There’s a consensus among scientists: Genetically modified foods and pesticides are safe to eat, humans caused climate change, and animal research is necessary.
The general public disagrees about every single one of those statements.
Pew Research Center just released its 2015 report on the state of science in the United States, and the results are…disappointing. The thrust of the 93-page behemoth is that scientists have dedicated their lives to developing informed theories about the world around us—and the general public is unimpressed.
If nothing else, this research reminds us that scientific priorities really do transcend politics. Although conservatives often get a bad rap for voting against science—a reputation that climate skeptics totally deserve—the data show that a bunch of steadfast liberal values are pretty anti-science, too.
For instance, it should drive you crazy when anti-GMO Democrats call out Republican climate deniers, because neither of them have the scientific community in their corner.
Fortunately, according to the Pew data, we can all agree on a few broad points. Both citizens and scientists say the government should continue to fund scientific research. And both recognize the importance of science education (while sharing the belief that we need to make it better).
If you run into a Physicist ask him/her/it how the Higg's Boson became the Higg's Field? OOPS!
ReplyDeleteScientists require funding or jobs therefore they are controlled by their need for money and who they work for. People need to stop thinking that a doctor or scientist is a moral profession because under the rules of capitalism it cannot be.
ReplyDeleteIf America had a research arm of the government and all studies had to be supplied to that body and approved by said body with Congressional oversight then perhaps science could officially be consider a noble career but as it stands today a scientist is a scumbag who uses their perceived stature in society to deceive the public...at least that is how I read this report. That is how Wall Street uses scientists.
Oh looky! A group of them just said drinking fracking chemicals is safe for you in California!
And radiation fallout from Japan is also safe and all those mass-marine life kills have nothing to do with Fukishima and cancer-causing chemo drugs are safer than anything some crazy doctor in Texas could come with.
I am more interested in asking why the Big Bang is still considered science?
ReplyDelete'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' (Upton Sinclair)
ReplyDeleteScience is completely sold out.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think scientists are more intellegent than the rest of the people, they are NOT more neither smarter nor able to reefine anythng they have "learned" and sticks to it as Pavlovs Dogs, if they ever uinderstands this analogy, witch I dont think they can. They will never and have never bitten the hand that feeds them, indepndence is cirtually non existing, almoust everything is corrupt, some not even science but religion in disquse.
ReplyDeleteScientists are usually narrow minded and narrowly eductaed, aka idiot servants.
Bigg bang, well, its as AGW a religion, and as AGW it have nothing to do with reality, nor science, BB is a egosentric belife in our exeptionalism in a otherwise "dead" universe.
And the even wurse, is the "scientific prof" of this BB, that one is downright hillariously idiotic, to even think, as they do, that if their intitale Redsfitf bollocs where true, the Earth is the center of the hole f..... universe, thats the Redshits bollocs tells us, everywhere its expanding, from OUR point, witch is by any means a fallacy.
Capice.
The stupidity never ends, and artificiale intellegence is one of them, I havent read anything that changes my mind, as to the moronic babbeling about a bucket of transistores can be intellegent, that is pure pseudo-science, along with Psycologicall scams.
Alternate universe, well, eat some mushrooms and you talk to ants, belive me you do.
You could even have enlightened intelegent conversation with ants, they are highly intellegent creatures, above the mojrety of the so called peak of evolution, hehe, the heap of shitt called humans.
And to the neofaudalistic darwinian hooligans, what did C. Darwin him self wrote in the latest editions of his "master work", tell me, "evolutionistas", I know, but I know you dont.
Since I am an IDiot.
Humans this days is a pathetic creature, creating wars and ruins the wolrd in every sence.
Another stupid bread, whom is on track to wipe them selfs out.
Hurray, what an itellegent specie.
The science is so full of crapp, that even the fundament is totally rotten, its not even true, and the staggering level of arogance and with Ignroance the path to doom is certain.
I was a science freek, but lost intress years ago, and very litle have since then happened, exept the level of psedo science in the MSM/internett is downright staggering, incl the uttelry bonkers perseption of the allacy if vacsines, witch dont work at all if you wana help people, this is not helping anyone exept the large medic corps.
Nobody else.
peace
the Shirky Principle, named after a statement by Clay Shirky that:
ReplyDelete"Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution."
Most scientific research is funded by the gubment.
ReplyDeleteThrough agencies controlled by former industries leaders they are meant to regulate.
ReplyDelete"Moral profession because under the rules of capitalism it cannot be"
ReplyDeleteSo, can you point to any "moral" scientists working outside capitalism?
Eva Longoria; if you count social sciences and economics as science.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latinpost.com/articles/26323/20141121/eva-longoria-produced-food-chains-documentary-brings-hope-immokalee-florida.htm
She has done more for humanity than G.E. has done in ten years.
That's another reason why we need to bring back trade unions.
ReplyDeleteOK, it's a stretch.
ReplyDeleteSo, where would Longoria's activism career be without the nurturing teat of Hollywood?
Hollywood...capitalist? No, it's the antithesis of capitalism, yessirree.
Also, If I count her as a scientist, then Ghandi, MLK, all good schoolteachers, Mother Theresa, Chavez, and Raul and Fidel Castro should probably also be counted.
Totally agree with you about pretty much ANYBODY doing more for humanity than G.E.
But in my original question, I was referring to the type of scientist who needs to do maths, physics, stats, or all three every day to keep their job, in addition to regularly publishing papers on this or that.
Otherwise, my always-friendly and community-minded-help-the-poor postman would have to be classed as a sort of a scientist, too.
Oh, and cows! A...and pigs, and horses, too! And sunlight, and rain! Where would humanity be without those?
I guess for the same reason other religions are classed as science?
ReplyDeleteDark matter?
ReplyDeleteYes, GOOD trade unions. With teeth!
ReplyDeleteMy trade union is a bit supine most of the time.
Plato.
ReplyDeleteWhen it should be, "Lupine," and "Heliac," as in, all night, all day.
ReplyDeleteMankind has been here before and won the advantage. We can do it again.
Or the weakness of man in his pursuit of truth?
ReplyDelete"MORAL,"
ReplyDelete...being that which is found within not without; therefore instinctual, communal. sacra-sanct.
Yes, If I'm not mistaken, Plato had the advantage of a fairly free political system, no Federal Reserve Bank, no EPA, FDA, global surveillance, and the ability to do science for the good of mankind instead of for the good of the 1% whilst still eating and paying his rent.
ReplyDeleteActually, if it weren't for "Republic" we wouldn't have names for all the ways we are being screwed today!
Thanks, Plato!
I'm thinking, a good political science paper title would be "Could Plato survive in 21st Century western culture?"
I highly doubt Plato would survive in our modern farce of politics!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the quick Google tutorial!
ReplyDelete"sacra-sanct"
I have a question;
What's the difference between sacra-sanct and sacrosanct?
Also, there are a few scientists, such as James Hansen, who might be better suited to being activists or philosophers. Indeed, at least in his case it appears to have occurred to him, and he left the NGISS, and seems to be practicing his activism/philosophy at Columbia now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher
Yes, I'm pretty sure he'd at least have a hard time with the media.
ReplyDeleteI sure hope so!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see scientists as kept by patrons, where the patron doesn't really give a hoot whether the science the scientist does agrees with the patron's agenda or not.
The hardest!
ReplyDeleteHe might say, or other authors of his time might conclude;
"Kronos saw the advance of civilization as uncivilized and so moved to continue it."
Dialectic parsing.
ReplyDeleteAt whence doth one come to become that which is whence a cometh?
ReplyDeleteThe circle of logic always comes home,
The logic is circular, science is flawed because science cannot explain everything all at once, the theory of everything is a cycle of mathematics which in itself infers a circle therefore circular logic...and on and on and on ad infinitum.
I am with you.