Study reveals wide gaps in opinion between scientists and general public

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...pinion-differences-scientists-general-public/



It's very sad how many Americans think they know better than experts. Should you be skeptical of individual studies? Yeah! Definitely! But when 80+% of the expert opinion moves against you, unless you're a scientist doing the research that'll prove them all wrong it's probably best you leave it to the experts. They're smarter than you and they get the job done better.

 

I have no problems leaving some things to doctors or scientists, but I also believe I have some obligation to keep myself informed tho I'm neither MD nor professional scientist. I'll also add that when it comes to scientific advice, I prefer to receive it from scientists, not some self serving politician with questionable motives.

 

Everyone thinks their opinion is just as valid (Read:Knowledgeably correct) as anyone else. This site is a fantastic example. Opinionators here, without the slightest sense of modesty or self-effacement, are more expert about climate change than NASA/NOAA climate scientists, more learned about economics than Nobel Prize winners, and better versed in the law than legal scholars. Of course it is almost all about ideology, tribalism and insecurity - both personal and societal. Ironically, when immediate push comes to personal shove, they all depend on science (medicine) to save them. Miraculously they all suddenly turn into great believers in the oncologist or heart surgeon. Strange, that. Or not.

 

Yup. However people need to understand their limitations. I'm not going to out research a food scientist on GMOs using google alone.

GMOs and organic food was something I had to personally come to terms with being wrong on. As a liberal who has a lot of liberal friends it seemed obvious. Organic foods and natural foods are healthier than foods grown in some corporate lab, right?

The science showed I was wrong. And I needed to accept that and move on. Many of my liberal friends decided to look at the evidence and say "These scientists must be on Monsanto's payroll!"

That's a frequent strategy of those who are anti-science. "Don't trust the climate science! They're all on the government pay roll!" "Don't trust the vaccine science! They're all paid by big pharma"

Fact is when you're talking about 80+% of the experts in a particular field you're talking about a variety of research groups from a huge variety of funding sources. The whole "Follow the money!" argument doesn't work when you're talking about that large of a consensus.

 

Yeah, well, the scientists are concerned with making the logical choice, but the general public are the ones who have to worry about living with implications of the choices.

 

Scientist make "decisions" in a vacuum.

 

looks like scientists are right more often then not by that poll

 

First, how cute it is that you're taking vocab from another thread.

Second, how utterly inaccurate this statement is. I suppose this would be the opinion of a person that's likely never done any serious research in their lives, if you had you wouldn't be so flippant about the process and the results. Although perhaps we should thank you for exemplifying exactly what the OP was saying, so kudos for that!

 

How much money is exchanged between universities and government? Wasn't UCLA Berkeley Obama's largest donor? Is this really complicated?

 

Goes to show you! YES, the GENERAL PUBLIC is UNINFORMED or PURPOSEFULLY IGNORANT. Choose!

 

See post #4

 

Yes, you created the word vacuum.

Personal attacks/assumptions/etc..

Not much substance in your post, just angry rhetoric. By the way I work in chemistry at one of the best universities in the country. Nice assumptions, LOL.

 

This is a survey done of AAAS members. It may be the "world's largest general scientific society," but clearly its goals are political.

http://www.aaas.org/about-aaas

 

I would venture to say this is an example of folks believing what they want to believe despite evidence.

Is this really surprising? Certainly using the forum as a microcosm of American life, folks are more than willing to repeat falsehoods and make statements in direct conflict with facts if it furthers their own agenda.

 

Maybe it's because they are in it for the money, not the science.

 

Really? You believe 85%+ scientists are in it for the money? There is a lot of money in supporting oil companies. Why aren't they supporting fracking and offshore drilling?

 

I would be. I certainly wouldn't be in it for the religion or politics.

 

Are you suggesting that the science community is taking brides and doctoring results for financial gain? Other than FAITH do you have any evidence to support this assertion. Scientist are not a localized phenomenom. The whole point of science is their work is reviewed and collaborated by others. Is it a giant conspiracy?

 

Problem is scientists are sometimes wrong, and we don't know it until years later.

Anyone remember a sweetener that was just fine, but a decade or so later.....well maybe not.

 

I noticed scientists couldnt get a unanimous opinion on any one of those.

 

it's sad you think "experts" can't be bought off....

 

I spent thirty years watching experts testify in court. You have three or six or nine for one side and, amazingly, the same number for the other side. One group of "experts" say if you eat that your genitals will fall off. The other :"experts" say if you don't eat it, your genitals will fall off.

It is truly pitiful how many people give up all decisions to experts, like Dr. Gruber, and then have to live with the consequences. I remember when the "experts" were prescribing Thalidomide.

And it's amazing how often "scientists" give opinions on issues that have nothing. absolutely nothing, to do with their area of expertise and how much suckers listen to them. I grew up with "scientists" telling us that nuclear war was inevitable and it would be followed by a nuclear winter and mankind would be destroyed. Well, unless the United States unilaterally disarmed and surrendered to the USSR. I'm sure that was purely a scientific opinion on their party. It's rather like the psychologists, sociologists, and similar "scientists" who have opinions on AGW and the fools who listen to them.

I eat corn often. I love corn tortillas. Corn was created, by humans, in Mexico about 7,000 years ago. It was not a natural plant. I'm sure there were folks then, experts, who said it was horrible. If the gods had wanted maize to exist, they would have created it.

I seem to remember reading about the "experts" who fought tooth and nail against the use of anesthetics for surgery. Pain was natural. Ether was man-made. Eeeewwww! Amazing how so little changes. Even today there are those who consider anything natural, like arsenic, wonderful and anything man-made to be horrible. Damn the polio vaccines.

There are just some folks who resist all change. They're called, oddly enough, liberals or progressives. That's rather like the minority party in the Soviet revolution being called the Bolsheviks which means majority.

 

And thousands of times more than that to drive the Government agenda. Have you seen what the NOAA budget is?

 

In another thread you work at a stadium. Also, I'm an astronaut cowboy skeet shooting champion, trust me.

 

it's good to see 65% of Americans now believe in evolution, were making progress