What does this say about the public perception of science?

[theSteamSupported]

It all comes down to three problems, in what I believe is the order of prominence:

1. The way science is taught- Due to pressure to pass tests, children are taught to memorize facts about science and not taught how to critically think through the scientific process. The latter takes much more time, effort, and creativity on both teachers' and students' parts. As such we end up with a culture that treats science not as a tool, but as an approved collection of facts to know are True. If the gatekeepers of science say eggs are bad for you, then eggs are bad for you. If they say eggs are good, then the typical person doesn't reason through the explanation for why researchers have changed their minds, they express frustration that the researchers "can't make up their minds".

2. The way science is reported- Most newspapers do a poor job of reporting science. As others have said, headlines are sensationalized to move print. But another problem is that content may be simplified in order to not take up too much page real estate.

3. The way scientists represent themselves- I have a good friend who is endlessly frustrated by creationism. One time he told me that his biggest frustration was that every time he saw an evolution versus creationism argument on FOX News, the creationism side was represented by some handsome young man with a confident but non-threatening smile and perfectly styled hair, while the evolution side was always represented by some dowdy researcher who looks uncomfortable and can't articulate their point clearly within the framework of a 2-minute news interview segment. Or they look like Christopher Hitchens, i.e. they rolled out of bed, slammed a couple shots of vodka, and then showed up with no intention other than snidely insulting anyone who doesn't accept their position on faith. Shallow though it may be, image is part of presentation.

And my experience in academia is that this extends beyond evolution debates. Many academics enjoy being deliberately obtuse. I couldn't tell you how many papers I've read where Latin phrases get dropped in for no communicative purpose other than showing that the researcher knows Latin, or where language is needlessly complex, or where articles are laid out in a manner that makes it impossible to read their arguments without flipping back and forth across several pages in order to remember what the terms the author invented mean. Hell, I recall the GRE exam gives bonus points on its writing exam for crap like this, with a example essay talking about "a Sargasso sea of ideas" getting its top grade, despite the fact that such language doesn't make much sense to anyone who is unfamiliar with that particular region. When I hear professors talk about writers who distill research for casual audiences, while the words "dumb down" don't get said overtly, there is often a strong sense that such writing is beneath a real scientist.

But the biggest example of the way academia insulates itself from the outside is access to academic journals themselves. The whole process of science is built on the ability of the public to scrutinize and replicate experiments, but often access to scientific journals is quite expensive for people not in a university. How can we expect journalists to get our research right if we demand they subscribe to J-STOR just to read about it?

You are my new hero. I've always been bothered by how hostile academia is towards immersive education. Why do educators to this day still insist on telling their students to memorize everything?

 

[McMullen]

It all comes down to three problems, in what I believe is the order of prominence:

1. The way science is taught- Due to pressure to pass tests, children are taught to memorize facts about science and not taught how to critically think through the scientific process. The latter takes much more time, effort, and creativity on both teachers' and students' parts. As such we end up with a culture that treats science not as a tool, but as an approved collection of facts to know are True. If the gatekeepers of science say eggs are bad for you, then eggs are bad for you. If they say eggs are good, then the typical person doesn't reason through the explanation for why researchers have changed their minds, they express frustration that the researchers "can't make up their minds".

2. The way science is reported- Most newspapers do a poor job of reporting science. As others have said, headlines are sensationalized to move print. But another problem is that content may be simplified in order to not take up too much page real estate.

3. The way scientists represent themselves- I have a good friend who is endlessly frustrated by creationism. One time he told me that his biggest frustration was that every time he saw an evolution versus creationism argument on FOX News, the creationism side was represented by some handsome young man with a confident but non-threatening smile and perfectly styled hair, while the evolution side was always represented by some dowdy researcher who looks uncomfortable and can't articulate their point clearly within the framework of a 2-minute news interview segment. Or they look like Christopher Hitchens, i.e. they rolled out of bed, slammed a couple shots of vodka, and then showed up with no intention other than snidely insulting anyone who doesn't accept their position on faith. Shallow though it may be, image is part of presentation.

And my experience in academia is that this extends beyond evolution debates. Many academics enjoy being deliberately obtuse. I couldn't tell you how many papers I've read where Latin phrases get dropped in for no communicative purpose other than showing that the researcher knows Latin, or where language is needlessly complex, or where articles are laid out in a manner that makes it impossible to read their arguments without flipping back and forth across several pages in order to remember what the terms the author invented mean. Hell, I recall the GRE exam gives bonus points on its writing exam for crap like this, with a example essay talking about "a Sargasso sea of ideas" getting its top grade, despite the fact that such language doesn't make much sense to anyone who is unfamiliar with that particular region. When I hear professors talk about writers who distill research for casual audiences, while the words "dumb down" don't get said overtly, there is often a strong sense that such writing is beneath a real scientist.

But the biggest example of the way academia insulates itself from the outside is access to academic journals themselves. The whole process of science is built on the ability of the public to scrutinize and replicate experiments, but often access to scientific journals is quite expensive for people not in a university. How can we expect journalists to get our research right if we demand they subscribe to J-STOR just to read about it?

I agree with your first two points. People in science education tell me they're trying to focus on changing how science is taught. Hopefully it'll work out. As for misleading news headlines, well, the Escapist writers themselves indulge in that form of dishonesty every chance they get, even though they get called on it every time (and even though the Code of Conduct demands that we not do that). If we can't get this site to realize that honest and entertaining aren't mutually exclusive, and that all it takes is a little bit of actual talent, it doesn't bode well for mainstream news media.

As for how scientists present themselves, we have people like Neil Tyson doing what they can far more effectively than Hitchens could, but it doesn't seem the message is getting out there.

As for the last, that is one of my pet peeves. I've seen academic publishers ask 40 Euros for permission to view, (not republish, but view) a one-page article. I sent them an email asking how they justify that cost, haven't heard back. I know they need some source of funding to maintain their archives, publish their materials, and in some cases award grants, but this is just ridiculous.

 

[tautologico]

1. The way science is taught- Due to pressure to pass tests, children are taught to memorize facts about science and not taught how to critically think through the scientific process. The latter takes much more time, effort, and creativity on both teachers' and students' parts. As such we end up with a culture that treats science not as a tool, but as an approved collection of facts to know are True. If the gatekeepers of science say eggs are bad for you, then eggs are bad for you. If they say eggs are good, then the typical person doesn't reason through the explanation for why researchers have changed their minds, they express frustration that the researchers "can't make up their minds".

Not just science education, all education should be about learning to think critically about things. This is a big failing of our current educational systems.

2. The way science is reported- Most newspapers do a poor job of reporting science. As others have said, headlines are sensationalized to move print. But another problem is that content may be simplified in order to not take up too much page real estate.

This is, to me, the main issue: science reporting in the media is extremely bad. There's the sensationalism but there's also the fact that most reporters don't really understand the science, so they distort the results either by ignorance or on purpose, to make a more "appealing" article.

3. The way scientists represent themselves- I have a good friend who is endlessly frustrated by creationism. One time he told me that his biggest frustration was that every time he saw an evolution versus creationism argument on FOX News, the creationism side was represented by some handsome young man with a confident but non-threatening smile and perfectly styled hair, while the evolution side was always represented by some dowdy researcher who looks uncomfortable and can't articulate their point clearly within the framework of a 2-minute news interview segment. Or they look like Christopher Hitchens, i.e. they rolled out of bed, slammed a couple shots of vodka, and then showed up with no intention other than snidely insulting anyone who doesn't accept their position on faith. Shallow though it may be, image is part of presentation.

You know this is what FOX News wants, right? If they found an attractive, outspoken and confident scientist to argue about evolution they wouldn't take him/her before the cameras. They'll always choose the weird people to automatically discredit the side they don't want to support.

And my experience in academia is that this extends beyond evolution debates. Many academics enjoy being deliberately obtuse. I couldn't tell you how many papers I've read where Latin phrases get dropped in for no communicative purpose other than showing that the researcher knows Latin, or where language is needlessly complex, or where articles are laid out in a manner that makes it impossible to read their arguments without flipping back and forth across several pages in order to remember what the terms the author invented mean. Hell, I recall the GRE exam gives bonus points on its writing exam for crap like this, with a example essay talking about "a Sargasso sea of ideas" getting its top grade, despite the fact that such language doesn't make much sense to anyone who is unfamiliar with that particular region. When I hear professors talk about writers who distill research for casual audiences, while the words "dumb down" don't get said overtly, there is often a strong sense that such writing is beneath a real scientist.

I don't know in what fields you've been reading papers, but yes, there's a problem that most scientists don't write well. In my experience this is not really out of a desire to appear obtuse, but just because they don't know how to write (ignorance, not malice). It's not something that is taught in most fields, and apart from the dissertation (which is often heavily revised by the advisor and other people), an individual is never judged by their capacity to write when studying to be a scientist.

Even so, many of the scientists who become famous are good writers. For a sample, you can read the Watson/Crick paper about DNA, it's easy to find and it's a very good read. Writing well tends to be better to a scientist's career, because more people will pay attention to him/her. So it's not really in a scientist's better interest to write badly, and if they do so is out of ignorance.

But the biggest example of the way academia insulates itself from the outside is access to academic journals themselves. The whole process of science is built on the ability of the public to scrutinize and replicate experiments, but often access to scientific journals is quite expensive for people not in a university. How can we expect journalists to get our research right if we demand they subscribe to J-STOR just to read about it?

This is a big problem right now, especially because most of the research that ends closed behind pay walls is publically-funded by government agencies (and thus paid with taxes). The big publishers like Elsevier and Springer hold the journal system as hostages right now, but there are many scientists who are fighting against this and trying to extend the reach of open access venues. It's not easy because it's a gold mine for these big conglomerate publishers, but eventually things must change, as they're already changing in some fields right now. Mathematics is moving fast towards open access journals, and in computer science there's growing pressure to have everything available to the public. I know in some places there are laws being written or already approved to make the results of research funded by government agencies always available to the public.

 

[Vrach]

Stopped reading at Daily Mail. It might as well have been talked about by Fox News, I'm not quite sure which is worse, either way the credibility went out the window there, so I wouldn't pay it any more attention if I were you.

 

[tautologico]

As for the last, that is one of my pet peeves. I've seen academic publishers ask 40 Euros for permission to view, (not republish, but view) a one-page article. I sent them an email asking how they justify that cost, haven't heard back. I know they need some source of funding to maintain their archives, publish their materials, and in some cases award grants, but this is just ridiculous.

Some people have called "academic publishing" a racket, and not just as a joke. They make loads of money, because most of the work is not made by them. Scientists write and format the papers and send them to journals. Other scientists review and help edit the papers submitted to journals. Note that in most cases the people on a journal's editorial or reviewing board don't receive money for this work; being on the board of a prestigious journal is considered to good for one's career, so people generally do it for free.

So the scientists themselves do most of the work, for free. The publishers only contribute with the infrastructure to publish on paper (which is getting more and more rare these days) or store online on servers. But this is cheap today. It's nothing that justifies the absurd prices they ask for. And if you think you have to pay dearly to have access to a single paper, just imagine the outrageous amounts they charge libraries and universities for access to journals (often libraries have to subscribe to a "package" containing not just the journal(s) they want, but a bunch of others they would never subscribe to). It's outrageous, really.

But scientists are often evaluated by the impact factors of their papers and such, and the journals with the highest reputation and highest impact factors are in the hands of these publishers, so it's not easy to just abandon these journals that are handled by greedy publishers. The publishers know that, and try to take advantage of this leverage as well as they can. This is the current system, but there's a lot of people trying to change that (see my previous post).

 

[Darken12]

"Given to the scientists"

What! So I can get my own criminals to experiment upon??? Why did nobody teach me this at college? Man, I've been wondering if I could induce a thyroid tumour in hypothyroid patients to solve their hormonal problems for a long time! Or a beta-cell pancreatic tumour to cure auto-immune diabetes! Man, I've been missing out.

I expect the inmates at my lab by 8 am sharp. There will be paperwork to sign, so make sure they all bring pens. Tearful goodbyes to loved ones are to be taken care of before the appointed time. I will not have any sentimental crap delay our glorious, glorious science.

 

[Akisa]

Hey everybody, I'd like to talk to you about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide...

Well if you take too much of it you can die. And it covers 70.78 of the earth! And the worst news you and practically everyone on this forum has been exposed!

 

[barbzilla]

I'm not certain a bunch of rabid, drooling, mentally deficient bloggers and tabloid journalists should be mistaken for the general public.

I can't say I've ever actually met an actual person who believed scientists to be James Bond style villains, outside of the internet of course. Whose claims as mister Church points out should be taken with many a grain of salt.

Nope it is not the entirety of the public, it is the lowest common denominator that we are dealing with. The problem is, they are also the most common type of person, so the media sells their news to those types of people. Just look at election coverage, they don't advertise to the people who are actually researching the candidates. They advertise to the people who watch the news to learn who they should vote for. These are the people that believe everything they hear on the news and everything they read in the newspaper. In short, the idiots of the world. The same people who post on youtube and the "alternative" news sources.

Erm... No...

That's not how distributions of intelligence work. The idiots of the world make up about as large a percentage as the geniuses of the world. They're not the most common type of person.

Tabloids and such sell to this type of person because they're easily pleased and influenced. But I don't believe it needs saying that tabloids are hardly representative of all media.

The most common type of person is entirely average with an IQ of 100. Neither an idiot nor a genius. Neither believing everything nor performing extensive research. Just average.

That is true based on the IQ test, but I don't used this as a judge for intelligence. I suppose I should have used the word ignorant people, but the meaning is the same. It doesn't matter if your IQ is 182 (I've seen his documentation) as my friend's is, if you don't do anything with it (like him) you are not that bright. He has a photographic memory and is quite capable of doing math out to the millionths place in his head, but he will believe anything put in front of him because he is too lazy to do his own research to find the validity of the statement. This means he makes idiotic statements frequently because he heard it on TV or the internet. Unfortunately the average person is ignorant and too lazy to change it, so they believe what they hear on the news, because they think it is the truth.

 

[Dead Seerius]

While the "news" outlets that published the false stories are hardly credible sources and don't represent the general publics opinion, I do still kind of agree with what this guy is saying - not many people know where the line is drawn between 'scientific possibility' and 'just plain fantasy'.

In an age where we have some pretty impressive technology, it's hard not to think that just about anything is possible. I'm not saying I'd have believed this, but the guy still has a good point.

 

[Hagi]

That is true based on the IQ test, but I don't used this as a judge for intelligence. I suppose I should have used the word ignorant people, but the meaning is the same. It doesn't matter if your IQ is 182 (I've seen his documentation) as my friend's is, if you don't do anything with it (like him) you are not that bright. He has a photographic memory and is quite capable of doing math out to the millionths place in his head, but he will believe anything put in front of him because he is too lazy to do his own research to find the validity of the statement. This means he makes idiotic statements frequently because he heard it on TV or the internet. Unfortunately the average person is ignorant and too lazy to change it, so they believe what they hear on the news, because they think it is the truth.

Yes... I'm sure your friend is statistically representative for the entire human population of this planet. Surely if he believes everything he hears then so must the average person.

 

[ComradeJim270]

Yes... I'm sure your friend is statistically representative for the entire human population of this planet. Surely if he believes everything he hears then so must the average person.

I'm pretty sure the point was that intelligent people can believe stupid things.

 

[HigherTomorrow]

Wait, so they're not cloning a neanderbaby?

Aww man.

 

[barbzilla]

That is true based on the IQ test, but I don't used this as a judge for intelligence. I suppose I should have used the word ignorant people, but the meaning is the same. It doesn't matter if your IQ is 182 (I've seen his documentation) as my friend's is, if you don't do anything with it (like him) you are not that bright. He has a photographic memory and is quite capable of doing math out to the millionths place in his head, but he will believe anything put in front of him because he is too lazy to do his own research to find the validity of the statement. This means he makes idiotic statements frequently because he heard it on TV or the internet. Unfortunately the average person is ignorant and too lazy to change it, so they believe what they hear on the news, because they think it is the truth.

Yes... I'm sure your friend is statistically representative for the entire human population of this planet. Surely if he believes everything he hears then so must the average person.

*Sigh* thank you for taking my statement and applying it in a way that was not intended. I was giving you an example of how IQ means little, what matters as far as intelligence is a combination of ability and the will to use it. You seem to want to ignore the points I make and just attack the statements. Well let me give you the next statement so you can start working on attacking it as well.

The majority of people in this world are lazy and would rather be told what to think than to think for themselves. Why do you think we have so many un-informed voters. People in general (at least in America) are followers out of apathy, and they follow the Media. The Media gives them information that is supposed to be true, and then the average American regurgitates the views on how the information was interpreted. This is what I meant by my posts, if you don't believe that, I don't care. You are entitled to whatever opinion or belief you desire, but that is my take and my opinion. If I was wrong then why do you see so many people regurgitating what they hear on the media. As soon as the media said GTA 4 causes school shootings, parents moved to ban the game. It is stuff like that event that reinforces what I am saying.

In short, if you believe everything the media is throwing at you, without doing your own personal research. Then I would classify you as part of the lowest common denominator. At the very least your critical thinking skills need a lot of work (note: I do not mean you personally, but as a generalized statement to everyone). Please start asking questions, and researching what you are told before you go around repeating it.

 

[Hagi]

Yes... I'm sure your friend is statistically representative for the entire human population of this planet. Surely if he believes everything he hears then so must the average person.

I'm pretty sure the point was that intelligent people can believe stupid things.

I never denied that they did not.

However stupid people can also believe intelligent things and in the end, when taken across a large population, it averages out in the majority neither blindly believing everything shown in the media, especially dubious sources such as tabloids, nor doing great in-depth research on the subjects.

The average person as well as the majority of people are neither idiots nor geniuses, they're just average. They'll sometimes believe things they probably shouldn't but they'll also dismiss those things just as often.

 

[Hagi]

That is true based on the IQ test, but I don't used this as a judge for intelligence. I suppose I should have used the word ignorant people, but the meaning is the same. It doesn't matter if your IQ is 182 (I've seen his documentation) as my friend's is, if you don't do anything with it (like him) you are not that bright. He has a photographic memory and is quite capable of doing math out to the millionths place in his head, but he will believe anything put in front of him because he is too lazy to do his own research to find the validity of the statement. This means he makes idiotic statements frequently because he heard it on TV or the internet. Unfortunately the average person is ignorant and too lazy to change it, so they believe what they hear on the news, because they think it is the truth.

Yes... I'm sure your friend is statistically representative for the entire human population of this planet. Surely if he believes everything he hears then so must the average person.

*Sigh* thank you for taking my statement and applying it in a way that was not intended. I was giving you an example of how IQ means little, what matters as far as intelligence is a combination of ability and the will to use it. You seem to want to ignore the points I make and just attack the statements. Well let me give you the next statement so you can start working on attacking it as well.

The majority of people in this world are lazy and would rather be told what to think than to think for themselves. Why do you think we have so many un-informed voters. People in general (at least in America) are followers out of apathy, and they follow the Media. The Media gives them information that is supposed to be true, and then the average American regurgitates the views on how the information was interpreted. This is what I meant by my posts, if you don't believe that, I don't care. You are entitled to whatever opinion or belief you desire, but that is my take and my opinion. If I was wrong then why do you see so many people regurgitating what they hear on the media. As soon as the media said GTA 4 causes school shootings, parents moved to ban the game. It is stuff like that event that reinforces what I am saying.

In short, if you believe everything the media is throwing at you, without doing your own personal research. Then I would classify you as part of the lowest common denominator. At the very least your critical thinking skills need a lot of work (note: I do not mean you personally, but as a generalized statement to everyone). Please start asking questions, and researching what you are told before you go around repeating it.

Again, you're mistaking vocal minorities for majorities.

The majority of people are just average. They're neither particularly lazy nor particularly industrious. They'll think for themselves, but usually not in any great complexity. They'll do some basic research and ask some questions, but they won't go through strenuous scientific inquiries. They're average.

 

[barbzilla]

That is true based on the IQ test, but I don't used this as a judge for intelligence. I suppose I should have used the word ignorant people, but the meaning is the same. It doesn't matter if your IQ is 182 (I've seen his documentation) as my friend's is, if you don't do anything with it (like him) you are not that bright. He has a photographic memory and is quite capable of doing math out to the millionths place in his head, but he will believe anything put in front of him because he is too lazy to do his own research to find the validity of the statement. This means he makes idiotic statements frequently because he heard it on TV or the internet. Unfortunately the average person is ignorant and too lazy to change it, so they believe what they hear on the news, because they think it is the truth.

Yes... I'm sure your friend is statistically representative for the entire human population of this planet. Surely if he believes everything he hears then so must the average person.

*Sigh* thank you for taking my statement and applying it in a way that was not intended. I was giving you an example of how IQ means little, what matters as far as intelligence is a combination of ability and the will to use it. You seem to want to ignore the points I make and just attack the statements. Well let me give you the next statement so you can start working on attacking it as well.

The majority of people in this world are lazy and would rather be told what to think than to think for themselves. Why do you think we have so many un-informed voters. People in general (at least in America) are followers out of apathy, and they follow the Media. The Media gives them information that is supposed to be true, and then the average American regurgitates the views on how the information was interpreted. This is what I meant by my posts, if you don't believe that, I don't care. You are entitled to whatever opinion or belief you desire, but that is my take and my opinion. If I was wrong then why do you see so many people regurgitating what they hear on the media. As soon as the media said GTA 4 causes school shootings, parents moved to ban the game. It is stuff like that event that reinforces what I am saying.

In short, if you believe everything the media is throwing at you, without doing your own personal research. Then I would classify you as part of the lowest common denominator. At the very least your critical thinking skills need a lot of work (note: I do not mean you personally, but as a generalized statement to everyone). Please start asking questions, and researching what you are told before you go around repeating it.

Again, you're mistaking vocal minorities for majorities.

The majority of people are just average. They're neither particularly lazy nor particularly industrious. They'll think for themselves, but usually not in any great complexity. They'll do some basic research and ask some questions, but they won't go through strenuous scientific inquiries. They're average.

Valid point. Fair enough, I can concede that the majority of the vocal ones are morons and I can't speak for the entirety of a country as I don't have any physical evidence myself. I just get tired of hearing the same tired arguments again and again. If people were to look into half the stuff they spew, they would probably have never said it in the first place. That was my point in reference to the OP.

 

[mitchell271]

This is a society where some people have convinced themselves that there's actually a huge debate going on in the scientific community about whether or not creationism is true or not.
*sigh*

 

[RoonMian]

I don't really consider thousands to be a very impressive amount of people out of a population of 82 million. Same goes for your experiences on the bus, it only takes a few people out of dozens to make it seem a certain paper is everywhere.

"Bild" is the biggest German newspaper with a reach of approximately 12.31 million readers. It really IS everywhere. On top of that their website bild.de gets up to 6.8 million clicks per day.

I don't think that this is any different in other European countries, especially not in the UK with its high number of tabliod newspapers.

So TheKasp's argument that tabloid newspapers are influential still stands.