About 20 or 30 years back science and scientists were perceived as the champions of humankind. It was also perceived that science would take us to the new frontiers of human accomplishments and wellbeing.
Nowadays it seems like Science and the Scientific community at large has lost its respect in human society. Whether it be climate science, medicine or food science, science or scientists are perceived to have their own agenda or commercial interest and are not perceived to be working for the common man.
So, do you think first of all if the above observations hold some ground ? And if so, what’s the prognosis for science’s place in society?
No, that hasn’t happened. Not in educated, well-read, rational, literate circles anyway. Just in conspiracy-theory circles. Since you didn’t cite, I won’t either when I say I claim that most people still believe in and trust science and scientists.
I don’t know, a lot of folks nowadays who think of themselves as educated, well-read, rational, and literate have been pretty busily ignoring scientists, and then congratulating themselves on how scientific they’re being.
I agree. There has always been suspicion and even anti-science feelings out there. It’s just that, with modern technology, those people can be a lot louder and reach a lot more people with their rants.
Books are not data either am77494. What I usually see are would be researchers that do realize that instead of doing science and confronting peer review, they would rather write a book to distribute their opinions.
As for paradigm shifts, following the same behavior like Marat before the French revolution did not do wonders to France, if it takes place in America all the people will be affected (that also includes the ones that do think that disparaging science or the scientists is a good thing to do)
In reality the bit of ‘having their own agenda or commercial interests and are not perceived to be working for the common man.’ is/was a propaganda point from people like Marat who did succeed into needlessly discrediting real scientists like Lavoisier. It did not end good.
Some people like to conflate different disciplines together as science. Some disciplines like physics are well understood and rigorous outside the bleeding edge, other disciplines like social psychology are full of charlatans, and unfounded claims. Lumping them together as science does a disservice to the actual sciences. Some times this is done for political reasons, acting like not believing a particular climate model is akin to disbelieving gravity.
Carl Sagan spoke about the topic of science becoming less and less understood, even scorned by the general population and government. He wrote about it in the Demon Hunted World and this is his lastinterview with Charlie Rose (May, 1996) where he speaks about this topic very eloquently.
I am surprised to hear that. Today we have the “University of Google” so people can believe they “know more” than scientists. There’s also “WhatsApp University” (my mother is a graduate), “Facebook U”, “Twitter College”, and the like.
A vaccine and autism “expert” (and porn star) said she relied on the University of Google rather than scientific reports to support her beliefs.
Well since climate science as been going on for more that 100 years, it is clear that they do not look at one model only. In fact, as the whole lame discussion about the medieval warming period showed, it has been climate change deniers the ones who still insist to this day that an early (and very limited) model based on a local British recreation of past climate was the beesnees and it should be used as gospel. Real scientists are not doing that.
Follow the money, guys. Bad science is a hugely profitable business.
Do you need a study that says your product doesn’t cause cancer? That the cleaning solution your company makes doesn’t linger in the environment? Are you a politician that wants to repeal some environmental legislation but you a study to back up your position?
You can buy that. There’s a company called Exponent that specializes in product defense and they’ll find a “scientist” to promote pretty much any point of view that you want.
Our maybe you need some doctors to say that abortions cause cancer or to claim that Hydroxychloroquine cures COVID. Look no further than the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a group of professionals whose mission is to co-opt medicine to the service of political conservatism.
It’s a deliberate tactic intended to manufacture doubt and controversy where it’s shouldn’t exist. The average citizen doesn’t understand that in this climate the opinion of one doctor or scientist or even a group of doctors and scientists is meaningless. The only thing that should count is broad and widespread consensus.
But that goes against our love for innovation and thinking outside the box as well as our desire to have our biases confirmed. So we will continue to be subjected to “science” that is little more than propaganda.
It’s a pervasive problem that’s getting worse and it’s compounded by a general lack of understanding about scientific methodology.
I’ve been watching it play out for weeks now. I’ve been watching a mostly useless drug gain traction with the public as a miracle cure. And it’s not harmless. The real harm doesn’t lie in the possible side effects of the drug (although those exist). The harm - and the ulterior motive behind the promotion IMHO- is that it is an effort to convince people that they are immune from a dangerous disease, for reasons that are largely political.
It’s not just “stupid people ignoring science”. It’s way worse than that.
I’m old enough to remember attitudes from 20-30 years ago, and there were as many anti-science people then as now. And at that time people imagined a mythical type 20-30 years prior to that (that I am not old enough to remember) when science and scientists were well-respected.
Society has always treated science like Mr. Spock. They want him there, but they definitely want Captain Kirk to be the one in charge. Balls and glory on top, with science and reason clearly subordinate.
Very true, I’m afraid. Conservative politicians have noticed that actual science and facts are getting in the way of their political goals.
There is a very deliberate and organized plan to discredit science underway. Muzzling science is a thing that is happening. And it’s being done in order to stop reality from getting in the way of a political agenda.
Don’t like statistics about how your hobby or business kills people? Forbid any research into it. Simple.
Want to promote a miracle cure so you can sell snake oil? Fire any researchers whose data shows it to be ineffective. I mean, they were standing in the way of profit, which is un-American.
While I do agree, the issue here is about science/scientists being not trusted or doing no good things for society.
You are correct about the abuses of people in power finding “McExperts” to support dubious claims, but that actually shows that most people are not following a shift, as in 'we are not trusting right away what any guy in a lab coat on TV or the internet is telling us". People on the whole do still perceive science as a good thing to have (even if it can be twisted from time to time by economic interests).
BTW, to the OP: this is what data looks like:
And that is even when most of the same surveyed people reported to be skeptical when it is shown that a researcher has conflicts of interest on a subject.
Yup. Facilitated by the universal and natural human desire to be able to feel smart without working for it.
If some scientist is spouting off equations and graphs about some complicated technical stuff that you don’t understand, and you happen to “know” that the scientist is “just trying to promote some political agenda”, then voila, you “know” all you need to know about that complicated technical stuff without having to do the work of actually learning anything about it. Very gratifying.
