Farmer’s markets, organic foods, but no mention of anti-vax or ‘intelligent design’ memes? Is there a pattern here? Is allegedly anti-science behavior of special interest when it’s done by groups that are stereotyped as ‘liberal’?
Has OP left us a subtle clue?
This leaves me even more confused about the ‘breastfeeding’ example as a ‘paradigm shift about science’s role.’ Could it be that your list of examples was borrowed from an essay on a different topic and you were too hasty in your editing? What could that other topic be? If I guessed ‘liberal hypocrisy’ would I be getting warm?
I recall a news item about a female legislator being asked to leave her legislative body when she was nursing her baby. I don’t remember the parties involved but would offer to bet money — were it allowed here at SDMB — that it was a D mother asked to leave by Rs.
It’s also a ridiculous example in this context because pro-breastfeeding liberal middle-class moms in general are not opposed to workplaces accommodating the breastfeeding needs of working-class moms.
No liberal mom is out there saying “It’s fine for someone of my social position to breastfeed, but those peasant kids need to get on the bottle ASAP so their mothers can get back to work on my manicure.”
I assume that the OP is mostly thinking of the US; where Anti-intellectualism has been growing a lot in recent years.
ISTM that scientists, particularly those still in academia, remain very highly respected across much of Europe, Asia and non-Europe western countries like Canada and Australia.
ETA: I think all the talk of farmer’s markets and breastfeeding and whatnot is polluting the thread a bit. There are many factors that influence such personal decisions, but the OP was about respect for science and scientists, and I think we’re losing focus.
Fair enuf, but it was the OP himself who brought up those topics in post #4 and continued talking about them in posts #7 and #38, so presumably the focus of those posts is where he wanted it.
Yeah, that post from the OP looks like tossing stuff to the wall to see if anything will stick.
But your post reminded me where I think the disconnect of the OP comes from, a lot of people from the right or even centrists are falling for conspiracy theories that disparage science, theories that many times are followed and distributed by moneyed interests or right wing media.
There are historical reports and studies that show how on many occasions the same “experts” that shilled for big tobacco shilled also for climate change denial. IMHO what is going on is the wilful transformation of science contrarianism into politically pure positions, so as to prevent reforms from taking place.
Besides the harm coming from not doing anything about tobacco or global warming, there are other problems added that come from politicizing contrarianism; like when eating Lays potato chips, you bet the transforming propaganda machine can not eat just one conspiracy, the crowd that was attracted to the ignorance and political partisanship is not as controllable as their makers think.
When you mentioned anti-vaccine craziness you pointed at yet another item that should not had been a political issue, just recently one could see left leaning and right leaning anti vaxxers almost in equal numbers, but thanks to the funded machinery of ignorance, many leaders among the republicans are falling for the anti vaxxine shrills and they are politicizing the issue, and we are seeing a transformation of yet another scientific subject that was not supposed to be politically divisive in real time.
> I assume that the OP is mostly thinking of the US; where Anti-intellectualism has been
> growing a lot in recent years.
I’m not convinced that anti-intellectualism has been growing in the U.S. I suspect that thinking this comes from watching news about certain political groups and not from actually surveying Americans. I’d be interested in better evidence of this.
I don’t know if this is the incident you were thinking of, but I remember reading about Trump being deposed when he was being sued, and one of the lawyers deposing him had to leave to express breast milk. Just seeing her breast pump (or maybe just hearing it mentioned?) caused him to freak out, because it was so icky to him.
Thanks, Kimstu. Note that what Mijin claimed was that anti-intellectualism was more common in the U.S. It would be nice to see some statistics that compare the U.S. and other countries in this respect. What I wonder about is if there is always a certain amount of anti-intellectualism around, but the way it’s expressed is different depending on the time and place. The book Anti-intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter is frequently mentioned in this regard, including in the link you give. Note that it was published in 1963. I said in one post that I thought that the height of pro-science feeling was in the late 1960’s, while AHunter3 said that it was in the early 1960’s. I now wonder if we all just remember that at some particular point in our life we respected science more and assumed that nearly everyone else did too.
I do *not *believe that anyone can assign a particular year to such highs and lows. It’s reasonable in hindsight to speak of a period, maybe a decade, in which culture changes, but that’s a mere generality. It’s clear that the 1920s saw a huge shift in dress and attitudes and the place of women in society, but it’s also true that many millions of Americans hated those changes and refused to accept them for themselves.
I assume you remember when being a science fiction fan put one outside of the mainstream and almost outside of society, even at the height of space age fever. Today, “nerd culture” is celebrated and is the source of the largest movie grosses, even though we’re in the midst of an anti-science period.
A lot of people didn’t understand science or math in high school. Maybe they did well enough to pass but then promptly forgot it all. Maybe it didn’t have any bearing on their adult lives that they could see. They might get hurt and science could help, but they can see a doctor—so they respect doctors. But as posted upthread, you can get doctors that will support a position for money so discerning among the opinions of many doctors isn’t so easy.
And math…how many are paying exorbitant interest on their credit cards because they don’t understand compound interest? Now it’s Venn diagram time: how many of those same people don’t understand a geometric progression and therefore think these small percentages are no cause for worry?
It seems like you are asserting that a person’s skill at math determines their likelihood of having high debt. If so can you provide a cite ?
As per the poverty action lab : “ A mounting body of evidence suggests that behavioral factors, such as lack of self-control and an inability to remain focused on achieving a financial goal, impede individuals’ ability to accumulate wealth”
Just to remind you that one of the earliest experiments in Behavioral Economics was to keep the box checked for 401k for new hires. They showed a vast improvement in retirement savings - irrespective of their math skills.
They also tried to give people on simple income like salaries a pre filled tax form by the IRS but Intuit lobbied against it.
“Determines” sounds like “causes,” but I certainly wouldn’t go that far.
Quoting:
*Losing interest. In a recent study, marketing professors Eric Eisenstein and Stephen Hoch found that most folks underestimated how much savings would grow and how much debt would end up costing.
The problem: People think in terms of simple interest, not compound interest. For instance, if our investments clock 8 percent a year for 10 years, we don’t earn 80 percent, as many people assume.*
and
“An early deficit in number system knowledge creates a weak foundation for later learning,” said lead author David Geary. “That weak foundation can lead to a lifetime of problems, not limited to reduced employment opportunities. Poor understanding of mathematical concepts can make a person easy prey for predatory lenders. Numerical literacy, or numeracy, also helps with saving for big purchases and managing mortgages and credit card debt.”
Keep the box checked?
It wouldn’t surprise me that some who don’t get math are aware that they don’t and they’re willing to rely on others to give them financial advice.
Based on things like the US being the center of anti-vax in the western world right now, and Trump being able to pull the US out of the Paris accords (in most countries, there would be an uproar and continual protests. In the US, enough people believed that hoax shit that it basically flew no problem).
People booing the word “science” in political rallies; I can’t imagine that happening for either side of the political spectrum in Europe.
And now with covid, which western country is the odd one out? Where do doctors have to tell people not to drink bleach?
Yes, we could argue this is following Trump’s lead, but Trump has such a big following because he appeals to a core of the american public that thinks like he does: my gut feeling is better than “so called” experts.
First, I’d like to see a cite from am77494 that this was one of the earliest experiments. It was relatively late, and was interesting because it was made into policy.
You’re right that math has nothing to do with it - it is a matter of defaults, where people tend to choose the default behavior because they assume there is a good reason for it. Thaler reports that when they did the box checking they made the default 2% of income going to 401Ks, and found that the money invested actually dropped because this became the default.
They’ve found plenty of this kind of behavior even for students with excellent math backgrounds. My daughter and I ran experiments three times during our tutorial and each time we saw a statistically significant anchoring effect on a room full of engineers, most with graduate degrees.
Umm, in the early '60s we kind of knew that science gave us the bomb.
If you asked a batch of Democratic presidential candidates whether they support traditional medicine, I think you’d get a pretty positive response. No one asks it, since it is a non-issue. On the other hand, if you remember, when they asked a similar question about evolution only one of the Republican candidates had the guts to say they accepted it. (Or was it two? Small minority, in any case.)
There are often going to be people freaking out about new methods. In 1972 in Cambridge there was a lot of worry about early recombinant DNA research at Harvard. However no monsters were bred and it is no longer a big concern. If only the same could be said of equally proven things like evolution and climate change.
But this is just the typical tactic of calling some fringe position the position of the entire left, while ignoring extreme positions that now actually are the position of the right, based on what their leaders say.
Movies like “The Andromeda Strain” and “The Stand” and even “Jurassic Park” make people nervous about just what nasty things scientists could be making in labs.Movies like “Terminator” make people nervous about AI.
Also I think there is a desire for things “Natural” and not artificial. People dont want artificial colors, flavors, or genetically altered food.
But if a scientist develops something that truly helps people and doesnt make it for war or for profit, they are for it.
Not clear to me. Vaccines truly help and are often developed withut profit motive, yet they are opposed. Without GMO’s people would go hungry, yet they are opposed. Modern nuclear reactors are key to cleaner energy, yet they are opposed.
Modern weapon systems are built for war and for profit, but don’t attract much opposition.
“Modern weapon systems don’t attract much opposition”? Are you forgetting the whole nuclear disarmament movement, for example? The Plowshares folks are still active.
So as far as general public opinion is concerned, there is in fact quite a bit more opposition to, say, nuclear weapons than to vaccines. You just don’t notice it if you’re only looking at attention-grabbing controversial movements fueled by vocal minorities.
“Modern weapon systems don’t attract much opposition”? Are you forgetting the whole nuclear disarmament movement, for example? The