers all work fine.
The article is not about science in general, it's about trust in public health officials and their policies.
The human body has an estimated 80,000 to 400,000 unique protein types, and the number of interactions between them could be even higher. The human body is the most complex structure in the universe, and understanding how it works is probably what we'll end up needing AGI for, because no human can grasp it all. What's even more complicated is that the human body is not only a system with functions and reactions, but it can also influence itself through our minds, as the nervous system can switch certain functions on and off. Belief, placebo, the increased efficacy of a therapy involving people in white coats all prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
And this faltering trust in medical science seems to be due to the nature of the media and social networks, which blow everything out of proportion where we need to be more cautious, discreet and calm. But this obviously won't sell and won't earn millions of impressions.
The article is not about science in general, it's about trust in public health officials and their policies.
The human body has an estimated 80,000 to 400,000 unique protein types, and the number of interactions between them could be even higher. The human body is the most complex structure in the universe, and understanding how it works is probably what we'll end up needing AGI for, because no human can grasp it all. What's even more complicated is that the human body is not only a system with functions and reactions, but it can also influence itself through our minds, as the nervous system can switch certain functions on and off. Belief, placebo, the increased efficacy of a therapy involving people in white coats all prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
And this faltering trust in medical science seems to be due to the nature of the media and social networks, which blow everything out of proportion where we need to be more cautious, discreet and calm. But this obviously won't sell and won't earn millions of impressions.
Upvote
36
(63
/
-27)
I take exception to the statement
"people like Donald Trump, who clearly do not trust reputable scientific sources"
He trusted the science well enough when HE had covid! Not like he only wanted the bleach treatment.
But in public he prides himself on thinking "with his gut" because that is what his target audience does.
"people like Donald Trump, who clearly do not trust reputable scientific sources"
He trusted the science well enough when HE had covid! Not like he only wanted the bleach treatment.
But in public he prides himself on thinking "with his gut" because that is what his target audience does.
Upvote
95
(103
/
-8)
The anti-education, anti-science, anti-intellectualism war was ramped up in the 1980s (by you know who) because of the simple fact that an educated populace hinders authoritarian rule. It was a plan put in for a long goal... and here we are two generations later and they are already reaping the benefits. When the people don't know how anything works and don't have the skills to be able to critically think, they can be easily manipulated. Social media was just the icing on the cake. They can reach lots of people with their misinformation and disinformation very easily and there are a lot of people who will literally believe anything they see on social media without a second thought. The one truth that Glorious Leader has said is that he loves the poorly educated. They cheered. They didn't understand why and they didn't understand that he was talking about those who were cheering.
Upvote
135
(145
/
-10)
Asking "Science" to help build trust back up with conservatives is akin to asking "vaccines" to help build back confidence with anti-vaxxers. The distrusting were lied to and accepted lies; how can a truthteller build trust with the gullible or those who actively seek out alternative facts?
"Trust in science" means accepting reality, and distrusting it is returning to a fantasy world of your comfort. The brainwashing has already happened to conservatives; the only fix for it will be time and their passing.
"Trust in science" means accepting reality, and distrusting it is returning to a fantasy world of your comfort. The brainwashing has already happened to conservatives; the only fix for it will be time and their passing.
Upvote
103
(111
/
-8)
The very existence of scientists makes many people feel very insecure about their intelligence.
As we've seen with Covid, people will literally kill themselves by choking on their own blood rather than admit they didn't know as much as someone who spent their entire life researching it.
"What, you think just because you study and practice something for decades means you know more about it than me?? huh?? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, YOU THINK YOURE BETTER THAN ME!!??!?"
That's the attitude we're fighting. The conservative Christian movement has been sowing the seeds of antiintellectualism for decades.
Yeah, gloves off - Christianity is bad. It's harmful. It is just as bad as the annoying atheists we don't like say it. If you're "one of the good ones," ask yourself - have you done anything to stop the rise of your fellow Christians?
No? Didn't think so. I'm so ducking tired of a cult that controls the country acting like whiney children and throwing out "persecution!!" when they're told how stupid it is to believe in god.
Yes, believing in god is dumb. Yes, if you believe in god, YOU are dumb.
If there was a group of people fervently arguing that there's a colony of red chinchillas living on the dark side of the moon, you'd call them a moron.
But if the myth is mainstream and much older, ohhhhh it's sacred how dare you insult someone's religion! No, it gets no more validity and people know it. Everyone downvoting this knows it. They just don't like it.
No, fuck that. The planet is on fire. Grow up. Get over your pathetic fucking beliefs and put on your big kid pants and be a fucking adult.
You're not being a "rational adult" by defending religion. You're not "balanced." You're just apologizing for idiots.
No more mysticism. No more religion. No more horoscopes, no more any of it. It is all toxic. It all leads to where we are no. No exceptions. No "oh that one isn't so bad..."
No. We live in reality. No more denial of the fundamentals of reality.
As we've seen with Covid, people will literally kill themselves by choking on their own blood rather than admit they didn't know as much as someone who spent their entire life researching it.
"What, you think just because you study and practice something for decades means you know more about it than me?? huh?? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, YOU THINK YOURE BETTER THAN ME!!??!?"
That's the attitude we're fighting. The conservative Christian movement has been sowing the seeds of antiintellectualism for decades.
Yeah, gloves off - Christianity is bad. It's harmful. It is just as bad as the annoying atheists we don't like say it. If you're "one of the good ones," ask yourself - have you done anything to stop the rise of your fellow Christians?
No? Didn't think so. I'm so ducking tired of a cult that controls the country acting like whiney children and throwing out "persecution!!" when they're told how stupid it is to believe in god.
Yes, believing in god is dumb. Yes, if you believe in god, YOU are dumb.
If there was a group of people fervently arguing that there's a colony of red chinchillas living on the dark side of the moon, you'd call them a moron.
But if the myth is mainstream and much older, ohhhhh it's sacred how dare you insult someone's religion! No, it gets no more validity and people know it. Everyone downvoting this knows it. They just don't like it.
No, fuck that. The planet is on fire. Grow up. Get over your pathetic fucking beliefs and put on your big kid pants and be a fucking adult.
You're not being a "rational adult" by defending religion. You're not "balanced." You're just apologizing for idiots.
No more mysticism. No more religion. No more horoscopes, no more any of it. It is all toxic. It all leads to where we are no. No exceptions. No "oh that one isn't so bad..."
No. We live in reality. No more denial of the fundamentals of reality.
Upvote
84
(112
/
-28)
I think it's a huge problem that a ton of people get knowledge of what science is from watching TV. Similarly, that's a huge issue for law and medicine as well. Real life does not work like CSI or Law & Order. But they undeniably have an impact on people's perceptions.
Last edited:
Upvote
45
(47
/
-2)
Before I left the United States never to return, I went to a "March for Science." It was at the State Capitol. I got the day wrong, so when I showed up, they were having a funeral for a State Police officer. When I looked around and there was a Hearse, a bunch of cops and people dressed for a funeral, I thought I was in the right place.
Upvote
25
(31
/
-6)
And that's a big problem.
As a Christian, I believe politics and religion are definitely separate. As in the Bible "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". And politics is definitely a Caesar issue.
The main problem is the Christians who really believe that we need to make religion as part of politics don't see the slippery slope of political religion. They condemn Islam extremists on one side, but don't see how Christianity can devolve into the same problems.
If you've ever watched The West Wing, there's an episode in the last season where candidate Matt Santos was asked about teaching religion in schools. His reply summed it up best. And I believe it's the same with politics. It's not hard to make decisions based on Christian (New Testament) principles, but keep strict interpretation of the Bible out of our law making process - otherwise you end up with Christian version of the Taliban running the government. Or posers like Trump who have no concept of anything other than "I got mine - and I'm gonna continue to get mine!"
Upvote
37
(44
/
-7)
I never worry about what Nazi bootlickers are writing. I could generate it myself with no intellectual effort whatsoever. The coming crunch will decide whether a fair proportion of humanity survives, and has a sustainable civilization, or whether there are a few remnants a lot worse off than our Stone Age ancestors. As I have descendants, I have skin in this game, although I doubt if I will know what happens when the shit really hits the fan. Although the current ascendancy of the cretinocracy, may speed up stuff faster than my old bones wear out.
Upvote
14
(21
/
-7)
No, and the Internet/social media has made it impossible for that genie to go back into the bottle. Not just science but expertise will never be widely trusted again. This polling isn't even measuring something worthwhile if what "science" is isn't defined. There are no more gate keepers, we have trillions in investments riding on algorithmic addiction.
Sorry but those cushy 2010s tech years weren't worth it. We've made a giant mistake and our naivete in regards to technology will have brought our doom.
Sorry but those cushy 2010s tech years weren't worth it. We've made a giant mistake and our naivete in regards to technology will have brought our doom.
Upvote
52
(54
/
-2)
[...] the biggest eroders of trust are statements that are overly absolute and so not true in every situation [...]
So, the science problem is everything outside of the actual science, because it's not them making absolutist statements.
Upvote
36
(38
/
-2)
Before now, dictators needed human minions to make the myriad little decisions in running an empire to properly exert their will, and the minions had free will of their own, ambition, etc., which gave them reasons to destabilize the system. It was the paradox of the authoritarian: the harder you grip, the more the power slips away.
Now we have AI that can do most of the work humans were needed for in such a regime (and they will be even better in 5, 10, 15 years).
Now put yourself in the mind of a ketamine-fuelled techbro, and take the logical next step: "who needs these 7 billion humans on my planet if I don't need them to work? They're a risk to my power! Get them killed by giving them communicable, easily-cured diseases; cause them to destroy the ecosystem so they physically can't all survive; or make them so stupid they fight each other to the death. Any way we do it, the fewer the better!"
Intentional genocide is their next step, and they are winning.
Now we have AI that can do most of the work humans were needed for in such a regime (and they will be even better in 5, 10, 15 years).
Now put yourself in the mind of a ketamine-fuelled techbro, and take the logical next step: "who needs these 7 billion humans on my planet if I don't need them to work? They're a risk to my power! Get them killed by giving them communicable, easily-cured diseases; cause them to destroy the ecosystem so they physically can't all survive; or make them so stupid they fight each other to the death. Any way we do it, the fewer the better!"
Intentional genocide is their next step, and they are winning.
Upvote
24
(31
/
-7)
That's the great part about old religious texts, the Dominionists believe their reading is the only correct one too!
Upvote
25
(26
/
-1)
If your 'faith' results in not vaccinating your children because your ignorance is as good as scientific understanding, then yes. You are a fool.
In fact, I'd say you're a danger to the community.
Upvote
69
(73
/
-4)
This.
It isn't so much a distrust of science by the oligarchy. It is that science, as it has existed in modern times, is only useful in ways to coalesce money and power. Any and all things scientific that do not reach those goals is unnecessary to these people. That includes things like public health, environmental sciences, cosmology, and even fields of some of those quoted in the article - philosophy of science, science communication and such.
In the mind of the 21st century fascist, true knowledge is valueless. The only thing that has value is what leads to the ultimate goal of control. The key to that control was discovered by Zuckerburg, Dorsey, etc. And used masterfully by Putin and those that lovingly accept Putin's blessing.
Upvote
42
(47
/
-5)
I find it harder every day to find the energy to fight ignorance. And it's damn disheartening. I have children who will inherit the dumpster-fire to which these ass-clowns are eagerly adding gasoline.
Fuck.
Weapon's grade despair is what they're distributing.
Fuck.
Weapon's grade despair is what they're distributing.
Upvote
48
(50
/
-2)
War against "intelligentsia" is the trademark of an authoritarian regime.
Here is the thing, however: at least in the Soviet Union education was rigorous and intense. They persecuted free thinkers, but there was no war on science itself.
(Except the episode in the early days with that fraud Lysenko, the JFK Jr. of agroculture.)
Upvote
-6
(12
/
-18)
Regardless of what happens to scientific trust in the US, the rest of the world is moving on. If scientific research & public trust dies in the US, it will thrive elsewhere.
Science is global, and it is quite common for researchers to move countries over their career. Sometimes researchers move multiple times. Thanks to generous funding programs, the USA was for a long time a top destination for researchers. That is now ending, and the scientific exodus out of the USA is starting.
Research institutions in Europe, China, Australia, Canada, etc are going to be in a position to recruit a huge wave of researchers away from the US. In Australia I have heard that they're already going to lab heads and asking them to draw up lists of their top collaborators to try to bring in.
Long-term this will be the kiss of death for American innovation and competitiveness. It makes me sad. Far-right politicians value power & influence over truth & understanding. When they claim control over governments, this is the outcome.
Science is global, and it is quite common for researchers to move countries over their career. Sometimes researchers move multiple times. Thanks to generous funding programs, the USA was for a long time a top destination for researchers. That is now ending, and the scientific exodus out of the USA is starting.
Research institutions in Europe, China, Australia, Canada, etc are going to be in a position to recruit a huge wave of researchers away from the US. In Australia I have heard that they're already going to lab heads and asking them to draw up lists of their top collaborators to try to bring in.
Long-term this will be the kiss of death for American innovation and competitiveness. It makes me sad. Far-right politicians value power & influence over truth & understanding. When they claim control over governments, this is the outcome.
Upvote
57
(62
/
-5)
People trust scientific research until it runs into their own biases. Then they prefer to stick to the heuristics and just-so stories that have worked for them so far.
It's cute hearing people claim this is unique to one political ideology or movement. It's cute to hear people claim this is something new, I suspect Giordano Bruno might disagree.
I'm not sure there's an answer, especially given some of the ultraconfident but not-even-wrong assertions I've seen in this very thread.
It's cute hearing people claim this is unique to one political ideology or movement. It's cute to hear people claim this is something new, I suspect Giordano Bruno might disagree.
I'm not sure there's an answer, especially given some of the ultraconfident but not-even-wrong assertions I've seen in this very thread.
Upvote
15
(19
/
-4)
The average person, the one listening to Joe Rogan while he gets ripped with Alex Jones, doesn't know or give a single shit about things like "publish or perish" or the replication crisis or whatever genuine academic problem you're talking about. They don't trust science because instead they trust the loudest person who vibes with them.
That's it. Good luck.
Upvote
67
(71
/
-4)
You're joking, right? It wasn't just Lysenko. At one point their nuclear weapons program lead scientist had to lie to apparatchiks and tell them that bird shit had gotten into an experiment to explain a simple failure in a way that wouldn't get nuclear physicists executed as traitors simply because an experiment didn't work out.
Upvote
44
(46
/
-2)
If Science has an image issue it's precisely because of papers like the WSJ. It's complete trash.
Upvote
29
(32
/
-3)
Used to be (50 plus years ago) it was the interpretation of scientific facts that was disputed politically. The latest political ideology in the US finds the facts themselves to be overly constraining and is thus antagonistic to anything promoting objective factual knowledge. Some similarities to religious states that are antagonistic to any facts that do not align to their theology. Both promote skepticism of objective fact.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Come on. Have you ever even listened to a scientist talk? Science and people with good logical thinking are much less likely to make super absolute statements. Politicians and TV personalities are generally the people making the absolute statements.
Upvote
67
(68
/
-1)
Conservatives in this country get their "science" from the King James bible, Faux Newz, and random freaks on twitter.
Upvote
11
(20
/
-9)
Funny to think that eighty years ago the US was willing to overlook allegiance to the Axis of Evil in the name of bringing scientific knowledge into the country. Now we're about to witness the opposite of Operation Paperclip (Operation Staple Remover?)
Upvote
24
(27
/
-3)
Of course absolutist statements are defined as facts that people like the LW you are responding to do not like. Many of these "absolutist statements" are experimental facts, like the vibration rotation bands of Carbon dioxide, and the obligate consequential effects on the atmospheric energy balance when the CO2 content of the atmosphere is increased. And the entirely predictable sequelae of the changing energy balance. As this 1. Goes in opposition to what their corporate manipulators have told them, and 2. Does not lead to a happy ending with free ponies all round, it becomes absolutist. Of course in one way it is absolutist, as what reality is, is. "Can storied urn, or animated bust, Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath? Can honor's voice provoke the silent dust? Or flattery sooth the cold dull ear of death?" Our ancestors were a lot smarter than we are.
Upvote
5
(10
/
-5)
I guess I'm confused. Do these anti-science types stop going to doctors? Are doctors lumped in with "scientists" for these studies? Because these folks are incredibly healthy or incredibly sick if they are stopping visits to doctors because of a lack of trust. Or, alternatively, they just think THEIR own doctors are trustworthy for some reason and exceptions to the rule? Where are these people drawing the lines and how?
Upvote
15
(17
/
-2)
You can find plenty of such anecdotes. But the USSR also sent the first remotely-controlled rover to a different planet. My point is that they had good scientists, while the United States is going to be actively waging war on education. The USSR went after scientists, not science. Feel the difference.
I looked at my old notes from school in 80s Ukraine - they had us do integrals before 9th grade. It was brutal.
Upvote
36
(40
/
-4)