Nature paper on 'Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries' - not strictly audio

[SIY]

For me, a key shortcoming here is lumping "scientists" into a single category. First, how is "scientist" defined? Secondly, are there differences in trust level for physical, biological, soft science (e.g., sociology, psychology), historical (e.g., paleontology, anthropology), and geoscience (e.g., climatology)? Certainly my trust is quite different among those categories regarding both the science and the scientists.

Mandatory disclosure: I am a physical chemist and materials scientist.

 

[dlaloum]

I trust science, I just struggle to trust the scientists... Especially the federal government ones.

That is a strange statement...

In theory at least, government sponsored science would be relatively neutral as the core work is long term, and straddles partisan, party political, government terms (with most science projects taking decades....)

Private science on the other hand, has a specific interest, focus and purpose, that being profit.... and cherry picking of experiments and/or results become far more likely - alongside fabrication! It is the private science that most commonly requires close scrutiny due to conflicts of interest (science vs profit).

 

[ta240]

What I want to see data on is the people that ignore surveys compared to those that tend to answer more of them.
It would also be interesting, but likely impossible, to know more about the number of people that answer honestly vs those that say what they think they should.

 

[Groove01]

That is a strange statement...

In theory at least, government sponsored science would be relatively neutral as the core work is long term, and straddles partisan, party political, government terms (with most science projects taking decades....)

Private science on the other hand, has a specific interest, focus and purpose, that being profit.... and cherry picking of experiments and/or results become far more likely - alongside fabrication! It is the private science that most commonly requires close scrutiny due to conflicts of interest (science vs profit).

I think it depends on what the gov’t scientist are telling you. Kinda like “Duck and Cover” and you’ll be safe in the event of a nuclear strike. (If your old enough to remember Bert the Turtle - lol)

The gov’t will often message science to the least educated or lowest common denominator, sometimes a grain of salt is needed.

I think it’s less about actual gov’t sponsored science that you’re referencing.

 

[ta240]

Also, what do they mean by 'trust'? I was called for jury duty and they seemed to be dismissing anyone that said they would do their own research even after a doctor told them something rather than just outright trusting the doctor.

I'd say that I overall trust doctors but at the same time I still research what they tell me. From being told that "this cream will turn your skin red for a bit and then it will flake off" and finding comments online like "I couldn't sleep at night because it burned so much". Or "the surgery will hurt for a few days and then just take it easy for a few weeks" and then months later being told by the same surgeon "Yeah, it will hurt for months".

So, where would that put me in the trust scale? My thinking is the same way for information from scientists. Is there an option for "Trust with verification"?

 

[SIY]

In theory at least, government sponsored science would be relatively neutral

After doing quite a bit of government-sponsored science, I have absolutely not found this to be so. It is highly politically driven.

I had far more freedom to interpret my results in a neutral manner when I was working on private-sector science.

 

[Jim Taylor]

For me, a key shortcoming here is lumping "scientists" into a single category. First, how is "scientist" defined? Secondly, are there differences in trust level for physical, biological, soft science (e.g., sociology, psychology), historical (e.g., paleontology, anthropology), and geoscience (e.g., climatology)? Certainly my trust is quite different among those categories regarding both the science and the scientists.

An excellent point! I often bewail the decline of "the sciences" in this country, but after thinking about it awhile, I realize that I focus on the traditional "hard" sciences. Is it coincidental that it is more difficult to politicize them?

p.s. - I see @SIY has already broached that aspect of the subject.

 

[RickS]

For me, a key shortcoming here is lumping "scientists" into a single category. First, how is "scientist" defined? Secondly, are there differences in trust level for physical, biological, soft science (e.g., sociology, psychology), historical (e.g., paleontology, anthropology), and geoscience (e.g., climatology)? Certainly my trust is quite different among those categories regarding both the science and the scientists.

Mandatory disclosure: I am a physical chemist and materials scientist.

Agree, I have worked with several scientists from NASA Glenn Research and considered every one of them to be trustworthy.

After doing quite a bit of government-sponsored science, I have absolutely not found this to be so. It is highly politically driven.

I had far more freedom to interpret my results in a neutral manner when I was working on private-sector science.

So, are you talking about politics influencing science sponsored by government grants or some effort within a government agency?

 

[SIY]

So, are you talking about politics influencing science sponsored by government grants or some effort within a government agency?

My direct experience is with the former. I suspect the latter, but don't have first-hand knowledge.

 

[flightops]

Something doesn’t seem quite right to me in those intital graphs. Being Canadian, I can’t see Canada being that low on the overall ranking. Yes, we’re a decent bit over the mean, but I would have expected it to be higher yet.

Sure, we’ve got “those types” like everyone else does, but they’re pretty few and far between and I’m in a rural location so the oft misused “rural stereotype” doesn’t hold true either.

I would suspect some issues with thier sampling methods and/or the nature of those that actually did respond. Canadians typically don’t like responding to surveys (especially those phone ones) unless they’ve “got an axe to grind”.

It’s a personal impression, but that data just doesn’t seem to line up with my experiences…or at least I hope it doesn’t. Or maybe I need to “get out” more….

 

[tomtoo]

a,b, Standardized country-level effects of political orientation (in a, 1 = strongly left-leaning to 5 = strongly right-leaning; in b, 1 = strongly liberal to 5 = strongly conservative) on trust in scientists (1 = very low, 3 = neither high nor low, 5 = very high). These effects are sums of the grand effect for political orientation across all countries an ...???

@amirm , no politics in here ?!

Better Stop it!

 

[tomtoo]

Stop it now its political!

 

[tomtoo]

Agree, I have worked with several scientists from NASA Glenn Research and considered every one of them to be trustworthy.



So, are you talking about politics influencing science sponsored by government grants or some effort within a government agency?

Its pure politics stop it!

what tells it about audio? Absolutly nothing. So stop it.

What ever my political opinian is. There was a rule in here. NO POLITICS!

 

[Somafunk]

echo.....echo......echo.......

 

[theREALdotnet]

Males are less trusting of science as are conservatives. Older people and those with higher education are more trusting:

View attachment 422691

Political orientations "right" and "conservative" are not the same??

 

[RickS]

Its pure politics stop it!

Fuck what tells it about audio? Absolutly nothing. So stop it.

What ever my political opinian is. There was a rule in here. NO POLITICS!

Please feel free to report specific posts that you consider to be overly political and I and the other moderators will review and disposition. Politics are not the same for everyone, but the rules on obscenities are very clear, so watch your language.

Thank you for your support.

 

[RickS]

Instituting a cooling off period for this thread as some seem unable to control inappropriate political commentary. Will review with the staff and determine next steps tomorrow.

 

[RickS]

Thread will remain closed. While we acknowledge the OP's positive support for science, political interpretations meant the drawbacks outweighed any benefit of continued dialog.

Thanks for your support!