As new study by the respected Pew Research Center shows a striking disconnect between the views of scientists and the public on basic scientific questions. In eight out of thirteen science-oriented issues, there was a 20 percentage point or more difference between the two groups on issues like genetically modified food, global warming, or evolution.
Take the question of whether it is safe to eat genetically modified foods. Some 88 percent of scientists felt that such foods are safe while only 37 percent of the public held this view. Fifty-seven percent of the public viewed genetically modified foods as unsafe.
The figures on evolution are equally amazing. Some ninety-eight (98) percent of scientists found the evidence clear that humans evolved over time. Indeed, there is yet another discovery supplying a link in that evolution this week (and again offering obvious proof that the Earth is far old than a few thousand years old). However, only 65 percent of the public believe in evolution.
Another question looked at whether those polled views foods grown with pesticides to be safe. Sixty-eight (68) percent of scientists said yes while only 28 percent of the general public agreed.
Another topical question (given the measles outbreak this month) was whether mandatory childhood shots are valid: 86 percent of the scientists favored such shots while only 68 percent of the public did.
On global warming, 87 percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity while only 50 percent of the public agreed.
It is worth noting however that the numbers appear to be shifting in favor of science on evolution, global warming and the like. It will be interesting to see how fast this gap closes in the coming years.
“AnneMarie Dickey
It is a tribute to the healthy skepticism of Americans that only 50% believe in the Evangelical religion of global warming
Actually, it is a tribute to 24 hour a day propaganda from the oil & gas companies and their hired hands in the US Congress.”
I don’t think you realize how much the tired line of “our scientists only tell the truth and are pure of motive, while theirs are bought and paid for” adds to the confusion and skepticism of science in general.
How are we to always know which scientist is bought off versus just following what the data shows?The burn them at the stake because they’re deniers crowd is shooting their own credibility in the foot by the way they dismiss those that disagree with them.
I’m as ignorant as the day is long so don’t go by me but I’m not aware of a single instance of there being a schism between the thinking of scientists and the masses & the eventual resolution being the common folk were right & the pointy-headed intellectuals wrong. Haven’t the scientists always been right? If anyone is aware of a counterexample I wish they’d post about it.
Any suggestions for online sites that teach/discuss basic science, including new trends??
Isaac, Thanks for sharing some of your background, it helps me understand your world view. You took the macro approach to wanting to improve, and on a macro level absolutely. One should always be looking to improve in the future. I was talking the micro issue of looking @ your work, done on a human, and asking yourself, what is best for that human. Do I close, or do I tinker? Am I tinkering for the better of my patient, or is it about me and my quest for perfection. Again, I was talking about a surgeon. And, as you know, they pledge to “First, do no harm.”
When I coached baseball I was always conscious of this. Don’t screw up a kids good swing tinkering w/ it. Or, I see coaches breaking the spirit of aggressive players, benching them for getting thrown out trying to stretch a double into a triple. Yes, if a kid makes a stupid decision to try and take an extra base and gets thrown out, hurting the team, you have to take him aside and tell him what he’s done wrong. Make him a smarter base runner. Teach him when to gamble and try to take that extra base, or when to pull up @ 2nd base and say, “this is good enough.”
What, really? You mean that evolution could have been going on before the universe began?
The age of the universe does not in any way preclude evolution as JMRJ suggested. In other words, the universe has been around long enough for it to happen, claims from Gish et al notwithstanding.
The short answer is: No. The age of the universe does not constrain evolution
What, really? You mean that evolution could have been going on before the universe began?
Of course the age of the universe constrains evolution. You can’t have evolution of things made of matter without the existence of the matter.
I don´t care what scientists say about GMOs – I´m not eating them. The scientists they surveyed must must have been from the US, because I can´t imagine any European ones being pro-GMO. Same with pesticides. Also, living in Germany, I personally know quite a few employees of pharmaceutical companies. They were telling me not to get any new vaccines (flu-shot) already back in the early 90s (before the internet). I was told this by MDs, but also people working in marketing and public relations. Actually, most people I know won´t even take an aspirin (“you never know what´s really in it!”) The same reasoning goes into their obsession with eating organic food from their own garden (“you know what´s in it!”)
Might be a few problems with Potassium-Argon dating, too:
“The technique works well for almost any igneous or volcanic rock, provided that the rock gives no evidence of having gone through a heating-recrystallization process after its initial formation. For this reason, only trained geologists should collect the samples in the field.”
This is first year geology 101 stuff, honestly. Yes, prograde metamorphism will ‘re-set’ the radiometric clock so that you end up dating to that discrete event instead of to the time the parent protolith was deposited/crystalized. This not a problem as we geology folks see it. I’m not sure why you think it is a problem. The sedimentary rocks in question from Australia have not been metamorphosed (and even if they had, you would by definition extend the timeline even father back since the sediments had to exist before they were metamophosed and the sediments had to originate from a highland provenance that supplied the lithic constituents. This is really not helping your case at all…)
But, you know, you measure age employing primarily the half life of U-238 as the device and come up with an age matching the half life of U-238
? That’s a coincidence?
So we discover a methodology to measure time in a geologic scale…and find events that are measurable in that scale within the measuring parameters?
I’m shocked…shocked(!) to discover things can be measured by methods designed to measure them!
The question is not whether you’re relying on science, the question is whether you are logic challenged. Talk about probabilities.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Observable rates of change suggest an earth younger than 4.5 billion years.
{citation needed}
Hey that’s a great photo of the Turley commenter group!
@AnneMarie: Might be a few problems with Potassium-Argon dating, too:
“The technique works well for almost any igneous or volcanic rock, provided that the rock gives no evidence of having gone through a heating-recrystallization process after its initial formation. For this reason, only trained geologists should collect the samples in the field.”
I have nothing against science. I’m not arguing from YEC, and don’t believe in that either. But, you know, you measure age employing primarily the half life of U-238 as the device and come up with an age matching the half life of U-238
? That’s a coincidence? The question is not whether you’re relying on science, the question is whether you are logic challenged. Talk about probabilities.
Observable rates of change suggest an earth younger than 4.5 billion years. That hardly means 10,000 years. There are a few alternative in between, wouldn’t you say?
Olly
Kind of what I said-ego, resting on laurels, complacency, losing out to those with their backs against the wall, etc. America is running on too much momentum and not enough manageable stress. I think we are pretty close.
One cannot say that the impersonal construct “science” is uninfluenced by elite opinion or prejudice. History records “scientific” racism. At one time “science” said homosexuality was a mental illness; now “homophobia” is. Moreover, the fact is that we, including scientists, know a lot less than we think we do. How much of what science believed 200 or 1,000 years ago is still believed today? How much of what science believes today will still be believed in 200 or 1,000 years? In the past I have belonged to legal organizations founded early in the 20th century that referred to jurisprudence as a “science.” What a joke. Jurisprudence is whatever the elite judges and professors say that it is; there is no “science” to it. Same with political “science.” Those of us who are not scientists need not apologize for not genuflecting at whatever somebody is successful at getting something labeled “science.” I will take my stand with the stubborn, skeptical peasants. They are wrong sometimes; but so are the “scientific” elites. All of us know a lot less than we think we do.
“The failures of mankind are predominantly due to complacency”
Isaac,
I have a different perspective. Mankind’s greatest achievements are the end-product of its many failures. Our republic is a perfect example; we were designed from lessons learned of the many failed cultures throughout history. It’s interesting that you opened your last post with a reference to ego. It’s there that you will begin to find the true root of failure; human nature.
Mankind becomes complacent because he ignores the lessons of history and begins to believe the hype that his nature is infallible. And just like every failed republic throughout history; so will go ours IF humility cannot find its way into the hearts of those leading our once great nation.
Nick
My first career was an ego centric one of an artist/artisan. It was a world without explanations where one liked it or didn’t like it. It was easy. My second career was as an Architect, open to the scrutiny of much more than one’s personal opinion. For four years I studied structure, history, and design having my projects critiqued on a regular basis until I became my harshest and most appreciative critic. The driving force behind the evolution of Architecture is that regardless of how many opportunities captured there are always some missed. Success is measured in degrees, not absolutes.
This doesn’t mean that the time doesn’t come when one has to simply stop designing and start building, however, the realization that it could have been done better is the foundation for the next best thing. This is true in all successful enterprises. Germany’s success in the manufacturing area proves this. The success of the tech industry in the US proves this. The failure of the American Auto Industry starting in the late sixties and early seventies also proves my point from the other direction.
Of Course one can go too far, fins on a Cadillac, flying cars, and the present obsession with tech toys illustrate over doing it. However when it comes to the veracity of science over common sense it is more of a parallel course of the two rather than one being more or less correct. Common sense starts out as science: observation, recording, conclusion. They both are always subject to exceptions. However mankind is vastly more advanced and better off today than ever before in history. This is more due to the critique of what one does than the acceptance. The greatness of mankind has always been, well you remember the intro to Star Trek.
The failures of mankind are predominantly due to complacency and can not be better described than with that old cliche. “If it ain’t broke why fix it?”
issac – there are absolutes. The building “absolutely” stays up or it absolutely doesn’t. The project “absolutely” came in under budget or over budget or on budget. Gehry is “absolutely” going to design another museum just like his last one. A Frank Lloyd Wright roof is “absolutely” going to leak.
This is why my time in hanging out in Biker Bars and Irish Pubs has been valuable.
heh! I love Kevin Barry’s in Savannah down on River Street (an old school Irish Republican rebel bar with live Celtic music almost every night.)
St Paddy’s day in 2003 was a blast. I had a drunk Irish American cop from New Jersey draped over my right shoulder telling me stories…half of the NYPD and FDNY pipe band was in the main room and an Irish Repubic Navy warship (a fishery protection cutter) was docked 20 yards away and the Irish sailers were partying with the USN sailers up from Jacksonville.
Best. Day. Ever.
My spouse and I used to get in with no cover charge if we had our instruments with us (I play harp, she plays flute) and we were willing to play a couple sets when the main entertainment was taking a break.
DBQ
Relax, the answer is 15. There’s still hope.
Time at the zoo learning about animals is never wasted, IMHO.
This is why my time in hanging out in Biker Bars and Irish Pubs has been valuable. Human nature does not change
🙂
fyi: I was an anthropology major in college, before I wised up and realized you can’t make a decent living in the field.
The Achilles heel of macro-evolutionary theory is the age of the earth/universe/whatever. There is a case to be made, of course, but it’s far from being logically flawless
I assume you are basing that pithy observation on the work of Duane Gish or other YEC types? The short answer is: No. The age of the universe does not constrain evolution, and trying to muddle things with simplified notions of probability does not help your case. Also, what does “logically flawless” have to do with science?? We don’t use those terms. We think in probabilities.
Evolution is a dogma. It is not permissible to dissent in academic circles. That is just as good an explanation for the high degree of belief in the soundness of evolution among self-described “scientists”.
This is the hallmark of paranoid conspiracy thinking. Anything is open to dissent…if you have the evidence and you can back up. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof, however, and YEC claimants have yet to present anything to peer review in any publication that actually challenges the fundamentals of evolution theory. Some day, that may change, but that day doesn’t appear to be on the horizen at the moment. Also, your sneer about “self descibed scientists” may work in some populist venues that despise education and rigorous thought, but this is likely not the correct forum for that attitude.
The earth, the dogma says, is about 4.5 billion years old. How do we know? Radiometric dating of rocks. How is that done? U-238 decays into lead-206 so the ratio of one to the other in a rock yields the rock’s age. That’s a simplification, but it’s the basic idea.
There are several radiometric dating methods, including Potassium/Argon and Rubidium/Strontium. Radiometric decay is well understood, measurable and admittable as evidence in any scientific or legal venue you can imagine. Zircon crystals in sedimentary rocks from Australia date to 4.4 billion years (AKA the Hadean Eon). That does not provide a date for the sedimentary formation, since it uses lithic material that has been recycled. Ergo, we know the Earth must be older than 4.4 billion years since we can provably demonstrate that sediments have material that old in them.
Do evolution dogmatists have any answer to this, other than to shout down and marginalize anyone who points it out? None that I’ve heard.
You failed to pose a workable question in the first place. Again, radiometric dating is accepted, understood, easily measuered and used as thoroughly as any forensic technique you can think of. If you mean to discredit it, you have a steep hill in front of you which would entail the complete destruction of chemistry, physics and geology as we know them. Good luck with that. I will continue to place my confidence in science.
It is a tribute to the healthy skepticism of Americans that only 50% believe in the Evangelical religion of global warming
Actually, it is a tribute to 24 hour a day propaganda from the oil & gas companies and their hired hands in the US Congress.
Phrenology, blood letting, the static universe[Einstein believed that],
The first two are ideas well before living memory, and Einstein was basing his views on what he knew and could measure at the time, which was quite a long time ago. Scientific thought does actually change as data arrives. It was assumed that the continents never moved, and then data and analysis brought about a new model of earth isostacy. In the case of global warming…the data keep reinforcing the current model of anthropogenic contribution.
Hell, scientists pissed on both legs predicting the path of the recent snowstorm just 1 day out.
You have a strange concept of “pissing”. Meteorologists used a model to predict the storm’s path, and it was off by about 60 miles. 20 years ago, that sort of accuracy was utterly unheard of. I fail to see your compaint here.
The no vaccination folks are mostly left wing wackos.
That was a bizarre segue. In any event , anti-vaccination folks do not correlate to political party affiliation. For every left wing adherant, you will find a right wing homeschooler who hates the “gubmint” and refuses to get vaccines.
I am a member of the San Diego Zoo. I have spent hours watching apes. You can’t do that and not believe in evolution
That is actually a promising start to learning about anthropology. You might try some of the material from Jane Goodall, or go with the work of Louis Leakey in the great rift valley in Africa. Time at the zoo learning about animals is never wasted, IMHO.
Just because they are scientists doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about. Scientists are likely to be more supportive of things that are scientific. Non-scientists are not.
Frankenstein is more supportive of the Monster than the peasants in the village.