When Scientists Are Gullible Activists
Here are some reasons trust in science has been dwindling.

"Trust the science," say the media.
Polls show that fewer Americans do.
There's good reason for that.
"They don't trust science because science is increasingly untrustworthy," says science writer Andrew Follett in my new video. "The only group that trusts science right now is Democrats."
Sixty-four percent of Democrats have "a great deal" of confidence in the scientific community, compared to 34 percent of Republicans.
Of course, true science—using the scientific method—is important. But that's not what much of "science" is these days.
Instead, today government science is misused by progressive politicians.
Example 1: Environmental activists want to limit commercial fishing. They want Congress to pass what they call the "Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act." It claims climate change is the "greatest threat to America's national security" and offers a dubious solution: Close more of the ocean to commercial fishing.
The administration's deputy director of climate and environment, Jane Lubchenco, told Congress that a scientific paper concludes that closing more of the ocean can actually increase catches of fish.
Really? That doesn't seem logical.
It isn't. The paper was retracted. One scientist called its logic "biologically impossible."
Also, Lubchenco didn't tell Congress that the paper was written by her brother-in-law! And edited by her!
Did the White House punish Lubchenco for her ethics violations? No. In fact, after her testimony, she was appointed co-head of President Joe Biden's Scientific Integrity Task Force!
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences banned her for five years. Yet she's still on the White House's Scientific Integrity Task Force.
Sadly, much of what's called science today is simply left-wing advocacy.
"New fields like fat studies, African studies, Latinx studies, queer studies," says Follett, "are essentially entirely fake."
Fake? Well, they must be. "Experts" in those fields keep being fooled by people who submit gibberish.
Example 2: A ridiculous paper, "Embracing Fatness as Self-Care in the Era of Trump," was accepted by Massey University's "Fat Studies" conference. The conference then invited the paper's author, "Sea Matheson," to speak.
Attendees gave Matheson's speech rave reviews, praising the paper's description of Donald Trump's "fatphobia" and inviting Matheson to review other work submitted to their "scientific" journal, Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society.
But Matheson is no scientist. "She" is actually comedian Steven Crowder, who disguised himself as an overweight woman to expose "ivory tower quackery."
Crowder is just the latest person to fool today's so-called science journals. James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose submitted nonsense papers to "grievance studies" journals like Fat Studies, Sexuality & Culture, and Sex Roles.
Seven accepted ridiculous papers.
One that took a section of Mein Kampf but replaced references to "National Socialism" with "feminism," was accepted by Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.
Gender, Place & Culture accepted a paper that claimed there is rape culture at dog parks.
Follett blames this perversion of science on government. Its science agencies, like much of America, have been taken over by leftists hungry to promote themselves and their agenda.
In science, the way to promote yourself is to get papers published. That often gets you more funding. Government agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) provide most of that funding.
"Nobody wants to publish something that goes against the paymaster," says Follett. "You don't get published unless the NSF likes your results."
Example 3: The NSF gave nearly half a million dollars to a team that wrote a paper questioning glacier science because it "stems from knowledge created by men."
Absurdities are pushed by the right, too. Some people still claim that man plays no part in climate change or that the climate isn't warming at all. Some say vaccines don't work. But the right's junk science doesn't get backed by government funds.
I'm angry that my tax dollars go to support leftist nonsense.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't care. That's probably because they don't know that government throws so much money at ridiculous progressive advocacy.
"We'll all start caring when the bridges start falling down and the planes start crashing," says Follett. "That's the inevitable end result of this."
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Where's our national apology from the CDC?
Fauci already told you he never recommended lock downs. Stop blaming him. Ignore his public statements.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this web-page… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu--217) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Correction: Fauci said he would have recommended harder lockdowns and restrictions. I guess that lets him off the hook for what happened.
And, oddly, that could have worked. But when so many exceptions are allowed, you get ... two years of fun.
In the same folder, marked "ultra top secret" with Joe Biden's cognitive test results.
Well if it’s top secret, I bet trump stole a copy!
It will be issued on the 4th Tuesday after the 12th of Never.
February 30th.
How about a study on why every solution to 'global climate warming change' involves government regulation of individual behavior and/or business activity?
Because we're stuck on the same planet. Sorry, Kiddo.
You can tell it’s working if it makes someone’s life less enjoyable.
Poor Joe Friday.
Come on a hunting trip with us and find out how that is not always true.
Does it start on a paddle board behind Mar del Lago, led by Eric and Donald Jr, and end up inside a python in the Everglades?
Because otherwise you evil capitalist would pick your favorite people's to save.
/Actual progtard logic.
Right. Only lefty elitists get to decide who is worthy.
Or why every problem requires the same solution?
Ever think of that?
It is the ultimate example of "when all you have is a hammer".
Toady makes excuses as the world burns. Film at 11.
sarcasmic continues to suck cocks. No end in sight, say scientists.
You're here. Therefore, I guess that makes you the dickless loser, dork.
You mean like the end of the world last year? Or the one before that? Or the one before that?
Fuck off.
>>"The only group that trusts science right now is Democrats."
lol ask a (D) about conception.
And HOW did you conceive this idea? Is it the product of your fertile mind, or somehow otherwise the product of your fartile imagination?
(I, too, am pregnant with great ideas!)
my fartile imagination keeps me young.
Or gender. Or actual climate history. Or (getting into technology here) energy and resource supply.
No they are big on science in the same way the church was.
So long as the science is both serving their goals, and being dictated by a member of their clergy, they REALLY FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
If it happens to bring up uncomfortable questions, then it is clearly heresy
Stossel cultivates submissive ostriches who daydream about Timothy McVeigh.
HOW can you inveigh against HEROES like Timothy McVeigh, whose spirit is still with us, guarding us against the child-molesting covens of witches, who gather darkly, in pizza joints, to conspire against us all!?!?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory ... Beware!!! Wiki-pedophilia is a part of the conspiracy!!!
(I am "channeling" the Dark Side here, actually.)
It really enhances the funny when you reply to yourself from your other sockpuppets, sarcasmic. Keep it up bro. By the time you make it out of that rescue mission I wouldn't be surprised if Jon Stewart is booking you as an opening act!
^ Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a prima facie example of stupid.
Now put your mask on, sarcasmic. Remember how you spent 2 and a half years telling us that every person who went outside without a mask was a "dick" who was personally responsible for killing your grandmother? Good times.
Hi Jason!
It doesn't help that there is an implicit conspiracy between much of the left and the right to wreck proper science education and critical thinking at the HS level.
Cite?
Psychology is apparently as rigorous a science as astrology. See the Nature Magazine study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
Yup. Psychologists are experts in confirmation bias. They do a fantastic job of setting up studies that prove their hypothesis. They're really bad at framing studies in a way to test rigorously.
If the 97% positive or correct being converted to a 36% positive or correct upon replication is any indication, they're not just good at confirmation bias, they're decent at setting up studies to give you/them the wrong answer.
What does that matter, shreek? The kids you fuck are usually still learning arithmetic and spelling.
Fuck off, sockpeasant
Suck on my sphincter, kiddie fucker.
Oh the left is wrecking it much earlier nowadays.
They are ensuring kids dont even understand what gender they are as young as kindergarten
Science-disdaining, half-educated, roundly bigoted, gullible, delusional right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Carry on, clinger. So far as better Americans permit, that is.
Same, I'm very much looking forward to you joining your comrades in arms in a pile of mangled flesh while a teenage boy changes mags.
I will celebrate your replacement -- like that of every antisocial, bigoted, delusional, disaffected, obsolete right-winger -- with a fine beer.
Yeah, a fine beer from People's Brewery #17.
LOL nice
It is you of the Left who distain science:
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I?ll delete the file rather than send to anyone." Phil Jones, Climategate email #1107454306
"PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !" Phil Jones to Mann, Bradley, and Hughes - Climategate email 1109021312.txt
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" - Climategate email #1089318616.txt
Sorry, that was ment to be a reply to Kirkland
According to Wingnut.com science is a liberal NWO globalist plot to replace Bible-loving Christian Trump citizens with pointy-headed geeks who do research.
According to everyone, you should be shunned.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
Look, it is another QAnon Pizzagate Trump Big Government bootlicker.
Anyone opposed to Der Dotard is a kiddy porn enthusiast.
No, just the people who actually posted dark web links to hardcore child pornography, shreek. Like you, for example. Because you posted dark web links to hardcore child pornography.
Look, the hicklib pederast tries to pretend he's not a hicklib pederast.
Weird, he does not refer to others as kiddie porn afficianados. Just you.
OBL does you better.
Coming soon to a theater near you: Sylvester Stallone as Doctor Fauci in "Doc Dredd - I Am the Science"
One Scientist to Rule Them All... ALL of us subject matters, that is! We should consider ourselves fortunate to still (for at least a little while?) be allowed to know of their "findings" about quantum gravity, and reality becoming problematized, and what-not.
https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal
"In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science -- among them, existence itself -- become problematized and relativized."
I strongly recommend Intellectual Impostures, the book that Sokal and Bricusse wrote after that.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19045719-intellectual-impostures
Thanks!
sarcasmic self-admittedly was too stupid to finish Economics In One Lesson. He'd be in remedial lessons longer than you should be in jail for peddling child pornography just to get past the table of contents, kiddie fucker.
A double bill with,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66890686@N02/51237482431/
All this would be solved if degrees weren't democratized.
Trans and genderqueer youth who use petroleum jelly or vegetable shortening as a lubricant for masturbation or anal sex are more likely to suffer adverse consequences due to anxiety of these products role in climate change. Also, the white color of these products is associated with White Supremacy, further increasing anxiety in genderqueer and trans youth.
Now can you please renew my grant?
The GOP has always hated science, Stossel.
Their longtime party leader Fat Rush Limbaugh (Praise Be Unto Him) told the riffraff that science was a liberal lie for 30 years.
Tell us again about how Manhattan will be under 13 feet of water by 2015 and a man with intact testes and a penis can become a biological woman by wearing a padded bra, kiddie fucker.
So called Climate Change activists gave the game away when they designed a Green New Deal which provided for people unwilling to work. Of course a decade earlier Obama gave the game away by appointing Van Jones as "Climate Czar", a boilerplate left wing activist with no experience in climate science.
The simple truth is that Climate Change is used as a justification for left wing political preferences which will have no effect on climate change. That's why leftists won't explain their policies, instead they demogogue their opponents with claims they want people to die. They have to distract from the reality that their proposed policies will have no impact.
This is much like their spending a trillion dollars on Obamacare claiming they were going to solve a host of issues (9, if I recall correctly) including universal coverage and reducing total health costs. Only one of these goals was even improved upon, much less met, but Dems still consider the policy a success. Why? Because the real goals were to (1) establish that government can control essentially everything involved in a business including pricing, what product may be offered, and essentially any other term, and (2) control the spending to ensure it flows to politically loyal constituencies.
1. People have noticed that the world is getting warmer. Who cares what you or Van Jones have to say about it? The younger generations know the olds don't care or were too dumb to sus it out.
2. People have noticed that they need medicine. Moan about socialism, people don't give a shit about your excuses on behalf of the greedheads who would watch the average citizen die in the street.
People have noticed that you're a lying passive aggressive faggot bitch too, sarcasmic. The only difference is that the world isn't actually getting any warmer in geologic time scales, while you most assuredly are a lying passive aggressive faggot bitch.
Why does it matter if the world is getting warmer?
Because it kills polar bears and makes little Greta sad.
The sad thing about Greta is that she's just repeating what she saw on TV. Consider TV programs about a subject you know, history in my case. It's the most vapid, unscientific, biased, extreme assertions devoid of any balance.
And this is who the left holds out as their expert: a child who regurgitates TV propaganda. In their defense she knows as much about the subject as 98% of them.
The basis for COVID restrictions was a science project by a 14-year-old girl.
These people often shared a meme of a man with a lab coat, telling people we can not be skeptical of COVID claims because we do not have degrees and lab coats, never mind that the whole idea of pandemic restrictions came from a high school freshman who was under the age of consent!
Are owls the only things that you can continue to beat you off, Jason?
1. People have noticed that the world is getting warmer. Who cares what you or Van Jones have to say about it? The younger generations know the olds don't care or were too dumb to sus it out.
See what I mean? Leftists don't care that their proposals don't actually address global warming, and to prevent people from focusing on this fact they demonize in lieu of develop a workable policy. They apparently think young people are so stupid they will support their policies even though they won't reduce global warming. This works when they're very young and under the constant bombardment of propaganda and completely devoid of rational voices. But when they get out of the closed and controlled environment of universities they tend to realize things don't work as leftists claim they do. That's why as people age they leave leftism, they learn that wanting to do something isn't the same as doing it.
People have noticed that they need medicine. Moan about socialism, people don't give a shit about your excuses on behalf of the greedheads who would watch the average citizen die in the street.
Same process. Socialism sucks because it degrades service delivery, and over time this matter greatly. It's much better to start off in a hole that improves over time than to start off better but degrade. But instead of debating this issue they announce the only reason to oppose socialism is greed, when in fact socialism fosters greed because controlling government brings wealth and power.
Leftists are both stupid and demagogues.
They want wealth redistribution and will disguise it as anything.
re: 1 - And it's been getting warmer since the coldest part of the last Ice Age (which the planet is still emerging from). Talk about "too dumb to sus it out."
re: 2 - People need medicine - so let's promote the one policy that minimizes the incentives to create and deliver that medicine. It's more important to be equal (in this case, equally sick or equally dead) than to be healthy or happy.
Cancer is a good subject to illustrate this. There's a lot of experimental cancer research going on right now trying to address individual cancers. Not just identify the type but testing cancer drawn from a specific patient to determine the best treatment for that same patient. Obviously this is expensive and not available to average people. But if the process turns into a success it will help categorize many cancers into treatable buckets with the best treatments already identified.
The process is analogous to new technology price skimming. When HD TVs first came out they were outrageously expensive and only the rich had them. But the development and process improvement these rich people funded led general availability for reasonable prices within a decade or two. Rather than recognize we are free riding on the development these rich people are paying for we demonize them because the only thing the left understands is envy.
Libertarians are dickless losers is a lying pile of lefty shit.
""1. People have noticed that the world is getting warmer.""
Of course it is. It's been warming since the end of the ice age. The earth moves between greenhouse earth (no ice on the caps) to icehouse earth (mostly covered in ice). The earth has done this five times. No humans involved.
The climate on earth has never been static. And for some reason many people think that the climate on earth has always been within parameter to support humans. As if that climate condition is the earth's natural state. It's not.
The idea that humans ARE the cause climate change is disproven by history.
I believe we should be good tenants of this planet. We should work to reduce our footprint. But liberals are screwing that up by tying it to their wealth redistribution schemes.
"People have noticed that the world is getting warmer."
...except it is not. People believe false things regularly.
"The younger generations know the olds don't care or were too dumb to sus it out."
Yes, the "I can change my sex by wanting it really bad" are the apex of scientism. Really, they are.
Climate change is just a secular religion. Nothing more. And a bunch of grifters are relying on that to make money.
"People have noticed that they need medicine. Moan about socialism, people don't give a shit about your excuses on behalf of the greedheads who would watch the average citizen die in the street."
Except that did not happen and Obamacare did nothing to alleviate the problems.
Nice to see a walking embodiment of cliches and talking points like you doing something with your life.
The simple truth is that Climate Change is used as a justification for left wing political preferences which will have no effect on climate change.
Yep. Global Warming. Global Cooling. Inequality. Whatever the problem is, the solution is always the same: total government control.
That's why leftists won't explain their policies, instead they demogogue their opponents with claims they want people to die.
Aren't you doing that right now?
That may well be true but it's still an argument from consequences. Arrhenius (and others) hypothesised global warming long before the US left and right got into unscientific wrestling matches about it.
Lead in petrol is another example of where many on the right rejected the science because they didn't like the consequences.
You need to separate science from policy.
I do. Would that others did. What I observe is science being rejected because it conflicts with policy or it has a policy implication that many people would reject.
Science and policy are presented as one and the same. If you disagree with policy you're accused of disagreeing with science.
Looks like the bromance is over. And just when you two were getting along so well, each on your respective socks.
On the other hand, I've come across almost no-one on the right in the US who is willing even to propose a policy to deal with GW because that would require acknowledging the science. IIRC McCain was in favour of carbon credits but that was a long tme ago.
Just make the whole planet freezing cold all year long.
Carl Sagan and four other scientists mathematically proved this was possible with early 1980's technology.
You are inserting an assumption that "the science" says there's a problem that needs to be dealt with. That is a logical fallacy.
- The science says the planet is warming. Since it's been warming somewhat consistently since the end of the Little Ice Age, that's hardly a surprising conclusion.
- The science says that at least part of the increase is human-caused. Since climate includes micro-climate and since human-caused includes the urban heat island effect, this also is unsurprising.
- The science does not actually say that the human-caused component is large (though there are some hypotheses that do) nor that human-released CO2 is dominant. In fact, the science is at best conflicted on this point. The null hypothesis (that CO2 doesn't matter) has not yet been excluded.
- The science does say that IF CO2 is the driver of climate, it must do so indirectly - by increasing the fraction of other greenhouse gases, principally water vapor. The predictions that flow from this hypothesis have not yet been observed despite rather a lot of looking.
- Many other predictions flowing from the catastrophic-anthropogenic global warming hypothesis have failed.
- Many of the most widely-publicized studies supporting that hypothesis have been shown to have significant errors in statistics and data handling.
The science says the planet is warming. Since it's been warming somewhat consistently since the end of the Little Ice Age, that's hardly a surprising conclusion.
But the warming has accelerated in the last 150 years
The science does not actually say that the human-caused component is large (though there are some hypotheses that do) nor that human-released CO2 is dominant.
We know for a fact that the rise in CO2 from about 270ppm to over 400ppm. I agree, the component is small, but what you're overlooking is variation. Almost all the factors contributing to current surface temperatures are more significant than the increase in CO2. But almost all the variation - increase - in surface temperature is due to that increase in CO2. By analogy, suppose you have a bath that's almost full, and you pull the plug but turn on the cold water tap so that the amount of water from the tap equals exactly the amount of water going down the drain. The bath system is in equilbrium. Now turn on the hot water just a very small amount. Sooner or later the bath will overflow. The cold water (and previous flow) contributed far more to the overall volume of water in the bath, but it's the addition of the hot water that gor the bath to overflow.
In fact, the science is at best conflicted on this point. The null hypothesis (that CO2 doesn't matter) has not yet been excluded.
Have you a recent scientific paper to support this claim? And do you at least agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
The science does say that IF CO2 is the driver of climate, it must do so indirectly - by increasing the fraction of other greenhouse gases, principally water vapor.
That's flatly untrue. CO2 can have direct effects as any greenhouse gas will, and the indirect effects add feedback to the system. (IIRC Lindzen has claimed that the feedback is negative, but I could be wrong.)
The predictions that flow from this hypothesis have not yet been observed despite rather a lot of looking.
Oh, this is simply bullshjt.
"We know for a fact that the rise in CO2 from about 270ppm to over 400ppm" is human caused.
SRG, the direct warming from CO2 is roughly 0.5C per doubling of concentration. This is easy and can be measured in a gas chamber. This means that from CO2 alone, we should expect from 250 ppm to 1000 ppm (ie: all the coal in the world) to be roughly 1C of warming.
The IPCC's estimations of high warming are due to multiplier effects from water vapor. These tend to ignore the feedback mechanisms other than direct radiative absorption because the convective effects of the water cycle actually cause cooling.
More importantly, the "C" in catastrophic anthrogenic global warming is the biggest problem. The negative effects of warming are heavily questioned, since due to its nature, the warming is concentrated in reduced minimums not increased maximums, and the IPCC's various models are directly contradictory as to what will happen on small scales. "Trust the science" despite "the science" explicitly saying that it has no clue what will happen.
The result has been that any and all weather effects are blamed on global warming. Any change at all is considered proof, when the variability of the weather is a common saying going back to antiquity.
It takes a small mind to believe there's a magic bullet to accomplish anything we want.
"On the other hand, I've come across almost no-one on the right in the US who is willing even to propose a policy to deal with GW because that would require acknowledging the science. IIRC McCain was in favour of carbon credits but that was a long tme ago."
Which makes it clear what a lying pile of shit you are.
Plenty of those on the right are more than happy to convert to lower emission power plants like NG or nuclear, but the watermelons are not about to accept those sorts of solutions,
Heck, I'm all for doing away with heating in the NE as that is dramatically more wasteful than heating in the South (takes more energy to warm by over 50 degrees than to cool by less than 30) and to eliminate AC and heat for all government employees.
Rejection draconian government policies proposed as ways to save the world doesn't equal rejection of science.
True. Rejection of science for fear that a problem identified by science may require draconian policies to resolve is also inappropriate.
We differ on that word "require".
Policy is force. It's men who use violence.
That should be the last resort, not the first.
Pretty much all government policy that is not a policy of inaction has, ultimately, the threat of force for non-compliance.
Would you deny that typhoid existed to prevent Mary from being incarcerated?
Aren't you doing that right now?
No, I am describing their actions and processes.
There is a large difference between science and "SCIENCE!" One is the actual thing being discussed in the article, the latter is what the left pushes for their own purposes because they just heckin' love SCIENCE! Once you're able to differentiate that, you'll be fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
A few phrases that don't happen in science:
"It's settled."
"Shut up an accept what we say."
"We had a vote and you're wrong."
A few other phrases that don't occur
Hypothesis X is rejected because were it true, adverse consequences would result.
Hypothesis Y appears likely because 65% of voters think it's true.
The experiment establishes hypothesis Z concerning the efficacy of this drug (n=1)
You need to work on that comment. It made no sense.
Or, more accurately, you can't come up with a rebuttal.
It's all over the place. What is there to reply to? Get a cohesive thought together, then make a response.
Still no intelligent rebuttal.
Actually, it did make sense and he just described how the entire COVID response from the CDC, the blue state governors and most of the western world was rolled out.
Literally.
In fact, I know this story is too local, but the Canadian government, after being sued, admitted that none of the Trudeau travel restrictions were even remotely based on science, and were done via opinion polling. No shit. Real story.
First, I think that the distrust of science is overstated by most people who likely rely on science in their day to day lives. Unless you are the Amish you probably trust science enough to drive a car. You take medicine prescribed by your doctor and you use laundry detergent shown to clean 98% better than your old brand. There are huge areas of science that are controversial, like theoretical physics and astrophysics, but for most people these controversies don't affect day to day life.
What people don't trust is science that disagrees with their politics and beliefs. This is true of both the left and the right. This can create dangerous stalemates as the right don't want to accept that climate change needs to be addressed, while the left won't accept that nuclear power is going to be needed as part of the solution. What science requires is an ability to change your beliefs when presented with evidence and that is the hard part.
It's not science that people distrust, it's experts. Science is a process, it's the democratization of knowledge in a way because literally everyone can use it. You can perform your own experiments, your own studies to verify things.
What people don't trust are experts who tell them they know better and have the answers, because too many experts have gone beyond their fields of expertise. Virologists and epidemiologists who aren't studies of economics, statistics, or market behavior offered "two weeks to flatten the curve" well before the curve was fully spiking, and then stretched that out for months. They recommended mask mandates without understanding the fact that people would not use proper masks in a proper fashion and that whole population doing this would have adverse affects.
Fuck experts who dictate solutions. Their role in a society is to advance knowledge in their field of expertise and share it, and then let everyone else decide what to do with the information.
It's not science that people distrust, it's experts.
But what if the expert IS science itself? Like Fauci?
Well, if you don't vote for him then you aren't black, or something like that.
What people don't trust is science that disagrees with their politics and beliefs.
Or when complex issues which require dramatic interventions into the daily lives of average people are stated as "settled".
You are conflating science with engineering. There's remarkably little science in your car or laundry detergent. Certainly nothing that is subject to current investigation and debate.
There is a reproducibility crisis in medicine that is beginning to be well-documented - and people are starting to mistrust that "science" regardless of their politics.
However, as Stossel above (and Thinking Mind below) already says, the lack of trust is not in "science" but in experts who claim to speak for "science" and make claims far beyond their actual knowledge and expertise. There is also a loss of trust in the "good" experts who do not personally make claims beyond their expertise but who remain silent and do not challenge when their peers make those invalid claims.
"Science" is not anyone in front of the camera while wearing a lab coat and with a couple initials after their name.
Amish abstain from using machinery and electricity, because they want to be close to nature and appreciate doing labor. They prefer simplicity and modesty. They don’t reject science or technology when their needs require it.
One either trusts science, or one trusts in the received wisdom of their betters. The true elitism is blind trust in your betters. Here in America we were supposed to get away from the whole idea of our betters.
The "science" Stossel is talking about, what most people mean when they say the don't trust the "science", is not actually science.
Science is a process, not an established orthodoxy of authoritative facts. I trust the science in that it's the best process we have for approaching factual truth of the world around us. So I do trust the science, but that doesn't mean I trust scientists who have been captured by the political system. Hell, I don't trust scientists further than I can throw them, just like I don't trust human beings in general. But what I like about science as opposed to the received wisdom of my betters, is that science manages a level of objectivity that human beings do not possess.
Show me peer reviewed data and I will trust it. Not wholly, but enough that it counts. I trust it because it is falsifiable, not because it is Established Trvth. But I won't trust any politician or political functionary. Not even ones I would vote for.
Yes indeed.
The reproducibility crisis is showing that even peer-reviewed data (sometimes justly lampooned as "pal-reviewed") should not be trusted either.
But yeah, the scientific method is the least-bad system we've figured out so far. You just have to understand it - and be tolerant of the mess along the way.
But yeah, the scientific method is the least-bad system we've figured out so far. You just have to understand it - and be tolerant of the mess along the way.
Unfortunately in general non-scientists are not like that. The idea that a result is probable but you have to be prepared to change your mind when new information comes in is utterly alien to most people - they would if anything regard that as a weakness of science rather than a strength. And people tend not to think in probabilistic terms.
I think AGW has an extremely high probability of being true - and wearing my old risk management hat, certainly sufficiently likely that taking mitigating steps is warranted. But it is also possible - with a very low probability - that recent years are merely random anomalies, that recent droughts and floods are simple concatenations of unlikely events, and that in a few years' time temperatures revert to the last century's mean, etc. Each abnormal year makes the AGW hypothesis more likely but incredibly unlikely events do occur, though it's not generally the way to bet.
...except EVERYTHING "proves" AGW.
Cooler outside? AGW
Warmer? AGW
More major storms? AGW
Fewer major storms? AGW
" I trust the science in that it's the best process we have for approaching factual truth of the world around us. "
Science can only deal with phenomena that is nameable, repeatable and measurable. That leaves much of the world outside its bounds.
Science gadgeteering for the bay area soccer moms.
Cool. It’s been done before, but this is a simple solution.
Simpler, though, is just sticking a single filter to a box fan. Not as efficient, but simpler and it won’t fall apart in humidity that weakens tape.
https://deohs.washington.edu/edge/blog/how-make-box-fan-filter-clean-indoor-air-smoke
"...The paper was retracted. One scientist called its logic "biologically impossible."..."
Well, what happens if you really BELIEVE?
You clap your hands and tinkerbell comes back to life.
Here's what bothers me more: even "real" science, including physical science, has been invaded by activism and DEI bullshit.
I have been a professional scientist my entire adult life (BS, BS, MS, PhD, Post-doc Fellowship, industry research, and now honorary professor). I now see requirements for hiring and promotion that prioritize diversity and equity, with policies straight from cultural Marxist theory. I see publication rules that could pass for progressive media guidelines. And I see institutional directives that we have to include "alternative" approaches to science, like folklore and feminism--what we used to call not science.
Science is not just getting misused or denied; science itself is getting destroyed. Goodbye, Enlightenment, it was fun while it lasted.
Science is hard, and therefore racist. Political loyalty is different though, even mediocrities can manage that.
"Goodbye, Enlightenment, it was fun while it lasted."
No worry, we still have our lawyers.
So true, Earth.
Is Stossel trying to rebrand himself as the thinking man's Tucker Carlson?
Is that a compliment or an insult? Either way, Stossel's right.
You think that's bad, it was recently revealed that 15+ year old study on Alzheimer's that has formed the bedrock of modern understanding and creating treatments for the disease was faked! And it was just found out and no one is talking about it!
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
It was well-covered.
https://www.google.com/search?q=beta+amyloid+plaques+fabrication and click News
"Trust the Science" = "Government Propaganda/Media"
Just deceitful cover words for what's really going on. The Government is pumping government propaganda.
Because that's what Nazi(National Socialist)-Regimes do..
"The only group that trusts science right now is Democrats."
And its not because they know the science, its because they're using science as essentially a magic talisman.