Public trusts scientists more than other "experts"

[William Wallace]

https://www.science20.com/truth_universally_acknowledged/survey_says_science_we_trust

A new poll by Nature and Scientific American, out in SA's October 2010 issue, notes that scientists have had a tough year - the "leaked 'Climategate' e-mails painted researchers as censorious," the H1N1 outbreak "led to charges that health officials exaggerated the danger to help Big Pharma sell more drugs," and the Harvard investigation that found holes in a professor's data. Nature and SA wanted to know - does the public1 still trust scientists?

The two polled readers using an internet survey on their Web sites, and more than 21,000 people responded.2 Here are the results:

How much do people trust what scientists say?

Surprisingly, a lot, and more so than friends or family or non-governmental organizations. Trust by topic was equally eye-opening - evolution scored the highest (how much people trust what scientists say about evolution), while flu pandemics scored the lowest.

How well do you think this reflects the public at large?

[rumborak]

I think that given most people have no idea what the scientific process is and peer-reviewing, any of these polls are mostly going to reflect a polled person's agreement or disagreement with the scientists' conclusions. Ask a highly religious person about Evolution, and they will tell you they don't trust scientists. Ask whether scientists can be trusted on matters of General Relativity, and I'm sure the same people will shrug and say "sure".

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I think that given most people have no idea what the scientific process is and peer-reviewing, any of these polls are mostly going to reflect a polled person's agreement or disagreement with the scientists' conclusions.

Where do you get that from? I could be wrong, but I've seen a few polls that show people have at least some basic understanding of science. And since this poll involved readers of Nature and Scientific American, do you think your criticism still applies?

[Ħ]

I don't rely on anyone else for my  information.  It's incredibly phony to hide behind closed doors and say "Well, I'm an expert, and you're not, so you'd better trust me."  It's equally phony to accept something just because a number of people believe it, or because some "experts" believe it.

For example, rumby mentioned evolution.  I'll agree, most creationists know squat about evolution.  But I'll just as quickly tell you that most evolutionists know squat about evolution as well.

[Chino]

I trust scientists more than experts.

[Odysseus]

It can be quite instructive to ask the question of who is actually funding the research in any given situation.  Many scientists have their price same as anyone else, and it's worth mentioning that when large amounts of money is about to change hands, ethics are often traded along the way....

[j]

It can be quite instructive to ask the question of who is actually funding the research in any given situation.  Many scientists have their price same as anyone else, and it's worth mentioning that when large amounts of money is about to change hands, ethics are often traded along the way....

Absolutely this.  Not to mention that *personal* interests and biases figure into scientific research too, just like everywhere else.

-J

[rumborak]

While that is certainly true, the peer review process is designed to exactly counteract that.

rumborak

[kirbywelch92]

I feel like I only really take the opinions of scientists whose work actually has some effect on whatever the study is for. There are hundreds of studies released every week, and most of them end up being little more than jokes to pass around with a few beers.

[ack44]

 Scientists probably have a more positive record when it comes to fabricating utter bull shit, which can be observed (for example) in abundance from financial and economic experts all the time.

[Adami]

Scientists probably have a more positive record when it comes to fabricating utter bull shit, which can be observed (for example) in abundance from financial and economic experts all the time.

Just so I can make sure I'm reading this correctly, are you saying that scientists are more likely to produce bull crap? Or less likely and that financial and economic experts are more likely?

[ack44]

 Scientists are less likely - sorry, bad English. I do believe, thought, that the scientific community as a whole feels like they are man kinds redemption from religion and superstition, and feel as though they have to provide the world with a counter-belief system, but the agendas are less than most other experts.

 EDIT: I'm reading the article and it's not really about scientists v.s. other experts...

[Odysseus]

While that is certainly true, the peer review process is designed to exactly counteract that.

rumborak

Yes, and we must not let that slide. 

[Chino]

It can be quite instructive to ask the question of who is actually funding the research in any given situation.  Many scientists have their price same as anyone else, and it's worth mentioning that when large amounts of money is about to change hands, ethics are often traded along the way....

Absolutely this.  Not to mention that *personal* interests and biases figure into scientific research too, just like everywhere else.

-J

Right, but their finding regardless if they are biased or not will be scrutinized by thousands of other scientists and people looking to see if it is actually valid.

[GuineaPig]

I don't rely on anyone else for my  information.  It's incredibly phony to hide behind closed doors and say "Well, I'm an expert, and you're not, so you'd better trust me."  It's equally phony to accept something just because a number of people believe it, or because some "experts" believe it.

For example, rumby mentioned evolution.  I'll agree, most creationists know squat about evolution.  But I'll just as quickly tell you that most evolutionists know squat about evolution as well.

This sounds a little ridiculous.  How do you not rely on anyone else?  When you have a headache, do you go down to the lab to see if aspirin really reduces pain?  Before you eat a bowl of cereal, do you whip out your calorimeter to see if the nutrition information on the side of the box is 100% accurate?  Before you read a history book, do you go treading through primary sources and conducting archaeological digs?

It's not phony at all for an expert to claim superiority in a topic if they have studied it for any given period of time.  There is so much to know in our world that it is literally impossible to keep abreast with everything in just a particular field, let alone a discipline.  You rely on thousands of people for information; when you go to school, when you read a book, when you take medicine, when you eat food, etc. etc.  When you look at the front page of a newspaper, I sincerely doubt your first thought is "Well, I should head down to see if there really was an earthquake in Haiti, because I can't rely on the AP for information."

[ack44]

When you have a headache, do you go down to the lab to see if aspirin really reduces pain? 

 Even this is relying on people, as you're judging aspirin to be a worthy source to even test.