How Americans Came to Distrust Science(bostonreview.net)
bostonreview.net
How Americans Came to Distrust Science
http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/andrew-jewett-how-americans-came-distrust-science
49 comments
I’m a believer in science - was a physics major in college. However, I find the hubris in science distasteful. Theories are treated like facts. Also, words like “we know” are used, and then a decade later that knowledge turns out to be wrong. Science changes, but at a point in time it often acts like it has reached the ultimate truth. A simple example: I remember in Jr High being taught that red shift and slowing of the expansion of the universe proved beyond doubt the Big Bang happened. Except, oops, turns out the universe is expanding after all. But you would be ridiculed if you didn’t believe
After moving from software development to data science, I've observed a change in my terminology when discussing findings. Rather than constructing definitive statements like 'X is greater than Y', I tend to soften it to 'We have evidence that X is greater than Y'. I see it as a move analogous to the move from verificationism to falsification. Though someone with a better grasp on the philosophy of science may have better perspective.
If I want to be a good scientific reader, I have to add in 'We have evidence of' to nearly all pop science articles. Article writers either tend to omit this or it ends up being edited out for either obvious or obscure reasons depending on what you believe.
If I want to be a good scientific reader, I have to add in 'We have evidence of' to nearly all pop science articles. Article writers either tend to omit this or it ends up being edited out for either obvious or obscure reasons depending on what you believe.
Out of curiosity, why and how did you switch to data science?
I worked on getting a data pipeline up and running. It was fun enough that I downloaded rstudio and started playing around with some machine learning methods after the kids went to bed. After a few conversations with higher ups that started with 'hey want to see something cool?' I had the opportunity to start a data team.
That's awesome. How long did it take you?
Can you point me to a reputable source that definitively claims (or ever claimed) that the Big Bang happened beyond doubt?
I don't think the problem is with any hubris in science. It is the general population that is the problem. Most people will completely disregard a statement which has any qualifiers or accept it as gospel truth (anything with "evidence suggests..." will either be taken as gospel or completely disregarded). Very few people have the ability to understand and appreciate the nuance in a scientifically correct statement.
I don't think the problem is with any hubris in science. It is the general population that is the problem. Most people will completely disregard a statement which has any qualifiers or accept it as gospel truth (anything with "evidence suggests..." will either be taken as gospel or completely disregarded). Very few people have the ability to understand and appreciate the nuance in a scientifically correct statement.
This comment demonstrates one if the #1 errors in assessing scientific statements: theories are fact based. Scientific literacy is so bad most people still don’t get that (and I’m not saying that to slander you, it just seems like an abundantly clear fact). There seems to be a large faction of the population that thinks something like global warming (a theory, derived from facts) is the intellectual equivalent to your kooky neighbor’s alien stories (delusional imaginations).
the•o•ry thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē► n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. n. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice. n. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
the•o•ry thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē► n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. n. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice. n. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
> theories are fact based
Yes, but theories are not /themselves/ facts. A theory is just one way to explain the facts, and though a given theory may explain the given facts well, a new theory may come along which explains the facts even better, or new facts may come along that the existing theory cannot explain. In either case, it's obvious that the theory is not itself a fact, because we may eventually have to discard it as inadequate.
I think that often the arrogance that people perceive in scientists (or at least in scientific reporting) is from the fact that the best known theory is described as a fact when it's not. It's just a model. Like any model of reality, all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
So I don't find it helpful to keep beating the dead horse about how the technical scientific term "theory" differs from the colloquial version. I think a more helpful approach is to try to educate people on how to skeptically evaluate the usefulness of any kind of claim/model/hypothesis/theory for themselves. Even if people understand the technical term "theory," it still doesn't matter unless they can evaluate a theory's usefulness.
Yes, but theories are not /themselves/ facts. A theory is just one way to explain the facts, and though a given theory may explain the given facts well, a new theory may come along which explains the facts even better, or new facts may come along that the existing theory cannot explain. In either case, it's obvious that the theory is not itself a fact, because we may eventually have to discard it as inadequate.
I think that often the arrogance that people perceive in scientists (or at least in scientific reporting) is from the fact that the best known theory is described as a fact when it's not. It's just a model. Like any model of reality, all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
So I don't find it helpful to keep beating the dead horse about how the technical scientific term "theory" differs from the colloquial version. I think a more helpful approach is to try to educate people on how to skeptically evaluate the usefulness of any kind of claim/model/hypothesis/theory for themselves. Even if people understand the technical term "theory," it still doesn't matter unless they can evaluate a theory's usefulness.
Definite arrogance out there. This arrogance also occurs with citizens who don't like it when science is questioned. Real scientists don't shy away from questioning. Questioning is a key part of science and advancements.
And you have science used as a tool when it supports ones agenda. But immediately thrown away when it doesn't align with their emotions and agenda. So we have a pandemic, people trust in the science and the policies to respond, but are all too quick to throw that all away so people can protest, go to church, or let companies film movies. So you believe in science but you are ok with making exceptions for certain things? How consistent.
If we allow the agendas of mobs to disrupt science, it becomes a lot less useful.
Many leading scientists and groups don't have the courage to stick behind the science either, lest they ruffle the feathers of those who donate.
There are plenty of scientists that are bought and paid for just like politicians. We have a long track record of this with cigarettes, pharma, the sugar industry, war on fat, etc.
And you have science used as a tool when it supports ones agenda. But immediately thrown away when it doesn't align with their emotions and agenda. So we have a pandemic, people trust in the science and the policies to respond, but are all too quick to throw that all away so people can protest, go to church, or let companies film movies. So you believe in science but you are ok with making exceptions for certain things? How consistent.
If we allow the agendas of mobs to disrupt science, it becomes a lot less useful.
Many leading scientists and groups don't have the courage to stick behind the science either, lest they ruffle the feathers of those who donate.
There are plenty of scientists that are bought and paid for just like politicians. We have a long track record of this with cigarettes, pharma, the sugar industry, war on fat, etc.
I almost see an attitude now that what truly proves your commitment to science is the fact that you don't question it
>Theories are treated like facts. Also, words like “we know” are used, and then a decade later that knowledge turns out to be wrong.
Heck, just this year we saw WHO, CDC, and other experts gravely pronounce in February and March that wearing masks was useless in fighting COVID19, in May say the exact opposite, and the press and bien-pensants repeat this without ever examining how or why the counsel changed, all the while denouncing those who said the opposite as "not believing in science"! It's not quite WE ARE AT WAR WITH EASTASIA changing to WE ARE AT WAR WITH EURASIA in the middle of a Two-Minute Hate session, but it's close.
Heck, just this year we saw WHO, CDC, and other experts gravely pronounce in February and March that wearing masks was useless in fighting COVID19, in May say the exact opposite, and the press and bien-pensants repeat this without ever examining how or why the counsel changed, all the while denouncing those who said the opposite as "not believing in science"! It's not quite WE ARE AT WAR WITH EASTASIA changing to WE ARE AT WAR WITH EURASIA in the middle of a Two-Minute Hate session, but it's close.
I think this discussion needs to include a lot more consideration about money. When I’ve encountered antivax and anti-GMO sentiments, it’s often been tied up in a distrust of the for-profit interests that are related to both of those. In a nutshell, there are many who think that some kinds of science can’t be trusted to tell the truth if that truth would be bad for business for the people conducting the science.
Or a slightly different take on the it, that businesses with money at stake will claim "science" when they need support, though the business can't be trusted to tell the truth about the science. And the business is usually better at publicity than the scientists are.
You can see this right now on the front page with Googles ai reaserchers
Politics. Science used to be about absolute data, testing, and facts. When science sold its soul to politics and power, it lost the confidence of the masses. By sold I mean scientists holding back data (global warming), and manipulating data, (COVID), to support a specific political agenda.
The best thing we can do is remove politics from science before it’s too late.
The best thing we can do is remove politics from science before it’s too late.
That's spot on. It's a self inflicted wound.
Except it is the American public which is suffering, not science.
Could you be more specific by what you mean by "holding back data" or "manipulating data".
Look into the replication crisis
Look at Mann’s email trove of behind the scenes discussion.
Politicians like having an "expert" advocating stuff they want. A scientist is the perfect "expert", as he appears, for most, as intrinsically expert and objective/neutral.
Hence some scientists happen to recommend things (ways to solve a practical problem) and are used by some politicians (through mass-media) who promote those things (far various reasons), and silent counter-arguments from other scientists. Note: consultants also often act as such "excuses", forking a "report" recommending actions which were secretly planned before their mission began.
Those scientists may shoot themselves in the foot by doing so if, as I believe, their job is to explain how things work (nothing more).
Hence some scientists happen to recommend things (ways to solve a practical problem) and are used by some politicians (through mass-media) who promote those things (far various reasons), and silent counter-arguments from other scientists. Note: consultants also often act as such "excuses", forking a "report" recommending actions which were secretly planned before their mission began.
Those scientists may shoot themselves in the foot by doing so if, as I believe, their job is to explain how things work (nothing more).
> scientists holding back data (global warming)
I spent ten hour a week, during 3 months (lookdown helped) parsing data for global warming as well as economic data for model like DICE and others. Which data was held back please? I would really like to know? I might have been fooled by the treasure trove of data publicly available.
Is it that the atmosphere overall have the same average temperature[0]? Its not held back. Is it that the low troposphere warming is causing the artic circle to break more often? Nah, i still found the raw data too.
What was really surprising to me about the climate change denial is that the most well-know of "solar forcing" was debunked by physics college students circa 2004, and that despite that (and the cycle ending a while ago) it is still the argument i found the most often. The better argument, low-troposhpere CO2 concentration have a low effect on radiation, i hav seen exactly twice. Without the corollary, a c02 surplus at the surface level take between 20 and 30 year to reach the hgh troposphere/low stratosphere, so every emission right now will have almost no effect until 2040. This data is not held back, and is discussed quite often too.
Did i miss something important?
[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...
I spent ten hour a week, during 3 months (lookdown helped) parsing data for global warming as well as economic data for model like DICE and others. Which data was held back please? I would really like to know? I might have been fooled by the treasure trove of data publicly available.
Is it that the atmosphere overall have the same average temperature[0]? Its not held back. Is it that the low troposphere warming is causing the artic circle to break more often? Nah, i still found the raw data too.
What was really surprising to me about the climate change denial is that the most well-know of "solar forcing" was debunked by physics college students circa 2004, and that despite that (and the cycle ending a while ago) it is still the argument i found the most often. The better argument, low-troposhpere CO2 concentration have a low effect on radiation, i hav seen exactly twice. Without the corollary, a c02 surplus at the surface level take between 20 and 30 year to reach the hgh troposphere/low stratosphere, so every emission right now will have almost no effect until 2040. This data is not held back, and is discussed quite often too.
Did i miss something important?
[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...
When was this magical time when science and politics not been intertwined?
Oh dear, no. No. We need science in politics than ever. We need science-based policy more than ever. The closest thing we have to a "science party" is the Green and it isn't enough. We need a culture of science and that includes a political SCIENCE.
1. Always nice if an article focusing on one concept, e.g. “science”, actually defines the term, say, “science”, before ranting on. If the article doesn’t, I have found it profitable not to read the article in any depth. Great truths of general semantics...
2. On a related note, is the thesis that Americans (as opposed to New Zealanders?) distrust science, or scientists, or the reporting of work by scientists. My observation is the mistrust increases as you go down that list, but it is only the last item that most people ever really experience.
2. On a related note, is the thesis that Americans (as opposed to New Zealanders?) distrust science, or scientists, or the reporting of work by scientists. My observation is the mistrust increases as you go down that list, but it is only the last item that most people ever really experience.
>Always nice if an article focusing on one concept, e.g. “science”, actually defines the term
to know if the author intends to include by reference, for example, "the dismal science"
to know if the author intends to include by reference, for example, "the dismal science"
You need the word “science” to be defined?
>Before the 1920s, many Americans viewed science as a kind of “people’s knowledge,” a practical, commonsense mode of reasoning that stood against all forms of elite authority.
Thinking about this the conclusion that is arising is Science has become more of status thing and less of an entrepreneurial tool. This is pretty evident in the reason why the really cool code is always not open source.
Thinking about this the conclusion that is arising is Science has become more of status thing and less of an entrepreneurial tool. This is pretty evident in the reason why the really cool code is always not open source.
When a valid study is retracted by its authors because they don't like the conclusions being drawn from it, when a university professor is fired for citing research that his university published, when journals publish any research that conforms to certain political views, even when it is obvious garbage, it is not science being distrusted because it is not science which is being performed.
When we are told by scientists that masks don't work, and then, with no new research being done, we are told by scientists that we must all wear masks, it is not science being performed. It is propaganda. I distrust propaganda.
In any field in which I am not an expert it takes time to determine if something that is claimed to be science is really science, or if it is propaganda. I trust the scientific method but I don't trust that people claiming to be scientists are using it.
When we are told by scientists that masks don't work, and then, with no new research being done, we are told by scientists that we must all wear masks, it is not science being performed. It is propaganda. I distrust propaganda.
In any field in which I am not an expert it takes time to determine if something that is claimed to be science is really science, or if it is propaganda. I trust the scientific method but I don't trust that people claiming to be scientists are using it.
> valid study is retracted
Which study was that?
Which study was that?
I have absolutely seen recent research on the efficacy of masks. Scroll down to "Human Studies" [1]. I was sceptical on masks from the start (although I still wore them when you weren't supposed to) but new evidence came in about a novel coronavirus. People then did spread this information via yes, propaganda, for the efforts of disease control.
I do think how "science" at once proclaimed that masks don't work so don't wear them we need them for hospitals made me fairly incredulous at the obvious contradiction. So I defied science. Worked out.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-scien...
I do think how "science" at once proclaimed that masks don't work so don't wear them we need them for hospitals made me fairly incredulous at the obvious contradiction. So I defied science. Worked out.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-scien...
Many Americans don't understand science. That is not a big surprise considering that 10% of the population CAN NOT READ (https://www.google.com/search?q=HOw+many+americans+can%27t+r...).
You can not trust something you don't understand.
Now enter some bought-up politicians who tell people "Science is a hoax believe us. You don't have to feel stupid because you don't understand it because you don't need to understand it because it is a hoax. And keep smoking your Marlboro it is good for you,
You can not trust something you don't understand.
Now enter some bought-up politicians who tell people "Science is a hoax believe us. You don't have to feel stupid because you don't understand it because you don't need to understand it because it is a hoax. And keep smoking your Marlboro it is good for you,
Postmodernism really undermined science's epistemology. Not among scientists (they don't really care what postmodernism says about epistemology), but among the public. And part of this is I think deliberate. Postmodernism put forth ideas about epistemology, and science was over there, not involved in that discussion, but reputable, delivering results using science's epistemology. The existence and success of science was a counter-argument to postmodernism's epistemological claims. So (at least parts of) postmodernism attacked science, and science's claims of knowing objective reality.
Eh, I don't think this is very accurate.
"Postmodernism" (a terribly indescript term if I might add) had nothing to say on the order of David Hume like "hey just because the sun came up today and yesterday doesn't mean you can prove it'll come up tomorrow", which is how we got Kant arguing that you can't perceive reality without fundamental laws being true, and so began modern philosophy.
The writers that are grouped under "postmodernism" were more like post-marxists: they were interested in describing social production independent of the traditional Marxist theorem that all social production (culture/ideology/religion) is a reflection of the dominant mode of the production of material things.
Michel Foucault, a pivotal writer for many other writers on post-colonialism that have become of consequence today, was explicit in interviews and his writings that the model of the "hard" sciences was what he aspired to, which is to say describing reality indendepent of human narrative interpolation.
It was the "soft" sciences of anthropology, psychology, criminology, and others, that Foucault was after. These he saw as social productions and he wanted to describe their cause, how they came about, without referring to some inherent rationalism (these studies are possible because we can make an assumption about the nature of human cognition) or Marxist historical materialism (they are Capitalist apparatuses of control).
This is what all his work is about and I hope it helps dispel this myth that "the postmodernists" are responsible, it would be more accurate to say that the interpretations and applications of those writers by American Humanities departments that the contemporary "identity politics" (post-colonialism seems more accurate to me) derives from.
"Postmodernism" (a terribly indescript term if I might add) had nothing to say on the order of David Hume like "hey just because the sun came up today and yesterday doesn't mean you can prove it'll come up tomorrow", which is how we got Kant arguing that you can't perceive reality without fundamental laws being true, and so began modern philosophy.
The writers that are grouped under "postmodernism" were more like post-marxists: they were interested in describing social production independent of the traditional Marxist theorem that all social production (culture/ideology/religion) is a reflection of the dominant mode of the production of material things.
Michel Foucault, a pivotal writer for many other writers on post-colonialism that have become of consequence today, was explicit in interviews and his writings that the model of the "hard" sciences was what he aspired to, which is to say describing reality indendepent of human narrative interpolation.
It was the "soft" sciences of anthropology, psychology, criminology, and others, that Foucault was after. These he saw as social productions and he wanted to describe their cause, how they came about, without referring to some inherent rationalism (these studies are possible because we can make an assumption about the nature of human cognition) or Marxist historical materialism (they are Capitalist apparatuses of control).
This is what all his work is about and I hope it helps dispel this myth that "the postmodernists" are responsible, it would be more accurate to say that the interpretations and applications of those writers by American Humanities departments that the contemporary "identity politics" (post-colonialism seems more accurate to me) derives from.
Details aside, I do think we are in the midst of a cultural trend where nihilism and relativism are taking hold. I used to be more of a relativist myself, but those ideas are hard to reconcile with an engineering degree. In engineering, you have real consequences for being mistaken about how reality works. For most people though, reality means the social systems around them, and truth and meaning in that world is highly relative. The internet sort of accentuates this, right? Everyone’s social webs are growing and more points of view are shaping things. It’s just a shame it leads to distrust of science
And part of what comes along with "everyone's social webs are growing" is that more and more people have in their social web some kind of science crank. "All the mainstream people are wrong; they're ignoring the evidence that my theory is right." And some of these people can sound very convincing if you don't know the field. But when they say "all the experts are wrong", they're undermining the public's faith in science.
Now, sometimes the experts are wrong, but that kind of situation doesn't get resolved by someone running a PR campaign on Facebook to support their pet theory. It gets resolved by hard data from careful experiments.
Now, sometimes the experts are wrong, but that kind of situation doesn't get resolved by someone running a PR campaign on Facebook to support their pet theory. It gets resolved by hard data from careful experiments.
> Details aside,
Sure, it just strikes me that you're willing to sorta handwaive an entire body of work that you likely only have a passing understanding of when that looks eerily close to people waving off the body of work that is science, which they likely in turn only have a passing understanding of, if that. Hard to demand people hold a higher standard when you don't do the same.
You attempted to explain a social antagonism by posing some corrupting Other badly influencing the youth, figuratively speaking, that's no different than people being anti-science which appears to them to also either be some corrupting influence or controlled by such. Social problems require more rigor than that.
Sure, it just strikes me that you're willing to sorta handwaive an entire body of work that you likely only have a passing understanding of when that looks eerily close to people waving off the body of work that is science, which they likely in turn only have a passing understanding of, if that. Hard to demand people hold a higher standard when you don't do the same.
You attempted to explain a social antagonism by posing some corrupting Other badly influencing the youth, figuratively speaking, that's no different than people being anti-science which appears to them to also either be some corrupting influence or controlled by such. Social problems require more rigor than that.
[deleted]
Americans don’t distrust science.
They distrust scientism; the abuse of people through fear and manipulation masquerading as science.
They distrust scientism; the abuse of people through fear and manipulation masquerading as science.
Friedrich Hayek warned about just this in "The Counter-Revoluion of Science" wherein he decried the impulse to reduce behavior to mechanical impulses, and the subsequent rise of sociology as being considered a hard science.
One isn't going to engineer societies without bending the scientific method way beyond what it stands for or merits, no matter the PR methods applied.
One isn't going to engineer societies without bending the scientific method way beyond what it stands for or merits, no matter the PR methods applied.
This article really misses the crux of how science massively screwed up and forever tarnished its image. It's egregiously silent about the disastrous role science had in American society around the 1920s.
Eugenics! The scientific management of society through experts. Scientific racism. The rise of the corporation as a new empirical organization of people.
This is so painfully obvious especially now: that science empowers political people and individuals with moral sure-footedness.
Instead of imbuing people with a doubt and skepticism (for science is bound to change with new information), science is used as a sort of license to micromanage and extend power over people and silence criticism.
Eugenics! The scientific management of society through experts. Scientific racism. The rise of the corporation as a new empirical organization of people.
This is so painfully obvious especially now: that science empowers political people and individuals with moral sure-footedness.
Instead of imbuing people with a doubt and skepticism (for science is bound to change with new information), science is used as a sort of license to micromanage and extend power over people and silence criticism.
Few conservatives are questioning whether science as a methodology is good or bad. Some extreme Christians might doubt science itself, but I sense they are quite a small group. There is also a small group on the left which has rejected science (and often objective reality and reason) apparently in favor of a belief that everything is textual, socially constructed and about power dynamics.
Putting both of those wackadoodle groups aside, the core issue in America is a lack of trust between the major political camps. This lack of trust is unfortunately justified, as both camps often show a willingness to act in bad faith, to do "whatever it takes", ignoring the long term effects (of erosion of trust in the institutions of society).
Dr Fauci said masks didn't work in order to prevent a run on masks. Unfortunatly in the current environment the cost of that decision is very steep. The news media ran with the Russian Collusion narrative with far too much certainty. The cost of that decision, a near utter lack of trust from conservatives, is far too much. Lies about Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian disinformation... a blatant revolving door between the CIA propagandists and the media... social media banning or automatically editoralizing many widespread conservative opinions... and more trust evaporates. Trust is easily squandered and hard to regain. A media telling folks to shelter indoors due to COVID-19, and then immediately praising street rioting exacerbated an already near utter collapse in trust.
If American conservatives refuse to believe that COVID-19 is serious, or that lockdowns can work, or that climate change is a serious issue... the American progressives need to take some large measure of responsibility for that. They taught them time and time again "you cannot trust us" while saying "the most trusted source in news." Liberal/progressive institutions shirked their societal duty to actually be fair, balanced, cautious, do investigative research, and for God's sake to tell the truth rather than trying to manipulate votes.
The end does not justify the means, in no small part because few are bright enough to see the more complete set of ends.
To restore trust you must first start with respect. Allow the wingnut ideas to be spoken and spread. Put forth counternarratives and reasoned arugments rather than silencing "misinformation" (silencing alienates and drives deeper tribalism). Don't fall into the trap of believing that arguments never convince anybody -- they don't seem to because few people openly admit to being wrong or having been changed -- but they do have an effect. Respect the people while arguing the ideas. And that's just the first step. If you can't take this first step of showing respect by cherishing free speech again, America will just sink deeper into tribalism and all that it breeds.
Full disclosure: I write from New Zealand, consider myself classical liberal centrist and atheist, believe in lockdowns and socially distance, and take personal action to do my part to slow down climate change.
Putting both of those wackadoodle groups aside, the core issue in America is a lack of trust between the major political camps. This lack of trust is unfortunately justified, as both camps often show a willingness to act in bad faith, to do "whatever it takes", ignoring the long term effects (of erosion of trust in the institutions of society).
Dr Fauci said masks didn't work in order to prevent a run on masks. Unfortunatly in the current environment the cost of that decision is very steep. The news media ran with the Russian Collusion narrative with far too much certainty. The cost of that decision, a near utter lack of trust from conservatives, is far too much. Lies about Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian disinformation... a blatant revolving door between the CIA propagandists and the media... social media banning or automatically editoralizing many widespread conservative opinions... and more trust evaporates. Trust is easily squandered and hard to regain. A media telling folks to shelter indoors due to COVID-19, and then immediately praising street rioting exacerbated an already near utter collapse in trust.
If American conservatives refuse to believe that COVID-19 is serious, or that lockdowns can work, or that climate change is a serious issue... the American progressives need to take some large measure of responsibility for that. They taught them time and time again "you cannot trust us" while saying "the most trusted source in news." Liberal/progressive institutions shirked their societal duty to actually be fair, balanced, cautious, do investigative research, and for God's sake to tell the truth rather than trying to manipulate votes.
The end does not justify the means, in no small part because few are bright enough to see the more complete set of ends.
To restore trust you must first start with respect. Allow the wingnut ideas to be spoken and spread. Put forth counternarratives and reasoned arugments rather than silencing "misinformation" (silencing alienates and drives deeper tribalism). Don't fall into the trap of believing that arguments never convince anybody -- they don't seem to because few people openly admit to being wrong or having been changed -- but they do have an effect. Respect the people while arguing the ideas. And that's just the first step. If you can't take this first step of showing respect by cherishing free speech again, America will just sink deeper into tribalism and all that it breeds.
Full disclosure: I write from New Zealand, consider myself classical liberal centrist and atheist, believe in lockdowns and socially distance, and take personal action to do my part to slow down climate change.
> Liberal/progressive institutions shirked their societal duty to actually be fair, balanced, cautious, do investigative research, and for God's sake to tell the truth rather than trying to manipulate votes.
Are Conservative institutions incapable of doing any of this? I don’t understand. How can this only be the fault of the progressive side? Is science only the responsibility of liberals?
Are Conservative institutions incapable of doing any of this? I don’t understand. How can this only be the fault of the progressive side? Is science only the responsibility of liberals?
I don't think blame is all on one side. But neither do I think things are in balance or in some kind of imaginary mirror image of each other. I wrote my comment imaging a progressive audience. If I wanted to speak to a conservative audience I'd have to make entirely different points (such as reserving skepticism for ideas coming from the other political camp, instead of being skepitcal of all ideas) and my comment is already too long.
Most insitutions of public influence lean left by a large amount, and that lean is getting more and more extreme according to the researchers I've paid atttention to. Conservatives prefer roles in business and industry which are quite a bit less about influence. Conservative news media is an exception here, but the situation is not symmetrical: right-wing media has been utterly rejected by progressives right from the start and so nobody on the left feels betrayed by the news media like the right does. But is right wing media complicit in leading their own further astray? Absolutely.
Science is hopefully mostly populated by people much less tribal and much more skeptical than the average person. But few people get their science from scientists directly. The mostly leftwing media stands in between scientists and the populous. Science coming through a media that conservatives don't trust gets automatically binned along with everything else coming through that media. But rather than ignore it, they go hard opposite... I think it's actually to the point where reverse psychology would work very well.
Most insitutions of public influence lean left by a large amount, and that lean is getting more and more extreme according to the researchers I've paid atttention to. Conservatives prefer roles in business and industry which are quite a bit less about influence. Conservative news media is an exception here, but the situation is not symmetrical: right-wing media has been utterly rejected by progressives right from the start and so nobody on the left feels betrayed by the news media like the right does. But is right wing media complicit in leading their own further astray? Absolutely.
Science is hopefully mostly populated by people much less tribal and much more skeptical than the average person. But few people get their science from scientists directly. The mostly leftwing media stands in between scientists and the populous. Science coming through a media that conservatives don't trust gets automatically binned along with everything else coming through that media. But rather than ignore it, they go hard opposite... I think it's actually to the point where reverse psychology would work very well.
[deleted]
> How Americans Came to Distrust Science
It's the internet.
Anything before is historically interestingly but now meaningless.
Pre-internet I'd passively watch science shows on physics and lap String Theory up.
Now I can hear the dissenting voices and see how the String Theorists don't address the simple issues raised.
Science is dead to me and I don't think it should be revived. I think we need something better. Science doesn't have to be the best way forward. There are alternative frameworks to science.
It's the internet.
Anything before is historically interestingly but now meaningless.
Pre-internet I'd passively watch science shows on physics and lap String Theory up.
Now I can hear the dissenting voices and see how the String Theorists don't address the simple issues raised.
Science is dead to me and I don't think it should be revived. I think we need something better. Science doesn't have to be the best way forward. There are alternative frameworks to science.
Perhaps you misunderstand the word "science".
The proposal of testable hypotheses, rejected if the tests fail? How is that "dead to you"? Is there some reality in which you can continue to successfully live a life based on beliefs that are invalidated by failed tests? A reality in which "science is dead"?
There does seem to be a weird societal belief growing in something other than evidence-based reality. Let us know how it works out for you all, in a couple generations. Personally, I remain ... unconvinced.
The proposal of testable hypotheses, rejected if the tests fail? How is that "dead to you"? Is there some reality in which you can continue to successfully live a life based on beliefs that are invalidated by failed tests? A reality in which "science is dead"?
There does seem to be a weird societal belief growing in something other than evidence-based reality. Let us know how it works out for you all, in a couple generations. Personally, I remain ... unconvinced.