this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
139 points (96.6% liked)

Science

3155 readers
1 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
139
Study finds American trust in scientific expertise survived polarization and previous administration's attack on science (phys.org)
submitted 8 months ago by ZeroCool@slrpnk.net to c/science@mander.xyz
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A new analysis shows that trust in scientific expertise among the American public remained high during the last six decades and that the Trump administration attacks on scientific expertise did not modify the basic confidence of Americans in science and scientific expertise.

The study, "Citizen attitudes toward science and technology, 1957–2020: Measurement, stability, and the Trump challenge," was published in the journal Science and Public Policy.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The views and actions of the Trump administration with regard to such topics as climate change, environmental protection, and the COVID-19 pandemic were widely condemned as a Republican war on science. But even among conservative Republicans, the proportion with a high level of trust in scientific expertise rose more between 2016 and 2020 than the proportion with a low level of trust.

So the hypocritical cult seekritly still believe in science while still drinking bleach and horse de-wormer.

I guess we’re supposed to be relieved or something.

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 5 points 8 months ago

Which just means they're complicit.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Between '16-20? But must of the bullshit happened '20 onwards. Not really a relevant sample, IMO.

[–] conquer4@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

16-19 was mostly fraud and abuse, it wasn't until the pandemic that the stupids started dying because of a lack of trust that science works.

[–] bmsok@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The beauty of the scientific method is that you get the chance to be wrong as long as your hypothesis sounds plausible. You're allowed to explore and innovate.

Failure and success can both advance knowledge. You just have to know when to say "Well, that didn't work... what if we try this?"

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay, but are we talking real science or Dr. Oz science?

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

Yes, I wondered if his base were excluded from the poll.

[–] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Science, the mode of inquiry, is great and generally requires a broad consensus before something is accepted. Singular studies should be processed with a few grains of salt—academics aren’t immune to bias or faulty reasoning.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Press X to doubt.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So a scientific study finds that people still trust science, and your reaction is to disbelieve that study based on your personal feelings.

Ironic.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Science isn't to be trusted. It's to be checked on. We're not out here advocating for appeals to authority.

[–] natecheese@kbin.melroy.org -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I generally have a pretty high trust in science, but my faith is shaken when I come across shit like this

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

One person does something bad and you doubt the entire discipline?

Accept that perfect doesn't exist. Some people will make mistakes. Some will be outright evil. But science is the best method we have for understanding the world around us. Nobody has ever come up with a better way.

[–] natecheese@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

One person doing something bad? You clearly didn't read the article.

And to suggest that our scientific research institutions shouldn't be scrutinized or there isn't room to improve the process is a little naive.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

You think this suggests there should be no scrutiny?

Accept that perfect doesn't exist. Some people will make mistakes. Some will be outright evil. But science is the best method we have for understanding the world around us. Nobody has ever come up with a better way.

Understanding that there will be mistakes and bad actors means taking care to scrutinize. That's why we have things like peer review.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago

And to suggest that our scientific research institutions shouldn't be scrutinized or there isn't room to improve the process is a little naive.

But ey didn't suggest that 🤔

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago

This was an amazing read, although that doesn't mean that science is somehow at fault in this. As usual, it's people and bureaucratic institutions that make this possible, but it's also people who find it out and call con-artists out