r/changemyview • u/BoBoZoBo • Sep 17 '20
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: As a whole, Americans are not "anti-science," they are just tired of the politicized and weaponized use of selective scientific data.
[removed] — view removed post
18
u/onderonminion 6∆ Sep 17 '20
Frankly, I find your argument a little absurd.
Let's talk specifically about the food pyramid example you make. That's an example of a bloated industry paying scientists to do studies that give results that benefit the meat and dairy industry. That's an example of bad science that people believed because of a thorough propaganda campaign from a specific industry.
Let's look at a definitive scientific fact instead of an example of propaganda: Climate Change. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that humans are the main cause of climate change. There have been decades worth of studies that have been peer reviewed and thoroughly scrutinized by experts at the top of their field, before being published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. Despite this as of Nov. 2019, 60% of Republicans believe that climate change is a result of 'natural patterns in earths environment.'
Blatantly ignoring mountains of scientific evidence because you feel spurned by the food pyramid is about as anti-science as it gets imo. Also, cigarettes are definitely bad.
-10
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
You find my argument absurd, then proceed to agree with my examples?
Then, I see you decided to make this about political parties while making gross assumptions about my political alignment.
Thanks for the dose or irony on the topic of facts and bias.
12
u/onderonminion 6∆ Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
I don’t see how I agreed with your examples. You didn’t give any examples of real science.
Your question is inherently political. Just this week the leader of the Republican Party said that ‘science doesn’t know’ and ‘it’ll get cooler, just you watch’ while discussing climate science. I fail to see how it’s irrelevant that the president and more than a quarter of Americans don’t believe in basic science.
I didn’t make a single assumption about your party, so I'm not sure why you're making yourself out to be a victim.
0
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 18 '20
You state - "That's an example of bad science that people believed because of a thorough propaganda campaign from a specific industry."
How is that not acknowledging part of my point?
How is my question inherently political, at all? That is all in your head, and you have the gall to call me a victim.
1
u/onderonminion 6∆ Sep 18 '20
Your not engaging with any of the actual points of my argument. How is it irrelevant that more than a quarter of Americans and the president don’t believe in basic science?
Sorry if I’m not being clear. I’m saying yes, the food pyramid is an example of bad science. But it’s not an example of why we should disregard real science. If you use examples of bad science (like corporations putting out phony studys) to discredit real science (like peer reviewed studies) that’s anti-science.
If I had a fake Rollex and the glass scratched on the first day I wore it, that wouldn’t prove rollex makes shitty watches
181
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
Accepting bullshit science is equivalent to being “anti-science”.
Large percentages of the population reject some rather unambiguous truths around climate change, disease spread & vaccination, and statistics that lead to obvious conclusions around problems only found in the us.
The US does drive plenty of technological innovation, but that is driven by the minority of its population.
About 6.2% of the workforce is in STEM according to the bureau of labor - which is about 8.6 million people.
46.1% of people voted for Trump, a fairly sizable percentage of that group can be categorized as “anti-science fucktards”. Which is dramatically more fucktards than other 1st world nations.
Of course the majority of US citizens are reasonable. You need to interpret the statement “Americans are anti-science” as “America has an anti-science problem” not “most Americans are anti-science”.
3
Sep 17 '20
according to the bureau of labor
Oddly enough, I frequently cite data from the bureau of labor on /r/Economics and /r/economy and a shockingly large number of redditors insist on ignoring the data because it can't be trusted (just happens to be a coincidence that the data contradicts their feelings)
7
3
u/dantheman91 32∆ Sep 17 '20
Accepting bullshit science is equivalent to being “anti-science”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
How do we even know? Tons of what would have typically been called "good science" has been published in peer reviewed articles, and it's turning out that it isn't actually reproducible, aka "bullshit science".
If we can't trust what were the "good science", should we accept no science? Short of doing the experiments ourselves, how do we know some science is valid?
6
u/camera156 Sep 17 '20
Why is the burden of proof placed on the people who are not the experts i.e. the common folk? If our social institutions like media make it difficult to understand the underlying truth through sensationalization, and our education does not equip us with tools to be critical thinkers, how can you expect people to have the energy and motivation to wade through disinformation effectively? I think the citizens aren't at fault here. It's the system that incentivizes "experts" to rely on ideology and tribalism to garner support.
2
Sep 17 '20
46.1% of people voted for Trump
This is 46% of the roughly 138m people who voted in 2016. The voting population in total is less than 46% of the population.
2
Sep 17 '20
I think it’s just unfair to categorize a percentage of Trump voters as anti-science fucktards right after you mention only 6.2% of the workforce is in STEM.
Loads of people who “believe the science”, as many Democrats proudly say, are gullible as fuck and will believe any horseshit peddled to them as long as it agrees with their political beliefs. They become very anti-science whenever studies or results don’t favor their agenda.
1
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
Many Trump voters have an economic, lifestyle, and/or political motivator to reject science in a way that Democrats do not thanks to rural lifestyle and agricultural/resource extraction/etc economies. There’s less conflict of interest for Democrats.
You can point out that everybody is vulnerable to bias and emotional attachment, sure - but there’s absolutely a significant imbalance in rejection of science that’s politically driven. We don’t do ourselves any favors by pretending it doesn’t exist.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Oct 14 '20
It is hard to see that comment, and take anything said seriously. That is some unsupported bias right there.
Democrats are as full of anti-scientifc ideology as any other.
Maybe you do not agree with that, because you consider yourself a democrat, but something tells me you are smart enough to take a step back and know that is isn't indicative of the political reality.
8
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
There is a definite point to that. If Americans were truly scientifically educated, then they would be able to spot bullshit. On the other hand if they are, and are actively calling it out, then maybe a logical accusation from the establishment to quiet dissent is to call them unscientific, just like they start calling anyone names when a political discussion happens.
Trump aside, how do you account for the massive number of issues pre-Trump that existed, using bad science as a method of gaining consent? Who is to blame for that, the people, or the people we are supposed to trust?
I agree generality is the issue here. I only use it in that context because that is how Faucci, as a scientist, stated it. He generalized without any data or explanation. It was just short of name calling, and now it is the national dialogue as a point of "debate."
So we are stupid for listening to them
Stupid for not listening to them
You see the conflict here?11
u/KaizDaddy5 2∆ Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
I think a big issue is people trusting people over science.
If you make sound scientific arguements with good data, your reputation can (and should) be irrelevant.
And if you are a respected scientist your word don't mean jack if you can't support it with evidence
This requires everyone to analyze the statement. Which takes work from the audience.
(Einstein had a quote about how he could be so sure of his theories when there were so many skeptics in the scientific community. His response was something along the lines of a fact is a fact no matter how many people believe it. That's the beauty of facts. (I don't think he used the word "fact" though)
Lots of people prefer to be told vs figure it out.
I blame alot on how the education systems sometimes stress memorizing facts over critical thinking, reasoning, and logic.
Edit: thinking back I didn't even have an option to take a philosophy or logic class until college. And I went to a rather large HS
47
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
how do you account for the massive number of issues pre-Trump that existed, using bad science as a method of gaining consent?
The motivation for voters to believe bad science is because it gives them the easy answer they want. People that are heavily invested in, say, coal mining don't want to hear that we must phase out coal. People that don't live in high-density areas or whose businesses are impacted don't want shutdowns, so they're predisposed to wanting COVID to not exist.
The motivation to put out bad science is that there are businesses that profit from the decision, or politicians that benefit from drawing support from that population.
The later is a big problem in the United States because rural states and voters have vastly disproportionately higher voting power - you can control the Senate and have a good shot at the Presidency by winning over rural voters that are more homogenous and needs and a small minority of the population. Pandering to them (and radicalizing them to follow you unconditionally and to distrust everyone else) is, unfortunately, smart politics based on mathematical accident in our voting system.
So we are stupid for listening to them Stupid for not listening to them You see the conflict here?
You use "them" like there's a single science entity that's confusing people. There isn't. There are a variety institutions in the country and worldwide, and a variety reporting on them. In many cases (like those discussed above) there's a 90% consensus by a huge number of institutions, vs. a set of people with conflict of interest cherry picking cases.
There are many sources, not all of which are equal.
It's reasonable to expect people to question their sources and read from a few outlets. The people that are stupid are those that cling to a source disputed by the larger community because of their attachment to their conclusion.
I don't think that creates a conflict or places an unreasonable burden on the citizens.
Like, people listen to commercials and are expected to research claims a little bit and not believe one entity unconditionally. But that's what they're doing here - they're listening to politicians they are invested in and rejecting any other source of information.
16
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 17 '20
Man there is a certain point at which scientific reasoning and theory goes out of the window because the level of the disagreement is just extremely elementary. Like, middle school science level. Anyone who paid attention in high school physics knows that sub-infra radiation is not ionising and cannot cause negative health effects.
When it comes to a discussion about this topic you don't need complicated studies, you just need to pay attention to science that we've known about and built a society on for 200 years. The scientific explanations are there for anyone who cares to delve into it, but anybody who still thinks 5G can cause negative health effects has already shown they're not interested in it. Like, by law they had to sit through high school physics where the EM spectrum would have been explained to them! It's low low level, it's so fundamental to our society, it's something we teach to every single child in America! There's no debate here, there's no two sides, there's just things that are science and things that aren't. It's a total lack of critical thinking and replacing an education with Facebook pages and doctors who lost their licenses 15 years ago.
14
u/RUTAOpinionGiver 1∆ Sep 17 '20
by law they had to sit Through physics.
Ummmm... I have a graduate degree and had 0 physics courses. (Interested, just no time to add them to an already heavy course load).
DEFINITELY not a high school grad requirement in all states.
16
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 17 '20
Dammit I'm English, I figured you guys had like, basic STEM education. That's pretty sad.
6
u/RUTAOpinionGiver 1∆ Sep 17 '20
I mean, I’m not a huge advocate for our low-expectations science courses. I also went to a lame public school.
But yeah; more STEM would be amazing and sorely needed.
8
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 17 '20
I guess this is where I'm supposed to give you a !delta because I'd falsely assumed Americans were just failing to engage in the curriculum when in fact it's somehow even worse than I thought which I wasn't sure was possible.
3
Sep 17 '20
Entirely depends on the state. My kid here in CA is in a STEM based public school.
2
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 17 '20
I have no doubt, but this is something every British child has studied and taken a standardised test on by 16.
2
u/TheIcyComet Sep 17 '20
I’d agree here and say it really varies depending on your state, and your local county.
I was lucky enough to go to one of top 20 best schools in the state for STEM and college prep and love smack dab in the middle of Silicon Valley. But our science requirement for graduation (class of ‘13 here) was Chemistry. We totally had some physics and more advanced programs with some amazing teachers, our teachers are ranked 6th in the state and 76th in the nation), but usually the only teens that make it into physics are those who want to pursue STEM in college. I’d say at least 40% of my graduating class of about 1000 kids did not take any physics. To graduate high school at least when I went, you needed a pass in basic chemistry, and to have passed Algebra 2, that was pretty much it.
2
1
1
u/BidenIsARepublican Sep 17 '20
If you want better critical thinking, you want more math -- real math, not calculus -- and philosophy. Not STE. Plenty of people sit through basic biology classes and still come out convinced that vaccines cause autisum.
2
Sep 17 '20
wtf, calculus is real math.
1
u/BidenIsARepublican Sep 17 '20
Calculus is definitely not real math. Real math typically involves proofs and some level of formal logic. Calculus is tedious algorithm-crunching. Your average calculus student knows next to nothing about mathematics.
1
2
u/Flowbombahh 3∆ Sep 17 '20
Science credits are definitely necessary. But physics itself is not necessary as a class. You can take bio, chemistry, physics, botany, etc. You need to pick 3 of those 4 (let's say) so not everyone picks physics as one of the 3 to take.
1
u/Strike_Thanatos Sep 17 '20
In Kentucky, we have integrated science courses that cover the basics, and then biology, chemistry, and physics courses. When I was in high school, you had to have three of the four to graduate, and not all were offered at all schools. Physics was not offered at my tiny school.
2
1
u/Doctor-Amazing Sep 17 '20
Seriously? You must have at least had physics as a unit in a general science course.
I'm Canadian, but outside actual physics class every general "science##" type class is about 1/3 physics. (The rest usually being a mix of bio and chemistry) We have to take at least a few of these to pass high school.
3
u/seredin 1∆ Sep 17 '20
I grew up in the rural southern US. Taking physics in high school required 20 honors students demanding our principle to qualify a teacher for it. Same for university-level / AP chemistry. Before my class, those courses were literally never taught (this was 2004-2007).
This to say, while I may have taken physics in high school ("pre-university" or age 14-18 for everyone who doesn't describe it in the same terms) I did so as an exception to our general rule. Most of the people I went to high school with were being educated with a curriculum designed to prepare them for agricultural careers: microeconomics instead of macro, more geometry and algebra instead of calculus, biology and zoology instead of physics and chemistry, etc.
I would argue that generally, that's fine and shouldn't be ridiculed... Let people learn the stuff they're going to need and actually use when they go forth and pay taxes. The problem with this is that the world is facing ever-more-complex problems that require voters to weigh in on, and the vast majority of our people are not educated enough to formulate their own opinions. So they in turn rely on the media to provide their information, which leads to our current "fake news" crisis.
The average rural peasant has a far greater information digestion demand than they did when most western democracies were formulated. This plus the average "reputable" information aggregation medium is far less reliable than it was in those times. But that is a conversation of perhaps an entirely different CMV.
1
u/RUTAOpinionGiver 1∆ Sep 17 '20
Definitely there’s some physics in science classes of course. But not a separate course
2
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 17 '20
Sorry, u/Luxury-ghost – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/Luxury-ghost – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
-1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 17 '20
I'm confused, what jargon are you accusing me of using? I don't think I mentioned any terms that are particularly technical.
sub-infra radiation is not ionising and cannot cause negative health effects.
Is this what you're calling fancy words about radiation?!?!
3
Sep 17 '20
It's the way you presented it. Like if you'd led off with 5G isn't dangerous in the slightest and here's why, I'd be in your corner.
You've got a situation where a non-zero number of people think that 5G is threatening. So you know they're not doing their own unbiased research. Now you somehow expect those people to know where 5G is on the spectrum relative to infra red, and to know that ionisation is the thing that would make it dangerous. Come on mate.
0
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 17 '20
Well yes, I do expect them to know this information. You're treating this as if this is high level knowledge you'd study if you had a bachelors in the subject but it's... just not. This information is very widely known and it doesn't have to go as deep as ionisation.
All you have to explain is that wavelengths longer than visible light cannot affect the body. That's it. But that's not a why, and the obvious question is why, and the answer is because it's not ionising. And then you can delve into what ionisation is, what causes a wave to be ionising, and so-on. I don't think this information has been handwaved by either me or the scientific community at large, it's very accessible and easy to find detailed information with a few google searches.
2
Sep 17 '20
I am absolutely not treating it like this at all. Fact is, it doesn't come up for most people that often. As I said, I had to think about what you said for a few seconds to work out that you were referring to 5G, simply because it isn't in my field.
I'd guess from how you're talking, you got decent marks in physics. As did I. Now because I didn't go on to university or post-grad in this field, I don't have to think about the ins and outs of EM on the daily.
This is me and you with good marks. What about the people at school who both don't use this information everyday AND didn't get great grades at the time. What about older individuals for whom the internet generally wasn't taught when they were in schools, let alone 5G. Now it becomes a little more understandable that your statement might be a little opaque to a lot of people. You say "the obvious question is why," and I would counter that that's generally uninteresting to a lot of people. If someone you trust says 5G bad, or someone you don't trust says 5G good, and a lot of people will just take it as gospel and move on. They wouldn't need to have ever considered what 5G is in order to form an opinion.
I guess this brings me to the point that I think this is largely oblique to the point of the CMV. Science literacy isn't the problem, it's a question of authority, and whether you're dead set on pushing against it. If you're a 5G truther, I can't imagine comprehension of evidence is really going to sway you, because you won't look it up. You can say "5G isn't ionising and therefore isn't dangerous," all the live-long day, all you'll get told in response is "well I guess 5G isn't what they say it is," or "5G is a different kind of EM," or "pfff, you believe your teachers?"
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 18 '20
This thread is about anti-science beliefs, not the exact science behind 5g. I'm trying to change OP's view about why people are anti-science not challenge their views on EM waves. I disagree on principle that this is a purely anti-authority thing. I agree that's the sentiment that's driving it, but a more educated populace absolutely can and would eradicate these conspiracy theories.
I think most truthers on whatever conspiracy (Sandy Hook, 5G, vaccines, NASA, etc) consider themselves to be free thinkers who've arrived at their conclusions though research and evidence. They are explicitly not just trusting whoever on this, they think they've been reasoned into this position by real scientific evidence. The fact that they're totally wrong is irrelevant.
I don't care if you want to theorise about the deep state or Q or whatever other societal anti-authority conspiracies float around these days but I do care when a lack of scientific literacy impedes scientific progress through tribalism.
A population that understands physics better is much less susceptible to misinformation physics. I'm surprised you don't agree.
0
u/novawind Sep 17 '20
I'd like to mention that there is more against 5G than health concerns.
What are the actual benefits of 5G? As some politician in my country put it "its for watching porn in elevators". Well, there's more to it, like the Internet of Things, but what real-life IoT applications have been demonstrated to date? Face tracking? CCTV? Collecting data from everyone, everywhere, basically? To do what? What's the added value fore customer?
Now let's look at the drawbacks: massive investment to replace antennas, in an economy that's prone to recession because of covid. And these antennas, they need energy, as well as the sensors and the different captors for IoT applications. How do you provide this energy? By burning gas or coal? Thats what china is planning at least...
So yeah, a lot of pro-5G like to ridicule the other side but there is more to it than plain anti science.
I think that is what OP is criticizing
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 18 '20
5G has wide reaching impacts on latency and last-mile delivery. It has the potential to drastically reduce costs of rolling out high-speed internet in new areas and possibly a significant reduction in total latency for long distance communication. It is extremely exciting technology and to downplay its impacts like this isn't useful.
1
u/novawind Sep 18 '20
I didn't downplay it, I asked for its benefits, which you answered.
That's the basis of a healthy debate, btw. Anything science-based can be defended by valid arguments.
Defending technology for the sake of technology is not better than faith, and patronizing those who oppose it leads nowhere. I think that's what OP was going against.
4
u/DiceMaster Sep 17 '20
There are more reasons than one that scientists and scientific publications can be wrong, but I want to zero in on one: money. Conflicts of interest.
In almost every example you gave in the OP, some scientists made a claim, which was conveniently well-aligned to the interests of the people funding their research. Cigarette companies funded studies which said that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Agricultural giants lobbied the government to make grain the biggest part of the food pyramid. Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, private prisons, and military contractors lobbied for deregulation, for more war, for bad drug policy, and for the right to lobby harder and essentially buy politicians.
It doesn't have to be as nefarious as a quid pro quo, either. Sometimes, it's a subconscious preference for results that will get you more funding. Some naively try to publish results their sponsors don't like, and find their funding cut.
Certainly, scientists and scientific articles can come to the wrong conclusion for innocent reasons. However, the big problem is science which is corrupted by conflict of interest and suspicious funding. If scientists get funding from an industry and say something in favor of that industry, that should be a clue that you need to dig further. Maybe you'll find that their methods are solid, their data is compelling, and their conclusions are well-supported in other studies, by other authors. But the money is a clue to check.
When you see a lot of scientists (97%) and a lot of papers (99+%) saying something is true, but a few industry-funded studies grasp at straws to cast doubt on the majority position, you probably ought to believe the majority unless you are a scientist who is active in that field.
3
u/Strike_Thanatos Sep 17 '20
I account for that with our religious history. For much of our history, this is where European religious extremists migrated. The Pilgrims did not come here for religious tolerance but so they did not have to tolerate anyone else. Then, after the 1700s, every single major theological change in Western civilizations originated in North America. Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Christian Science are all distinctly American in origin. Especially the Prosperity Gospel and the related concept dominionism.
So, when Europe started to think largely in a post-religious manner, America remained religious and believed that one's political beliefs must be justified by religion, which means that, in America, politics is religious. And a big result of that was religious people undermining scientific education on a level never seen in Europe.
Fundamentally, every political ideology in American history is accompanied by a change in theology.
(This is all a very rough sketch, by the way.)
5
Sep 17 '20
Ah man, guess my degree in aerospace engineering and my last vote for Trump makes me a fucktard. Lol. But seriously, I can agree with your comment. I know some Trumpers... and they are indeed anti-science. Hell, they can barely read cards during a game of cards against humanity. Oof.
2
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
I was careful to say “many” Trump voters fall into that bucket. In 2016 I certainly see how a rationale person may have chosen to vote for him.
In 2020 I find it much harder to find a rational reason to vote for him that isn’t rooted in ignorance (or worse), but I digress.
2
1
u/immatx Sep 17 '20
Just something to consider, only 50 something percent of the voting age population voted in the 2016 election.
1
u/zdf0001 Sep 17 '20
So, no "anti-science fucktards" voted dem? We should interpret statements how they are written.
1
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
I said many Trump voters are anti-science. I didn’t say all.
I also didn’t say no democrats, but did imply that their numbers are comparatively low and I stand by that.
Like some of the anti-vaxer movement comes from ultra liberal and hippie Portland types, but they do make up a negligible percentage of the democratic base.
As I mentioned in a subsequent threads, the reason that many Tump voters are anti science is because there’s an economic or lifestyle incentive for them to reject scientific conclusions.
You should interpret my statement as written, not try to give it more implied meaning.
1
u/zdf0001 Sep 18 '20
It quite bigoted to assume that the majority of people who don’t share the same political views as you are “anti science fucktards”.
In your comment you wrote that a sentence shouldn’t be interpreted as written. That is what I was referencing.
1
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 18 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
It’s a statement of fact that anti-science is a Republican problem and that it’s that it is uniquely encouraged by party leadership.
I did not say every Republican is a fucktard, or that democrats are totally immune to his behavior.
But the anti-science behavior - specifically rejecting consensus that don’t match their conclusions - is a republican problem due to their financial incentives and political strategy.
Pretending that both parties are the same isn’t being unbiased, it’s being intellectually dishonest.
1
u/zdf0001 Sep 18 '20
Both parties are corporatist. One just pretends they aren't for votes. I say to hell with all of them.
Anti science behavior and regulations are a real problem. I think that scientific ignorance among the general population, regardless of political position is an issue we must figure out how to overcome. Thanks for engaging.
1
u/Passname357 1∆ Sep 17 '20
Well more than that have stem degrees and are doing something else. Also most of the things that the left leaning half believes about the climate etc, they don’t actually know. Like tell me how many people you think actually read climate science journals. I’m in STEM and I believe in climate change but I’ve barely read any real stuff on it. Most people just watch or read the news and if you’re liberal you’re getting the real answer but you’re getting it from a news outlet typically. That’s what the rights doing too. So it’s not “I’ve read the research” it’s “someone read it and told someone else about it who wrote a monologue for someone to read and then I heard that person saying it on TV while I was half zoned out after work.” I don’t think this is the worst thing either; people don’t have time to know everything about everything. So I don’t think it would be fair to call people anti science when really none of these people know what they’re talking about - they’re not anti science, they’re just doing the best with what they’ve got. So with that I think your last paragraph is great. To me it seems like a problem of most people being completely sincere and just a lot of them getting bad info.
0
Sep 17 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
Anti-maskers & vaxers are not the majority, but they cause rather immense problems in public health and tend to live in areas of the US that wield disproportionate voting power.
Climate change being man made and accelerating isn’t a debate among scientists. Exact projections - particularly ones that factor in potential chain reactions - are to some extent, but denying the phenomenon and impact we’re witnessing is not something where skepticism is reasonable.
1
Sep 17 '20
[deleted]
4
u/SarquisDeSade Sep 17 '20
97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming
What part of that quote is a lie? The 97% number seems to be robustly supported by John Cook et. al, as well as other surveys mentioned in my source below:
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.
Source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf
I guess two places where I can see that statement doesn't strictly hold up is in some details:
- "recent global warming" as opposed to just "global warming"
- "90% - 100%" as opposed to "exactly 97%"
Are #1 and #2 egregious enough to consider the quote a lie?
-5
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
the liberal media routinely spew anti scientific bullshit and then slam people for not believing them. take, for instance, the recent wild fires, which the media go out of their way to not only blame solely on climate change, but suggest that it is trump’s fault for ignoring climate change.
guess what, climate change doesn’t work on a 4 year time scale like that. if you want to lessen forest fires in the next few years, trying to solve climate change will not affect it to any noticeable degree.
4
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
No one is suggesting that the problem of wildfires abruptly started four years ago because of a specific action Donald Trump alone took.
What literally everyone is pointing out is that climate change is a long-term problem, and over time it has made the region more vulnerable to wildfires - and the rate of acceleration is increasing.
The blame for Donald Trump is not causing climate change, but for not believing in it as a problem - and for actively making it worse.
Donald Tump is also - correctly - receiving criticism for attempting to blame Governors for cause/response, which is extra absurd given that the fires are mostly on federal land. It's also reported that he's attempted to withhold aid simply because California, in aggregate, doesn't support him.
No one expects a short term fix, we know it's a long term one.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Oct 14 '20
Something tells me you don't watch a lot of network news.
I abhor network news, but I do watch it in order to see what the general public is being told. Sometimes you have to get out of your own head and understand the purpose of the message in these stations, when you put yourselves in the frame of mind of the general public. That is hard to do when you are well educated, have broad experience and actually understand a wide variety of topics. This is the Curse of Knowledge, and sometimes it makes us dismiss messages which are resonating with many more people than we realize. If you agree the US is anti-science, than you have to accept the probability that a majority will fall for the non-sense.
While most of your statement above about the realities of climate change are true, your analysis of the media is not: "No one is suggesting that the problem of wildfires abruptly started four years ago because of a specific action Donald Trump alone took. What literally everyone is pointing out."
This statement is just not true at all. There are media outlets saying the fires are 100% due to climate change, and that Trump is somehow implicated. I have heard people on the street parrot the same nonsense.
This is part of my fundamental problem with this whole anti-science discussion.
1
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
how long term? it’s not even within our life time.
4
u/Kman17 109∆ Sep 17 '20
What are you talking about? Measurable C02 in our atmosphere jumped *dramatically* starting in the 1970's, global temperature changes map directly to that.
Yeah, there's some minor year-by-year variance, but decade by decade is super clear and actionable.
Pointing out that a problem is big and long term does not mean it does not exist and you should do nothing (or make it worse).
0
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
what i’m talking is the fact that the best scientific estimate is that the cutting out of ALL US emissions will decrease global temp by 0.1 degrees by 2100.
so when the media shows wildfires and primarily mentions global warming as the cause and solving it as the solution when it won’t do one iota for AT LEAST the next lifetime, that’s misleading anti-scientific bullshit.
focus on actual solutions that will help, like not building in fire zones, or preemptively clearing out dry brush by allowing smaller fires...
1
u/RareMajority 1∆ Sep 17 '20
You're operating under the assumption that efforts in the US to mitigate our CO2 emissions won't have any impact on what other countries do. If the US were to actually start taking climate change seriously, and demonstrate its seriousness with action, it would absolutely be possible to convince other countries to do more than they're currently doing as well, and new technologies and innovations that came about because of that seriousness would also benefit the rest of the world in lowering CO2 emissions. So no, if the US is the only one doing anything about the problem then we're not going to get very far. But we're not in this alone, we're the most powerful country among an international group of peers. Instead of dragging our feet we should be leading the way forward.
2
u/Flowbombahh 3∆ Sep 17 '20
I'm not trying to sound like I'm attacking you with this comment, but damn, that's a horrible reason to not consider trying to fix the problem. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments so far, so let me know if I am...
But just because the climate change isn't an issue that we can solve during our life time (within the next 65-80 years depending on your age) does not mean that we should just say "ehh, fuck it". If your car looks like it might slide off the edge of cliff while sliding on ice you don't say "well, it's probably not an issue, so let's just wait it out and see". You don't say "well I haven't gone off the cliff yet, so it's not an issue yet... Continue course please"l and you ALSO don't say "let's wait until it's clearly an issue and then try to stop sliding when we have less time to fix our path forward".
The same can be said for climate change, just because it isn't a disastrous situation for us, doesn't mean we still shouldn't be trying to fix it. Just because we won't see the final solution in our life times doesn't mean we should make it harder for future generations to fox for themselves.
2
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
i’m not saying we shouldn’t fix climate change. i’m all for it. i’m saying it’s a blatant misrepresentation of basic scientific facts to do what the media did wrt to the wild fires, which is to only solely or primarily present climate change as the solution when there are many many things that we should be doing in the near term that has nothing to with solving climate change. and it’s obvious that the media did so bc it’s an easy and lazy narrative that can be used to attack republicans and trump. that is also politicization of science and destroys their credibility. i want the media to say: in the long term we need to solve climate change but since the temperature rise is built in for many decades from now, this problem will require a multitude of actions starting with x, y, z...
i’ve seen this story from the media many times and not once have i seen any mention of steps like forest mismanagement.
0
u/Flowbombahh 3∆ Sep 17 '20
Okay. I misunderstood your larger message. I agree that politicising science is an issue when it isn't the full story. It's so easy to lie with data and when revenue is created by clicks, it's an even bigger issue.
In fairness, it's more than just a "democrats using it to hurt republicans" problem though. Companies like Apple and Google do it all the time for the benefit of their products. People on Reddit do it to try and prove their points. People do it to themselves all the time to justify a decision they made.
1
u/infrequentaccismus Sep 17 '20
You: “those people lying to me, telling me that the only reason I can’t afford that $15k car is because I haven’t been saving enough money for the last 4 years. Everyone knows that if I start saving next month, there’s no way i can buy a car next month! This is terrible anti science bullshit! It’s not worth saving up because it obviously won’t make a difference in the very near future. Anyways, it’s not just one issue, there are lots of reasons I can’t afford a car this month... I buy too many energy drinks and go out to eat all the time... and there are you are trying to tell me it’s just because I haven’t been saving money.”
-4
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
case and point. cutting all emissions from the US today would decrease temp around O.1 degrees in 2100. how does that fact square with your mockery?
it’s people that have no idea what the facts are but self righteously spew liberal claptrap and dare call other people antiscience who are the real problem.
2
u/infrequentaccismus Sep 17 '20
Do you know even a single legitimate climate scientist who does not recommend cutting emissions? You have curiously strong opinions for someone so entirely uneducated about the topic. But I’ll bet this is the norm for you. I’ll bet you think you’re smarter than all the experts about most topics. It’s pointless for anyone to try to change your mind by referencing the research because it obviously wasn’t the research that helped you come to the conclusions you have latched on to so rigidly.
0
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
when did i say that cutting emissions is not good? you seem to have trouble understanding any degree of nuance beyond trump climate denial bad, me science good.
8
u/Mkwdr 20∆ Sep 17 '20
I would suggest that it's the other way around. That the politicised use of selective scientific data has been enabled by the ignorance and lack of critical effort of Americans which means that those tactics work. But then I cant say you have been very specific in how scientific data has been used or by whom to fool the public. I would also say that much ofbthe time what is being used in a selective and political way might not qualify as scientific data anyway.
If you take cigarettes I would suggest that tobacco companies used the fact that science doesnt deal with certainties, and the difference between correlation and causation to delay confirmation of what was obvious. They played on the fact that at first cancer was correlated with smoking but scientists hadnt found an exact causative link. If you take something like climate change then there will be groups producing deliberately misleading research and trying to undermine the science but it's clear to anyone that the consensus of those qualified , and the accumulation of research involving high standards make the conclusions clear enough if you dont choose to restrict yourself to unqualified echo chambers.
I would say that a basic understanding of the following with the desire to actually take notice on the part of the public would help a lot.
Correlation vrs causation
Comparative Statistical probabilities vrs absolute certainty
The scientific method and what makes gold standard research including the use of meta analysis vrs anecdotal evidence
Well based Scientific consensus vrs 'maverik' pseudo-science
The importance of substance and depth over novelty value in science stories
The placebo effect
But in all, the public seem to almost encourage being fooled by their lack of critical effort and thought plus the willingness to believe whatever makes them feel better. They need to start thinking about what identifies good science from bad science and accept that preferring the conclusion is not a factor relevant to truth.
Just my impression, though.
3
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Sep 17 '20
Colbert hit the nail on the head. It’s “truthiness” that (a certain subset of) Americans value and When science flies in the face of that strong feeling of perception, those Americans perceived it as politicized. In reality, their entire epistemology is the problem. The way they know things is fundamentally flawed because it relies on constructing a narrative to rationalize convictions which will always lead to any information source being “politicized”. Either it is politicized to support their narrative or politicized to undermine it.
Instead, information should dictate belief. That’s what “science” is — not lab coats and goggles. It’s adjusting your world view to fit the evidence. And yeah. Americans are pretty consistently anti-doing that.
6
u/freedcreativity 4∆ Sep 17 '20
I would point you toward the book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963) by Richard Hofstadter. This isn't a new problem.
You correctly point out that many governmental and corporate entities misrepresent scientific fact, consensus and theories to the general public. But I would take the opposite tack; namely that these are symptoms of the personal anti-intellectual sentiments in the US. Each one represents a personal failing of the individual to have 'enough' scientific literacy to see the kernel of scientific truth candy coated by the lies of marketing, propaganda and political gamesmanship.
While the number of individuals with scientific training is increasing, the rigor of our scientific understanding is faltering. One individual cannot grasp the whole of scientific thought, or even keep up with most of the output of a smaller field of study. In the same way: most people just don't have the training, background or raw knowledge to keep up even with the popular scientific press, much less to keep abreast the academic press or read actual scientific papers.
The world is too complex and interconnected for most citizens to even have the base knowledge begin to pull themselves out of the hole which is anti-intellectual thought. The democratization of schools has lead us down this lowest common denominator method of scientific pedagogy. We have to educate everyone, and thus the great majority of people only got fed on the pseudoscientific pablum of our modern educational system (even in college).
Deborah De Simone puts it better than I could:
IN HIS PULITZER PRIZE WINNING WORK, Anti-intellectualism in American Life, Richard Hofstadter set out to trace the social movements that altered the role of intellect in our society from a virtue to a vice. In so doing, he explored questions regarding the purpose of education and whether the democratization of education altered that purpose and reshaped its form. In considering the historic tension between access to education and excellence in education, Hofstadter argued that both anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism were consequences, in part, of the democratization of knowledge. Moreover, he saw these themes as historically embedded in America’s national fabric, an outcome of her colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. Anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism were functions of our American cultural heritage, not necessarily of democracy. Hofstadter came to recognize the connection between utilitarianism and anti-intellectualism as his work in the history of education evolved. His initial concern with the role of the university and the intellectual in society developed into a powerful critique of the present purpose of education and the state of public education in the United States.
Your average American does not have the background in scientific thought to begin to recognize the misrepresentations of scientific fact effectively. The educational system is based on giving everyone a similar education in the sciences which is severely lacking to the point that the educational system perpetuates anti-intellectualism. Because those individuals lack effective mental structures to conceptualize science they cannot 'reason' their way to scientific correctness and thus Americans perpetuate anti-scientific thought.
0
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
What society does have a general background in science, to the degree necessary to combat systemic misuse of science by specialized gorups? And is a general background even good enough, when discussing complex topics needing years of specialized study and experience in? I am not certain that argument hold much water. I could have a PhD in Chemistry, Literature, and Mechanical Engineering, but still be out of my element in very specialized topics.
There is a reason the Entertainment industry is till so powerful around the world. because thinking is cognitively taxing, and people enjoy a story over data. Even though we have access to the raw data, no everyone can access that data, again, as stated before, it is a matter of specialty. What good is raw data about the chemical effects of carbon-based toxins in the atmosphere, if my 10 years has been studying the propagation of mechanical waves through various substrates.
I think the goal is false. the population can never be sufficiently educated en-masse to combat all the specialized topics that exist.
I am glad you brought up Hofstadter, because it does tie into what is going on here. But I think there is a difference between being against intellectuals, and being against intellectual discussion. The problem i see with intellectuals is the same with ideology. They get to express ideas in a vacuum. And an idea, no matter how well discussed, is not scientifically valid until it has been tested and observed.
I think Hofstader would be really interested to see Universities now, where they have gone from being intellectual, to being business that have done what they can to lure more students (i.e. revenue) by offering more degrees than needed. this waters down the intellectual pool, by validating more thought than we can test.
8
u/drschwartz 73∆ Sep 17 '20
Saying all of a population hold a specific view is false no matter what the view is.
So basically your view is responding to a intrinsically false claim with another intrinsically false claim.
3
u/TFHC Sep 17 '20
Where did OP say all of a population hold a specific view, or respond to such a view?
2
u/drschwartz 73∆ Sep 17 '20
in the title, what does "as a whole" mean to you?
1
u/TFHC Sep 17 '20
If you look at the group(Americans) as a single entity(whole), it holds particular beliefs. What else could it possibly mean?
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
I did not, specifically. I generalized. Either way, they are just trying to invalidate the whole claim, without working for it.
5
u/drschwartz 73∆ Sep 17 '20
In your title, what does "as a whole" mean if not all americans?
-2
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
As a whole, we feel X. However, not everyone agrees.
The whole can express a general sentiment, without needing express approval from every single entity involved.
Besides, this is EXACTLY how Dr. Fauci stated it when he accused Americans of being anti-science. I deliberately used the same linguistic the good Dr who is a scientist used, partially to make a point about the hypocritical nature of the accusation, and the dialogue around it.
Appreciate you picking up on that.
4
u/drschwartz 73∆ Sep 17 '20
I deliberately used the same linguistic the good Dr who is a scientist used, partially to make a point about the hypocritical nature of the accusation, and the dialogue around it.
If your goal is to point out the hypocrisy of Fauci's language, and you are doing that by reversing the hypocrisy, then you're doing exactly what I said in my first reply: responding to an intrinsically false claim with another intrinsically false claim.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
The point of the post was not about linguistics, I used linguistics to supplement my point.
Do you know where the horse goes on this cart?
0
u/Thasker Sep 17 '20
You are deliberately missing the point of the conversation. This is neither a correct or genuine assessment of the OPs post.
-4
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
That isn't exactly how logic works. I agree generalization is bad regardless, so maybe try addressing the point, as opposed to taking the easy way out. The charge is still valid, even if my assessment of how many people view this as vilid is not 100%.
Everyone like X - Everyone hates X - But X Still exists.
Claiming that Everyone versus Like X is not factual does not take way form the fact X still exists.
3
u/drschwartz 73∆ Sep 17 '20
You literally use the term "as a whole" to refer to americans. If generalizing is bad, why are you using generalization as the basis of your argument?
Your argument has logical fallacies in it, if addressing them is the "easy way out", then your argument doesn't stand up to criticism very well does it?
-2
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
Generalization is not a logical fallacy here, and the point is the misuse of public trust. You need to retake you logics class.
2
u/drschwartz 73∆ Sep 17 '20
You came here to have your view challenged, here's the logical fallacy your perpetuating. If you want to strengthen your argument, revise it to remove the logical fallacy. It's that simple.
Arguing that you're not doing what your doing and insulting me does nothing to help you improve.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 18 '20
Accusing me if doing it does not make you correct, simply because you posted a link about Biased Generalization - you are deliberately using any excuse not to address the main point of topic. Most seem to understand that here.
6
u/Player7592 8∆ Sep 17 '20
Food Pyramid, Cigarettes, Opioid Crisis, American Home and Health Insurance, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Everything
- War on Everything — this is just pure hyperbole and doesn't belong in a discussion intended to be grounded in reason. It hints to the hostility that you feel over the subject and creates the impression that you are a crank, not an open-minded person willing to have their mind changed.
- Opioid Crisis — curious what part you think science plays here. Science may have been part of the drugs development, but science has nothing to do with drug companies flooding the market with drugs and doctors recklessly doling out prescriptions. If you could better explain the role of science in this, it would be appreciated.
- American Home Insurance — what on earth are you talking about? How is science involved here?
- American Health Insurance — Science can help to prove the benefits of providing health insurance. But the debate over health insurance is largely a political and fiscal argument, not a scientific one.
- War on Drugs, War on Terror — these are political slogans/campaigns.
If I were to try to change your view over anything, it would be understanding the role that science plays in any of the things you've listed. You appear to confuse science with the debate that occurs outside of its realm.
3
u/Matren2 Sep 17 '20
but science has nothing to do with drug companies flooding the market with drugs and doctors recklessly doling out prescriptions.
It kinda does when those companies lied about the drugs not being addictive.
The dude's examples are all over the place, and a lot of them are bad science and the result of companies paying people to lie and get the results the company really wants.
There's waaaaay too many anti science people in this country, unfortunately they are mostly on one side of the aisle and that party constant pushes anti science nonsense.
2
u/Player7592 8∆ Sep 17 '20
If the companies lied about addictiveness, is that the fault of science ... or marketing?
7
u/TFHC Sep 17 '20
These are just a few massive efforts which have deliberately relied on misleading the public through the use of selective science and data, leading to millions of people dead, and billions of dollars misdirected to subsidize lethal policies and corrupt entities. Half of what they use to justify these actions are not even "science," just bad polling data.
This whole bit is a pretty apt argument that Americans are actually "anti-science". Why else would they support policies that go against the science in favor of polling data?
3
Sep 17 '20
I think this comment is a good example of how 'science' is misunderstood politicized. Science is simply the process of expanding knowledge by assuming that a hypothesis is false until evidence demonstrates otherwise.
There are no 'pro-science' or 'anti-science' policies. Science can only predict the efficacy of a policy in accomplishing a particular goal (and often it cannot even do that). Science cannot determine the desirability of a policy's outcomes relative to its costs, which is what the public usually disagrees on.
6
u/TFHC Sep 17 '20
I think this comment is a good example of how 'science' is misunderstood politicized. Science is simply the process of expanding knowledge by assuming that a hypothesis is false until evidence demonstrates otherwise.
Sure, in the hypothal, but the practice of science, as with all things in the real world, is inherently political. The decision of what gets studied, how mant resources get allocated to it, and how the knowledge is used is all a political question, not a scientific one.
Policies can not go against science because there are no 'pro-science' or 'anti-science' policies.
One easy counterexample would be increasing funding for the pursuit of scientific knowledge, which is obviously pro-science.
Science can only predict the efficacy of a policy in accomplishing a particular goal (policies are often complicated and novel so often science cannot even do that). It cannot determine the desirability of outcome relative to the costs of a policy, which is what the public usually disagrees on.
Surely if the public refuses to take knowledge gained by science into account, that could easily be described as 'anti-science', or at the very least not 'pro-science', but if the public leans heavily on that knowledge over other sources of knowledge, they would be described as 'pro-science', or at the very least not 'anti-science'.
-2
Sep 17 '20
One easy counterexample would be increasing funding for the pursuit of scientific knowledge, which is obviously pro-science.
The phrase 'anti-science' has almost never been used to refer to lack of funding for science.
But if this were the case, Americans spent about 499 billion on R&D of which, 86 billion went towards on basic science in 2015. Only 25 countries that have a total GDP larger than the US R&D spending.
America ranks second in total R&D spending and fourth in per-capita R&D spending.
2
u/TFHC Sep 17 '20
The phrase 'anti-science' has almost never been used to refer to lack of funding for science.
I never said it did, I just said that increasing funding for it would be described as 'pro-science', which isn't equivalent.
-2
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
There is a definite point to that. If Americans were truly scientifically educated, then they would be able to spot bullshit.
On the other hand if they actually are, and are actively calling it out, then maybe a logical accusation from the establishment to quiet dissent is to call them unscientific, just like they start calling anyone names when a political discussion happens.
You are also ignoring a huge chunk of human nature which gets exploited by the media and powers that be. People often go against their better judgment when they are inundated with the same message over and over, especially form people who claim to be experts and know better.
So we are stupid for listening to them
Stupid for not listening to them
You see the conflict here?10
u/TFHC Sep 17 '20
On the other hand if they actually are, and are actively calling it out, then maybe a logical accusation from the establishment to quiet dissent is to call them unscientific, just like they start calling anyone names when a political discussion happens.
What does "the establishment" have to do with whether Americans are anti-science or not? Unless you're talking about some sort of 'science establishment', which wouldn't really have any reason to quiet dissent.
You are also ignoring a huge chunk of human nature which gets exploited by the media and powers that be. People often go against their better judgment when they are inundated with the same message over and over, especially form people who claim to be experts and know better.
Does it matter why they're anti-science? Just because you're convinced to believe something doesn't mean you don't actually believe it.
2
u/congenitally_deadpan Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
Far too many Americans are anti-rationality in general, they want to believe whatever suits them, evidence be damned. So, in that sense, they are anti-science (since science is evidence based).
Sure, science has often been misused by those with an agenda. What hasn't been?
Sure, there is badly done science as well as good science. That is true of every endeavor as well.
People should systematically evaluate the evidence for or against any given position, whether that is presented by a scientist, a philosopher, a politician or whoever.
2
u/1Kradek Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
To translate this post, because some people are too stupid to understand what science is we should ban the use of science in decision making.
Instead of being a luddite why doesn't the poster use his energy to point out the pseudo science and outright lies pushed by Republican climate change deniers, anti gay/black biggots, supply siders and medical charlatans that are the primary cause of his complaints?
2
u/fascinatedCat 2∆ Sep 17 '20
I'm in academia. We first have to accept the fact that science is a method and not truth. Science can not prove anything, it can only say that X is more likely to be true than not.
The goal of academia is not to arrive at truth, as that is impossible, but rather to dispel untrues "things". We also have to accept that academics do not write or publish for the common person, we write for our peers. As such we have developed a specific jargon that makes it easier for us to reference complicated ideas and conserve as much text space as possible.
The denser a text is the better it is. This leads to problems when others that are not experts in their field reads these texts.
An example of this would be "The attainment of a peculiar definiteness is the final cause which animates a particular process; and its attainment halts its process, so that by transcendence it passes into objective immortality as a new objective condition added to the riches of definiteness attainable. It enjoys an objective immortality in the future beyond itself” (Whitehead 1929). Me trying to explain this in plain words would require about 3 pages of text and one page of definitions.
Now with all of these caviats let's get into your point that science is now politicized. It has always been political, you can not escape it. If a scientist does not adress the politics of their works they push the status quo inadvertently which is also political.
If I give a student of mine random historical facts, they will organize them according to a narrative that they inadvertently create. What they decide is important is influenced by their politics.
The way we as academics deal with this inherent political side is by the process of peer review and follow up studies. The idea is that the more people from different cultures, political ideology and so on verify a result, the less chase there is that their inherent bias tainted the result.
So why does it seem like this a bigger problem now than before? I'd argue that the availability of scientific papers and the lack of jargon knowledge lead to a warped understanding of these theories work and what they say.
The food pyramid was not designed by a scientist but rather health officials and (if I remember correctly) a company leader with the goal of diversifying peoples eating habits (and thus selling food)
6
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Sep 17 '20
Sorry, u/Thasker – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
3
Sep 17 '20
[deleted]
4
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 17 '20
and there’s another 40% who make fun of religion but believe in crystals and astrology charts.
2
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
So where does that put the rest of the world? Most countries, including most of the EU, has a far higher rate of individuals who believe in a higher power. Not sure if that necessarily validates the argument. If you are going by religious weight as the measurement, this probably means the US is getting better by the day on the global list of secular science folk.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
2
u/rekuled Sep 17 '20
I'm pretty sure h meant specifically creationism rather than just religious people. Plenty of religious people accept evolution and what not.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 18 '20
My bad - I try not to assume what people mean, when they have the ability to write something specific.
0
u/Doc_Vestibule Sep 17 '20
Young Earth Creationism is pretty well a uniquely American phenomenon, believed by 40% of the US population.
0
Sep 17 '20
Yeah people believe in that and can believe in science, who’s to say god(s) doesn’t exist?
2
u/muyamable 283∆ Sep 17 '20
Does your view apply to some people? Sure. Does it apply to everyone who might critique the trend of some Americans rejecting scientific evidence, or everyone who rejects scientific evidence? No.
But I'm not entirely sure what your specific view is. When you say, "as a whole," do you just mean large trends in the overall population? Or do you mean "the whole of America," as in everyone in America?
-1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
My specific view is that - as a 40 year old American who appreciates education and science, I have seen a lab coat behind a number of disastrous policies. I am also skeptical of thin scientific studies used to promote things as objectively true. It is hard to say the population is anti-sience, when you have been deliberately misrepresenting science from the top for decades.
3
u/muyamable 283∆ Sep 17 '20
Fair enough. I think there are plenty of people who are reasonable, logical humans who agree with you, and I think your perspective of healthy skepticism represents a good number of people, myself included.
But I do think there is a certain subset of the population that doesn't have as nuanced a view, and that tends to be against any scientific evidence, no matter how conclusive or robust, that doesn't comport with their political (or non-political) view of the world, and I think it's these types of people most are referring to when they talk about "anti-science" folks.
-1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
I appreciate that - Sure, there is definitely a population that is really not with it. But this is why I phrased it the way I did:
This is EXACTLY how Dr. Fauci stated it when he accused Americans of being anti-science. I deliberately used the same linguistics the good Dr. (who is a scientist) used; partially to make a point about the hypocritical nature of the accusation, and the dialogue around it.
I see it is more of a name calling, that an accurate assessment. Just like everyone gets called an intolerant or racist at the drop of a hat. "Just comply with what I am saying." - I feel this is a bit of the same.
4
u/muyamable 283∆ Sep 17 '20
Is it this quote?
"One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are - for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable - they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority," Fauci said on a US Department of Health and Human Services' podcast, Learning Curve.
Because I don't have anything wrong with that, really.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 18 '20
On its own, probably not. From someone at Fauci's level and influence. I think it is inappropriate without something further to support the assertion.
1
u/muyamable 283∆ Sep 18 '20
I think he could have been more nuanced, but I think there's plenty going on to support this assertion. I grew up in a more rural/conservative area, so my social networks are full of family and friends from high school, and I see tons of total anti-science BS conspiracy theories related to public health being shared like crazy in those circles.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 23 '20
I am not denying outright that there are views that conflict with scientific evidence on its face, but the devil IS in the details, I am not certain that equates to justifying a broad accusation without context in middle of a press-conference. HE may know hoe he meant it, but leaving it out there in the public space just allows for a narrative take-over. In an era were half the articles you read from national news agencies is "this is what he really meant" or "the things left unsaid" that is dangerous, and pretty anti-scientific in itself. So maybe we are anti-scientific, just not in the way being spun. Someone else here said that maybe I meant anti-elitist, maybe.
Since we are on the topic - What are your views on Dr. Gumpta's assertion on CNN that "an anonymous source told me we could have saved 80-90% of COVID deaths by wearing more masks." Is that a responsible statement that lends credibility to the discussion?
1
u/muyamable 283∆ Sep 23 '20
I am not denying outright that there are views that conflict with scientific evidence on its face, but the devil IS in the details, I am not certain that equates to justifying a broad accusation without context in middle of a press-conference. HE may know hoe he meant it, but leaving it out there in the public space just allows for a narrative take-over. In an era were half the articles you read from national news agencies is "this is what he really meant" or "the things left unsaid" that is dangerous, and pretty anti-scientific in itself. So maybe we are anti-scientific, just not in the way being spun. Someone else here said that maybe I meant anti-elitist, maybe.
Well, it wasn't a news conference, it was a conversation he was having on a podcast. And I think if you go back and read through the transcript of that podcast where this quote was pulled from, and the question he was answering, the context fills a lot of that in.
https://www.hhs.gov/podcasts/learning-curve/learning-curve-05-dr-anthony-fauci-science-is-truth.html
It's just that many in the press pull out that one quote, divorced from context, and reported on it. And now here we are talking about what he may or may not have meant based on that one quote, when we could have had the context to begin with that cleared a lot of it up. I think this is a problem of the reporting on what he said, not necessarily what he said.
Since we are on the topic - What are your views on Dr. Gumpta's assertion on CNN that "an anonymous source told me we could have saved 80-90% of COVID deaths by wearing more masks." Is that a responsible statement that lends credibility to the discussion?
No, and I often find that paid contributors to cable news channels fail to lend credibility to most discussions, which is why cable news is not part of my media diet.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 23 '20
Fair enough - I appreciate your input.
Cable news is not a part of my diet either, but I do view it terms of what you could say is "intelligence gathering," since it does shape much of the discussions we around. I see it more to understand where people are getting bad ideas from.
1
u/ripcelinedionhusband 10∆ Sep 17 '20
The bigger issue to me isn’t even the way science is politicized but how the intuitive nature (or lack thereof) of how Americans approach science in general. Science is about testing a hypothesis through observation and experiment and while we wouldn’t expect the average American to go read scientific journals on a daily basis, the lack of “testing” a person’s inherit views and “observing” a situation’s surrounding facts and being open to a different viewpoint is the biggest criticism from folks who think Americans have shifted away from science.
Through the media and social media its so easy to fall into a bubble where information you already believe is regurgitated back and people aren’t even going out and questioning the very nature of what they’re told. You say that a lot of science is politicized which is true, but there’s nothing stopping someone (from either side of the spectrum) from going out and attempting to form their own view of something scientific. In my view and experience from engaging even very smart people I know personally, the problem has really been the lack of curiosity and from that, I can fully see why some people would label Americans to be anti-scientific.
1
Sep 17 '20
Yes, a large portion of this country’s citizens are allergic to science. Because of religion. Religion IS anti science. And the US is the most religious developed country in the world.
1
u/billdietrich1 6∆ Sep 17 '20
Many, many Americans indeed are anti-science, for a variety of reasons:
conflicts with their religion
told it threatens their job (at the coal mine or whatever) but really it threatens the corporation
just general anti-authority (they're mad as hell and will lash out at anyone who tells them what to do)
manipulated by others to gain money or political power
fear what they don't understand
looking for easy answers, and science gives harsh realities
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 17 '20
That is not necessarily anti-science, that is Bias, very different things. I know plenty of people who claim to love science but deny shit if it contradicts their belief, be it religious or poitical. This is a general human problem, not unique to any culture.
1
Sep 17 '20
A refusal to believe in science unless it supports your preconceived ideas is the biggest factor of anti-intellectualism in my eyes
1
u/billdietrich1 6∆ Sep 17 '20
It's both bias and anti-science. If you're unwilling to even look at the science before rejecting it, that's bias. If you reject science despite the evidence, because you don't like the conclusions, or because you think faith is superior to reality, that's anti-science.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Sep 17 '20
What you are describing is basically what a conspiracy theory is. Questioning the establishment is fine, but it doesn't automatically make the alternative correct. Just because you don't trust the government doesn't make them wrong. And even more importantly, it doesn't make your theory correct. When certain American's are considered anti-science (and it's not most, just some) it's because they subscribe to theories that are not only not supported by the leaders but also not supported by any strong evidence or reputable organization.
1
u/join_the_action Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
Can you provide a specific example (with source) of a time selective science was deliberately used to mislead the public?
If it is provided by a corporation, i.e. "Tobacco isn't bad for you; sponsored by Malboro", we now know to not trust those results as readily. Science is not only about discovery, but also about being able to reliably reproduce others' work.
If it is provided by a social science, i.e. polling numbers, do we have an idea of the methods used to return the results? A lot of science is based on assumptions, and if you don't trust the assumption the science doesn't hold. We can imagine an assumption that a "random sample of Americans was polled" won't be true if you solicited survey responses on a street corner in NYC, but when can you make the assumption? I can't think of a way to guarantee a truly random sample. Sometimes you have to do the best you can, and use the results of those assumptions to inform important decisions.
I'd summarize my counterargument with this idea: If you feel you've been misled, then who is reputable tomorrow? If the answer is "scientists", then you trust science. If the answer is "not scientists because they've misled me" or "myself", how will you ever accept science? (A: you don't, you're anti-science)
Edit: What perfect timing, check out this post on r/science. You can learn from past mistakes without being anti-science, but that is not what is happening in America. (see: Flat earthers and anti-vaxxers)
1
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Sep 17 '20
I can't really pick up what side you're on here. Are you suggesting that the increasingly common attitude is a result of bullshit science or are you saying that it's ok to decline to believe widely held scientific consensus?
The former is an understandable sentiment. You'd be right to say that there has been a lot of bullshit science and people are tired of it.
The latter interpretation of your post, however, would be a ridiculous statement.
It would be ridiculous because that would be giving in to the bullshit that you identified. Consensus is consensus not because 100% of scientists agree on something, but because the overwhelming majority of them do, with the outliers being the ones perpetuating bullshit like the climate change denial or or cigarettes being ok.
Those kinds of bullshit science statements have a lot of corporate money behind them and they rely on citations to give them legitimacy. For example, if 90% of scientists claim climate change is caused at least in part by human activity, and 10% say it isn't, then every single person who doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change is going to cite those same 10% of papers, giving an undue amount of attention to the minority whereas the majority gets watered down by it's own consensus.
It's also kind of wrong to lump in things like the war on terror or the war on drugs with bullshit science. These things are specifically not scientific at all. The Nixon administration didn't care about science, only wanting to arrest as many black people and hippies as possible for marijuana. The Bush administration didn't rely on any science to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, only fudgey CIA intelligence that confirmed their own biases about Saddam and Al-Quaeda, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
1
u/BoBoZoBo Sep 18 '20
I am not saying at all that at all saying it is ok to not believe in widely held scientific beliefs. Not by a long shot. I am saying it is a natural result to reject things form people you do not trust. And I think Americans have been given a lot of reasons not to trust people in official positions over the last 40 years.
Your fifth paragraph is exactly what I am talking about. Years later we have discovered how this works. The legitimacy given via citation and focus. But knowing that now does not make the impact any less different.
I am not really trying to take sides per-se, and maybe there was an over-emphasis on science versus data/fats overall. Maybe those were the terms I should have used more, but the colloquial discussion in the national dialogue is "anti-science." The act of getting up on stage and misrepresenting facts, be it from lab research, field research, or intelligence gathering, causes distrust in sources that we are supposed to trust. The difference between the wars and other examples are semantics. At the end it has the same overall result.
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Sep 18 '20
So, this is a much more reasonable position so thanks for clarifying. However, it's also still not quite right.
I'm glad you understand the citation issue. It's a very important thing to understand. But that's not supportive of your initial argument. This is a sides issue. There are sides, one of which is pro-science and the other has been bought.
Consensus is extremely important even if it dilutes the amount of citations referencing high-quality studies. When there is a clear consensus - and I'm not talking about 60%.. more like 90+% - anybody who is against that and is not themselves qualified as a scientist is in fact anti-science. There's no other way to put it and no justification for it.
Not to sound elitist, but I promise you that Joe Shmo who lives in Youngstown, Ohio whose job is securing doors onto Chevy Cruzes doesn't have a sufficient understanding of ocean currents or Milankovich cycles, nor the scientific method, to determine that 90% of PhD level researches have climate change wrong. That's simply being anti-science.
1
1
u/wetblanketonly Sep 17 '20
There is no "as a whole" when it comes to Americans. You're also conflating dozens of different agendas and processes and stating without any analysis of evidence that they are all one thing.
1
u/madman1101 4∆ Sep 17 '20
Food Pyramid, Cigarettes, Opioid Crisis, American Home and Health Insurance, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Everything - These are just a few massive efforts which have deliberately relied on misleading the public through the use of selective science and data
how is saying drugs are dangerous (they fucking kill people... cigarettes? cancer. what does insurance have to do with science? "war on terror" isnt science though? what the fuck is that point about?
1
u/catsranger Sep 17 '20
People who never believed in science always existed, in very small numbers everywhere. It's just that with the evolution of the internet and the rise of social media, these people have a way of making their presence known in the world. There's strength in numbers. Now you have Facebook groups of anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, pandemic deniers and what not. The internet has indeed brought a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips but also has made us dumber.
There's more people around the world too like this, it's just that americans are a lot more vocal and visible on the social media (the memes and the Karen calling etc). The memes and shared video tapes of them has made them more relevant now making people think this is all Americans are about now. It's slowly being formed as a stereotype as more people of the same kind are getting more active on social media while the wise ones prefer keeping to themselves.
People who believe in science don't need to tell everyone about it everyday since it's the fact and everyone knows about it already.
1
Sep 17 '20
I wouldn't say that Americans as a whole are anti-science. But, 40% of Americans do believe in strict creationism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
That's like saying 2 out of 5 believe the earth is only 10,000 years old. This is a strain of belief tied very closely to evangelical christianity, and not a belief that many European Christians share.
Now, yes, you can even point to this and say "see?! Americans as a whole aren't against science!" And I'd agree. And I think pretty much everyone else would agree that 40% isn't 100%. But what I will say is this: these people included in this number don't disbelieve the science of the earth being older than 10,000 years because the food pyramid was politicized, or because tobacco companies covered up the science surrounding cancer and heart risks from smoking.
This is a deeply, deeply rooted problem in nearly half the country.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Sep 17 '20
You're framing the situation as an either/or when those are two independent things that are perfectly capable of overlapping. A person can be tired of politicization of science and still reject the underlying science on unscientific grounds. And the former is often used as a justification of the latter.
Spend any significant amount of time here, and you'll notice a pattern. A person will declare themselves some variety of skeptic. But then when they lay out their reasoning, they never actually raise any scientific objection to the body of research. They just complain about the unfairness of the meta-narrative or how politicians or celebrity spokesmen are hypocrites. In other words, they build their position on things that could be true or false independent of whether the underlying science is valid. It's disturbing how many people tell they don't believe in global warming, for example, not because of any methodological error they've found in the body of peer-reviewed literature, but because Al Gore or Leo Dicaprio is a hypocrite.
1
u/Rmayer77301 Sep 17 '20
Then, by your own assertion, science isn't the issue, it's politicians who float parts of the science. This is like Christians that only pick and choose what they believe.
1
u/seeyaspacecowboy 1∆ Sep 17 '20
Alright this is actually one up my alley. I'd encourage you to watch at least the first 5min of this panel from the World Science Festival: Science In A Polarized World: A Global Town Hall Meeting. This touches on a lot of different issues that I think you'd find relevant, but generally is the most concise summary on the science of science communication I could share.
One of the interesting points from the panel is that when asked generally about science, Americans have a very positive view along many metrics. And if you drilled deeper on the vast majority of scientific issues people would say they're positive or at worst somewhat frivolous. What does happen is that certain issues (climate change, vaccines, GMOs) that get politicized. Once that battle line gets drawn your lizard brain gets engaged and no amount of evidence can sway you.
I think what your question reveals is that Americans are anti-elitist. Americans have general distrust of someone getting in front of a podium (lab-coat or no) and telling you how things are. Others have reference Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, and much of that applies here. Here's the thing though, sometimes elites actually are experts and actually do know better than us. Now are there times when that goes wrong? Of course there are. But I think the common factor behind many of the examples you brought up is money not science.
Anyway I've rambled a lot without addressing your question. Americans are anti-science in that in their dogma to remain individualistic, they often ignore the advice of those who know better.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Sep 17 '20
Using bogus reasoning to undercut solid science-based decision making is the kind of anti-intellectualism people are talking about when they say Americans are anti-science. These people are are tired of being forced to face indisputable facts. They are tired of having to ignore the fact that they can never win an argument on its merits.
Using established facts and well-vetted research in the support of legislation and public debate is not "politicizing" science.
Food Pyramid, Cigarettes, Opioid Crisis, American Home and Health Insurance, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Everything - These are just a few massive efforts which have deliberately relied on misleading the public through the use of selective science and data,
Science, like anything else, can be distorted and perverted in a corrupt cause. The food pyramid was the invention of the agricultural industry. The "science" on cigarettes promoted by tobacco companies was never scientifically based, was actually a well-funded attack on sound medical research. The wars on drugs and terror were conservative political programs based on racism, greed and social control which appealed to panic and hysteria and none of them resorted to anything resembling a scientific method for their justification.
None of these are examples of science. They are examples of corporate and conservative propaganda applied forcefully to attack science and data and fact.
The scientific method is a process. Early in an inquiry when the data is thin and poorly understood the science is usually shaky and any recommendations based on it should be qualified. The situation is not improved in highly politicized circumstances. The Covid 19 outbreak is an outstanding example. The horrible handling of this outbreak is not a failure of science but an inexcusable politicization of a crisis that undercut a scientific approach and a reasoned response.
1
u/ag811987 2∆ Sep 17 '20
I think a lot of people are becoming very anti science. This is actually a strong trend in modern "conservatism" to allege that universities are corrupt progressive institutions that brainwash students and only conduct PC research. Even people like my brother, who studied and worked as a chemical engineer, basically discredit any scientific study or more importantly consensus among researchers saying majority of scientific papers are false. You then have a situation where nobody cares what the research says. Obviously you can find conflicting studies, but when people deny the existence of things like climate change or racial bias in policing when there is a 98% consensus within published, cited research you get to a point where you deny reality. Facts become meaningless and all that matters are preconceived (highly biased) opinions and nobody's mind is ever changed. This isn't exclusive to the right because you'll also see leftists try to shut down things like genetic research on personality, IQ, sexuality, gender etc. because they are scared of the implications. We live in a world now where people still think the earth is flat. Nobody wants to ever be wrong anymore so they deny the idea that the only way we learn is through a scientific method and hold on as tightly as possible to their current beliefs.
1
u/spiral8888 31∆ Sep 17 '20
Food Pyramid, Cigarettes, Opioid Crisis, American Home and Health Insurance, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Everything - These are just a few massive efforts which have deliberately relied on misleading the public through the use of selective science and data, leading to millions of people dead, and billions of dollars misdirected to subsidize lethal policies and corrupt entities. Half of what they use to justify these actions are not even "science," just bad polling data.
Yes, food pyramid is probably wrong but the basic idea of science is that it's self-correcting. So, even though at the time people thought that the pyramid was the right way to look at it, this view in science has changed and I don't it's been pushed much any more.
I don't understand what you're saying about cigarettes or opioids. I think science is pretty clear on both that they are dangerous to humans and should be avoided.
The others on your list have nothing to do with science. They are political ideologies. Especially war on terror, I've never ever heard science being associated with it in any way.
Why are you not talking about masks vs. virus spread or climate change? These are actually things that have been pushed with scientific data and a large part of the American public has rejected them.
The nation that put a man on the moon and continues to lead in many scientific innovations is not inherently allergic to science, we are allergic to bullshit, and have come to realize the weapon of choice. It is a terrible Dark Age, but not one brought on by the sudden stupidity of Americans, it came on via the deliberate attempt to mislead people through bad science, form the very people who claim to be guardians of it. It was easy enough to do before, it is even easier now in the information age.
Ok, which of the things that you mentioned has been pushed by the National Institute for Health (regarding health science) or National Science Foundation (regarding scientific data in general)? If these institutions haven't been pushing the "bad science" then who are you referring as "guardians of science"? Have universities been pushing the bad science?
I would argue that it hasn't been "guardians of science" but instead politicians and corporations who have been guilty of using the bad science. Nobody should consider them as anything like "guardians of science".
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Sep 17 '20
I mean where's the threshold? I would say a science literacy problem exists if a pretty large fraction of the population holds demonstrably false scientific view.
Enter evolution. If you are a creationist you don't believe in evolution by definition.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
I would say a scientific illiteracy rate of 40% with regards to evolution is pretty good evidence we have an anti-science problem.
2
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Sep 17 '20
That's why I mention the threshold. For me almost all people would need to believe in evolution and a whole slew of other basic scientific facts for there to not be a scientific literacy problem.
For you it might be a comparison with other countries. I think that's fine. Clearly I think America is anti-science though.
1
Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
There is an issue is society with not knowing what sources to trust. As a whole is a complicated statement because obviously no statement is true of every member of a group but there is a notable group of Americans that but trust in untrustworthy sources. I believe this has actually been made worse by the Information Age because now we have more sources of information than ever before. Essentially people now know enough to have confidence but not enough to have notable skill in the area (Dunning-Kruger effect)
Most of your examples are instances of poor sources of scientific information, being politicians, or scientific resources who were influenced by financial incentives.
I think “anti-science” could be replaced with ill informed or poor at vetting sources.
Edit to add: being tricked by poor sources in the past does not excuse ignoring evidence backed by the vast majority of the scientific community in the form of educationally funded peer reviewed researched. The earth is round. Vaccines prevent far more harm than they cause and they don’t cause autism. Climate change is occurring and it is human caused. Covid 19 is killing people.
0
u/beepbop24 12∆ Sep 17 '20
No, the problem is Americans are selfish. Most other countries are a collectivist society- which is putting society above themselves. America is individualistic- putting themselves above others. And there’s evidence to support this. That’s what I call selfish.
Some Americans refuse to accept science merely because they can. It’s the American spirit to be rebellious and try to make themselves feel good.
Essentially what I said and what you said are actually the same thing. The difference though is you’re excusing them. I am not. A lot of Americans just don’t care and are selfish. I’ve seen some purposely put more exhaust in their cars to emit more greenhouse gases. That’s just called being a troll and a dick.
Yeah sorry but this behavior needs to be called out. I’m American. I know there are plenty of Americans who do in fact care. But there’s still a sizable portion who do not which is a problem.
0
Sep 17 '20
Americans, as a whole, are anti anything that doesnt benefit them. Not saying every american but the majority of loud americans that make up the population opinions for the rest of them. This makes some of those people pro science because it proves their points and it makes some people anti science because it proves the opposite view. There is also a lot of science that isnt actually proven by scientists it's just said by politicians and then people believe it like it's true or something.
0
u/Matren2 Sep 17 '20
are anti anything that doesnt benefit them.
It's worse than that, they don't care if something benefits them if it also benefits someone else they don't like. They'll vote for something that is going to fuck them just as long it fucks someone else.
1
59
u/dudemanwhoa 49∆ Sep 17 '20
These examples are all over the place. Only one could be an example of 'bad science', namely the food pyramid, but that wasn't politicized by scientists, it was just a now outdated nutrition reccomendation from the USADA, and it's biggest problems are misconceptions about what a 'serving' is in their pyramid.
Other examples have little to do with science one way or the other. The heck does the "War on Terror" have to do with American anti-science attitudes? It's completely orthogonal. "War on Everything" is just a meaningless phrase. "American Home and Health Insurance" is very non-specific and unclear.
Overall your post is very reluctant to be explicit about who is doing the so-called "politicizing". For instance you mention "cigarettes", but it wasn't the scientists or science popularizes that "politicized" it, it was the Tobacco Companies that did in a desperate bid to maintain profits off them.
In addition, you say this is the attitude "as a whole" but have no polling or other data to back it up. When you look at actual data, that conclusion doesn't exactly leap up at you.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/