• Poll shows giant gap between what scientists and the public think.
    30 replies, posted
[QUOTE] The American public and U.S. scientists are light-years apart on science issues. And 98 percent of surveyed scientists say it's a problem that we don't know what they're talking about. Scientists are far less worried about genetically modified food, pesticide use and nuclear power than is the general public, according to matching polls of both the general public and the country's largest general science organization. Scientists were more certain that global warming is caused by man, evolution is real, overpopulation is a danger and mandatory vaccination against childhood diseases is needed. In eight of 13 science-oriented issues, there was a 20-percentage-point or higher gap separating the opinions of the public and members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, according to survey work by the Pew Research Center. The gaps didn't correlate to any liberal-conservative split; the scientists at times take more traditionally conservative views and at times more liberal. "These are big and notable gaps," said Lee Rainie, director of Pew's internet, science and technology research. He said they are "pretty powerful indicators of the public and the scientific community seeing the world differently." 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. Ninety-eight percent of scientists say humans evolved over time, compared with 65 percent of the public. The gap wasn't quite as large for vaccines, with 86 percent of the scientists favoring mandatory childhood shots while 68 percent of the public did. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] [B]Eighty-seven percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity, while only half of the public did.[/B] [/QUOTE] This is just sad. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/poll-shows-giant-gap-public-scientists-28583862[/url]
It isn't that bad. I'm just happy that for the big issues over 50% agree with scientists. If 57% don't want to eat GMO's then they can shop at Whole Foods and pay more, at least they aren't killing their children through negligence. I'm not saying this is good enough and we should stop trying to be better, I'm just saying I'm happy that vaccines, evolution and global warming are at least starting to be accepted by the public; after all it's a process, we aren't going to change everyone's minds overnight.
I think anti-gmo stuff is dumb as hell, can't blame people for being afraid of what they don't understand though. I wonder what the results of this survey would look like in other countries.
One of the two major political parties in the US is filled with liars, disingenuous whores, and outright crazy fuckers that sell every line of bullshit under the sun and yet somehow have the support of half the country. And news networks and media agencies in the US have no obligation to fact check or ensure they're not outright lying to people or misleading them intentionally. Said party controls committees meant to investigate things related to science and the environment while assigning leaders who claim to believe that science is a delusion inspired by Satan and that only God can influence the environment. Why someone hasn't snapped and cleaned house yet is beyond me. Every time I stumble across some story related to politics in this country I find myself on the verge of a stroke.
People who are better educated in science understand science better? Who'd have thunk it. Still though I hate how climate change is still an issue.
Didnt the house pass a bill stating that climate change is a real thing? can we please move on from there at the very least?
The American Public and the American Intelligentsia has always been at odds. It was [I]less than a hundred years ago[/I] that the Public was in enough of a fervor over the evils of alchohol to pass a [B]constitutional amendment[/B] banning the substance. That is, we briefly rewrote the binding article of our nation to prevent people from drinking booze because it scared us somehow. To put one hundred years in perspective, that's roughly four or five generations depending on how you cut it. That's less than half our governmental "uptime," from inception. We still had Autocratic Kings within that time frame. We left earth, came back, circled it then girded it with junk in half of that time. "Good ideas" will always lag behind. Part of that is because it simply is hard to gather up raw humanity to believe in some simple things. Our nation recognizes that and runs on compromise. The last time we decided to play a bit of unilateral footsy with one half of the nation being more right than the other, we had a war so big it killed every second man in a single generation. The fact we never bothered to [I]pick up the pieces from that little fuck up[/I] is part of why we have so many people who believe in an angry god who controls the winds and the rains and will shield children from polio with his godpalms. Even then, for the so called simple stuff, there's a lot of complexity. Climate change is a good one. It is in fact clear that humans effect the climate, but when it comes to a challenge of "How do we mitigate that?" it becomes very sticky. No one will surrender their next-edition iPhone for "a few inches" of Polar Cap. Even if it will kill their grandchildren. They don't care. A lot of them [I]can't care[/I] because they haven't [I]seen it happen,[/I] which for most of us is the redline for believing something. We're not fucked, I don't think. We're just screwed.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47037587]One of the two major political parties in the US is filled with liars, disingenuous whores, and outright crazy fuckers that sell every line of bullshit under the sun and yet somehow have the support of half the country. And news networks and media agencies in the US have no obligation to fact check or ensure they're not outright lying to people or misleading them intentionally. Said party controls committees meant to investigate things related to science and the environment while assigning leaders who claim to believe that science is a delusion inspired by Satan and that only God can influence the environment. Why someone hasn't snapped and cleaned house yet is beyond me. Every time I stumble across some story related to politics in this country I find myself on the verge of a stroke.[/QUOTE] Don't you mean both political parties?
[QUOTE=space1;47037724]Don't you mean both political parties?[/QUOTE] While the Democrats are somewhat bought off by Hollywood and are somewhat corrupt and are somewhat ninnies about a lot of issues, the Republicans are by majority detrimental to the stability of the nation, the well-being of its people, and the advancement of issues affecting the whole of the human race. Saying they're both equally damaging to our nation is delusion or insanity.
Today in news that makes me embarrassed to be an American...
This is absolute nonsense It's equivalent to having a poll asking "What is 2+2?" and 50% of the population getting it wrong.
And people are worried the public doesn't vote. It's a good reason they aren't because so many people are uninformed.
Not surprised in the slightest. The fact that only eighty-seven percent of scientists say human activity attributes to global warming is fucking sad though. Should be more.
[quote]Eighty-seven percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity, while only half of the public did.[/quote] The more interesting part is that 13% of scientists don't believe global warming is mostly due to humans - I wonder why, what area they study in, etc.
When they ask Scientists about Global Warming did they ask Scientists whose field actually studies Global Warming or did they just ask anyone that can be considered a Scientist? Not that it matters because they're probably right, I just don't think a Scientist who studies the effects of cheese on turtles should be counted in with the others.
[QUOTE=butt2089;47038896]The more interesting part is that 13% of scientists don't believe global warming is mostly due to humans - I wonder why, what area they study in, etc.[/QUOTE] They likely believe the climate shift is due to natural fluctuations in the atmosphere and revolutions around the sun. That's what several of my professors believed. They kept bringing up that "global cooling" was the concern in the 70s, and that CO2 levels trail behind temperature change. But neither were masters of climate studies.
Perhaps democracy would work a little better if there was more power in the hands of specialists like scientists, in some sort of regulated, transparent manner?
[QUOTE=proch;47038994]Perhaps democracy would work a little better if there was more power in the hands of specialists like scientists, in some sort of regulated, transparent manner?[/QUOTE] The inherent problem with democracy is that the people in charge don't have the necessary qualifications to take those decisions, because the people with actual qualifications are too busy doing their own job on their own. And since politicians are typically too far up their ass to take advice from anybody who's not from their own party that means the people in charge are willingly staying dumb and uneducated rather than go ask the qualified people for help.
People are surprised at this? It's stupidly common for people to not bother understanding something and go on assumptions from what little they do know instead and treat it as fact. Scientists not being in complete agreement is understandable as well for both the previous reason as well as the fact that those who have a better understanding of the world around us are the most likely to feel ambiguous about taking a side without absolute proof. [QUOTE=Tetsmega;47037912]And people are worried the public doesn't vote. It's a good reason they aren't because so many people are uninformed.[/QUOTE] There's still a huge issue in that a very significant chunk of those who do vote are those who think they understand things when they actually don't and are generally closed to the idea they may not understand things. You'll find that those who do understand things well are more likely to not bother voting because they end up feeling like their vote isn't going to make any difference.
[QUOTE=proch;47038994]Perhaps democracy would work a little better if there was more power in the hands of specialists like scientists, in some sort of regulated, transparent manner?[/QUOTE] Politicians and scientists are two completely different professions requiring different skills. I think it's not a problem of people in power, it's a problem of mass media spreading sensational, pseudoscientific and mystical bullshit, and more or less uneducated masses believing in it. There is a book by Sagan called "the demon-haunted world", which explains pretty well how this stuff works. Check it out if you want.
[QUOTE=proch;47038994]Perhaps democracy would work a little better if there was more power in the hands of specialists like scientists, in some sort of regulated, transparent manner?[/QUOTE] There's a name for it. Technocracy. Too bad it's only really existed in theory.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47039032]The inherent problem with democracy is that the people in charge don't have the necessary qualifications to take those decisions, because the people with actual qualifications are too busy doing their own job on their own. And since politicians are typically too far up their ass to take advice from anybody who's not from their own party that means the people in charge are willingly staying dumb and uneducated rather than go ask the qualified people for help.[/QUOTE] We need to actually be able to interact with the process on an individual level so we can give people a brief scientific overview and understanding of the problem, that way we can get rid of the whole party lines and ideology bullshit most of the time and get straight to "what is the most effective method to deal with the issue?" Telling you man, when we have the internet in everyones heads that's when shit changes.
[QUOTE=butt2089;47038896]The more interesting part is that 13% of scientists don't believe global warming is mostly due to humans - I wonder why, what area they study in, etc.[/QUOTE] Christian studies.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47037766]While the Democrats are somewhat bought off by Hollywood and are somewhat corrupt and are somewhat ninnies about a lot of issues, the Republicans are by majority detrimental to the stability of the nation, the well-being of its people, and the advancement of issues affecting the whole of the human race. Saying they're both equally damaging to our nation is delusion or insanity.[/QUOTE] Democrats are the lesser of two evils at best. 99% of politicians are the lesser of two evils, at best.
[QUOTE=draugur;47040839]Christian studies.[/QUOTE] Im christian and i believe climate change.
[quote]Ninety-eight percent of scientists say humans evolved over time[/quote] Those two percent must be Biblical scholars or something...
[QUOTE=da space core;47037670]Didnt the house pass a bill stating that climate change is a real thing? can we please move on from there at the very least?[/QUOTE] They then had a majority consensus that while it is real, that it is not influenced by man at all.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;47037497]I think anti-gmo stuff is dumb as hell, can't blame people for being afraid of what they don't understand though. I wonder what the results of this survey would look like in other countries.[/QUOTE] I am not afraid of GMO as much as I'm afraid of big companies trying to make fast profit with an untested product, like how lead paint and asbestos were considered perfectly safe not long ago.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47037912]And people are worried the public doesn't vote. It's a good reason they aren't because so many people are uninformed.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, the most misinformed [I]are[/I] the ones turning up to vote...
[QUOTE=butt2089;47038896]The more interesting part is that 13% of scientists don't believe global warming is mostly due to humans - I wonder why, what area they study in, etc.[/QUOTE] 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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.