[url]http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/[/url]
[img]http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01.png[/img]
[img]http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-02.png[/img]
[img]http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-03.png[/img]
[img]http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-04.png[/img]
[img]http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-06.png[/img]
[QUOTE]Compared with five years ago, both citizens and scientists are less upbeat about the scientific enterprise. Citizens are still broadly positive about the place of U.S. scientific achievements and its impact on society, [B]but slightly more are negative than five years ago.[/B] And, while a majority of scientists think it is a good time for science, they are less upbeat than they were five years ago. [B]Most scientists believe that policy regulations on land use and clean air and water are not often guided by the best science.[/B]
In some areas, like energy, the differences between the groups do not follow a single direction — they can vary depending on the specific issue. For example, 52% of citizens favor allowing more offshore drilling, while fewer AAAS scientists (32%), by comparison, favor increased drilling. The gap in support of offshore drilling is 20 percentage points. [B]But when it comes to nuclear power, the gap runs in the opposite direction. Forty-five percent of citizens favor building more nuclear power plants, while 65% of AAAS scientists favor this idea.[/B]
52% of AAAS scientists say this is generally a good time for science, [B]down 24 percentage points from 76% in 2009[/B]. Similarly, the share of scientists who say this is generally a good time for their scientific specialty is down from 73% in 2009 to 62% today. And, the share of AAAS scientists saying that this is a good or very good time to begin a career in their field now stands at 59%, down from 67% in 2009.[B]
Only 15% of scientists say they believe policy choices about land use are guided by the best science most of the time or always; [/B]27% think the best science frequently guides regulations about clean air and water; 46% think the best science is frequently used in food safety regulations and 58% say the same when it comes to regulations about new drug and medical treatments.
[B]
Among scientists, the public’s knowledge about science — or lack thereof — is widely considered to be a major (84%) or minor (14%) problem for the field.[/B]
And when asked about four possible reasons for the public having limited science knowledge, [B]three-quarters of AAAS scientists in the new survey say too little K-12 STEM education is a major factor.[/B][/QUOTE]
[B]
Effects of Science on Society[/B]
[img]http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-07.png[/img]
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Perceived Contributions of Scientists, Engineers, and Medical Doctors to Society[/B]
A 2013 Pew Research report [B]found the military at the top of the list of 10 occupational groups seen as contributing “a lot”[/B] to society (78%), followed by teachers (72%), medical doctors (66%), [B]scientists (65%) and engineers (63%)[/B]. The order of ratings for each of the 10 groups was roughly the same in 2013 as in 2009, though there were modest declines in public appreciation for several occupations.
Public appreciation of scientists’ contribution dropped 5 points from 70% in 2009 to 65% in 2013 with a corresponding uptick to 8% in those saying scientists contribute “not very much” or “nothing at all” compared with 5% in 2009. Views of medical doctors’ contribution fell 3 points from 69% in 2009 to 66% in 2013. Those of engineers stayed about the same (64% in 2009 and 63% in 2013).
Adults under age 50 and college graduates tended to be more upbeat in their assessments of scientists, engineers and medical doctors. Partisan and ideological differences were found in views about the contribution of scientists and engineers but not in views about medical doctors.[/QUOTE]
See more in the link provided.
I wanna know the 2% of scientists that don't believe in evolution are doing in the scientific field.
[QUOTE=Crimor;47050250]I wanna know the 2% of scientists that don't believe in evolution are doing in the scientific field.[/QUOTE]
They probably just believe in god, but also accept the scientific method as a valid tool for research.
Many scientists retain faith, they are human.
I'm surprised two-thirds of Americans believe the MMR vaccine should be compulsory
[QUOTE=Karmah;47050275]They probably just believe in god, but also accept the scientific method as a valid tool for research.
Many scientists retain faith, they are human.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty dumb though, my guess would be that they stay religious due to family and it's just easier.
[QUOTE=Crimor;47050250]I wanna know the 2% of scientists that don't believe in evolution are doing in the scientific field.[/QUOTE]
It may be a significant semantic denial.
There are scientists who deny so-called Macro Evolution, instead asserting that there are clear genetic ranges for most creatures and that at best Micro Evolution takes place, at worst there's only reproduction with lots of potential variations.
I don't recall what the name is, but there's a thought experiment about a planet covered in white flowers which have a highly recessive black gene. The planet's flowers turn black through evolution when white flowers are selected against. The flowers did not "evolve" the black color, but rather a recessive gene became the predominant selection factor.
The distinction is that the gene was not "added," or occur spontaneously. Rather whatever set of genetic material that flowers had already contained the subset for black characteristics. If they had not had the recessive black gene, they would have simply perished. Mutations may happen, which if sustainable, will introduce new unique genes, but on this account they are not evolutions, because they are essentially random. On that account, if you said they had evolved by spontaneously and randomly gaining the beneficial trait, it would be like accusing someone of having evolved cancer from a misfolded protein.
Why should believing in god = not believe evolution or what basic natural laws says. Sad that these people often works as an anchor to move the society forward
I'm glad that everyone seems to hate fracking
[quote]Mutations may happen, which if sustainable, will introduce new unique genes, but on this account they are not evolutions, because they are essentially random. On that account, if you said they had evolved by spontaneously and randomly gaining the beneficial trait, it would be like accusing someone of having evolved cancer from a misfolded protein.[/quote]
Except if the mutated gene is beneficial and ends up being passed on, that is evolution. "Randomness" does not stop it from being evolution.
I'm shocked about the Space Station question.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;47050339]It may be a significant semantic denial.
There are scientists who deny so-called Macro Evolution, instead asserting that there are clear genetic ranges for most creatures and that at best Micro Evolution takes place, at worst there's only reproduction with lots of potential variations.
I don't recall what the name is, but there's a thought experiment about a planet covered in white flowers which have a highly recessive black gene. The planet's flowers turn black through evolution when white flowers are selected against. The flowers did not "evolve" the black color, but rather a recessive gene became the predominant selection factor.
The distinction is that the gene was not "added," or occur spontaneously. Rather whatever set of genetic material that flowers had already contained the subset for black characteristics. If they had not had the recessive black gene, they would have simply perished. Mutations may happen, which if sustainable, will introduce new unique genes, but on this account they are not evolutions, because they are essentially random. On that account, if you said they had evolved by spontaneously and randomly gaining the beneficial trait, it would be like accusing someone of having evolved cancer from a misfolded protein.[/QUOTE]
There's also the fact that "scientist" is a broad as fuck term. They could be biological scientists, in which case denying evolution is contradictory to their goals. They could be a medical, material, chemical, computer, rocket or whatever scientist, fields where evolution isn't really all that important to their job, so their opinions on it are less important.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;47050339]It may be a significant semantic denial.
There are scientists who deny so-called Macro Evolution, instead asserting that there are clear genetic ranges for most creatures and that at best Micro Evolution takes place, at worst there's only reproduction with lots of potential variations.
I don't recall what the name is, but there's a thought experiment about a planet covered in white flowers which have a highly recessive black gene. The planet's flowers turn black through evolution when white flowers are selected against. The flowers did not "evolve" the black color, but rather a recessive gene became the predominant selection factor.
The distinction is that the gene was not "added," or occur spontaneously. Rather whatever set of genetic material that flowers had already contained the subset for black characteristics. If they had not had the recessive black gene, they would have simply perished. Mutations may happen, which if sustainable, will introduce new unique genes, but on this account they are not evolutions, because they are essentially random. On that account, if you said they had evolved by spontaneously and randomly gaining the beneficial trait, it would be like accusing someone of having evolved cancer from a misfolded protein.[/QUOTE]
The white flowers were naturally selected against, so the previously rare black flowers reproduced more, leading to the black flower gene being more and more common as time goes on, causing the flowers to adapt to their environment. I'm pretty sure that's evolution.
Plus, the black flower gene had to come in at [I]some[/I] point. You can't just say that the flowers spontaneously popped into existence with a dominant white and recessive black gene.
Do you think that evolution says that giraffes will see taller trees and spontaneously grow longer necks or spontaneously gain the gene for longer necks because of that? Mutations are random, and evolution is based on the genes for a beneficial or even neutral mutation becoming more common over time through reproduction. Beneficial mutations are already very rare, and huge mutations aren't beneficial very often, so it's a very slow process.
[QUOTE=Crimor;47050250]I wanna know the 2% of scientists that don't believe in evolution are doing in the scientific field.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448827"]As I said in the other thread that this is a repost of,[/URL]
It might be that they refused to respond or said, "I don't know," instead of outright denying it. It's usually considered wise not to speak too confidently about scientific topics far away from your area of expertise.
Take, for example, Richard Dawkins on anything that's [I]not[/I] biology related.
Reading those numbers the main thing I get out if is the public is in denial, therefore all the 'bad' things scientists say is happening are the things a large portion of the public disbelieves. In addition, the public's mistrust of intelligent and/or highly educated people manifests itself in their rejection of things the scientists say are 'good' like genetically modified crops.
Dumb and paranoid, that explains those people.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47050651]Except if the mutated gene is beneficial and ends up being passed on, that is evolution. "Randomness" does not stop it from being evolution.[/QUOTE]
This. It's not like evolution worked by fish wanting to grow legs
Well, "evolving over time" doesn't specifically mean that we evolved the stuff we can craft. Maybe some people rather understood that it's about how people behave to each other, goals in life or other characteristics. Some people may think we didn't evolve there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.