Oct 4, 2023 06:21 PM
(This post was last modified: Oct 4, 2023 07:49 PM by C C.)
RELATED (scivillage): Why science & its journals should remain free of ideology: an example from Nature ........ "Yes, science is political", these science publications proudly proclaim ........ How a canceled panel on sex plays into censorship by the Right
Not sure the provenance of this rests primarily at the individual level. There's also the influence that administrators of educational/research institutions, and industrial employers, and science publishers, have on the scientists in coercing them to conform to their political preferences and policies.
- - - - - - - - - -
The public is OK, it's us scientists who are the problem
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the...scientists
EXCERPTS: The new AEI survey reinforces evidence showing that even as trust and confidence in science among the American public overall remains relatively high in a time of broad public distrust of institutions, science too has experienced a decline in public trust.
[...] Typically, the idea of a crisis of public trust in science is quickly accompanied by a diagnosis (from us scientists, of course) that identifies the crisis as a failure of the public, e.g., in being easily duped by monied interests or evil politicians, and simply not smart enough to know enough to come to the proper views.
This of course is a version of the old deficit model which posits that the public has a knowledge deficit, which if corrected through science communication and education would then lead to changed policy and political preferences — as well as increasing overall public trust in science.
Here I wish to overview an alternative argument that I’ve been making for almost two decades — trust in science (including scientists and scientific institutions) is placed at risk when leading scientists and institutions become politically active in ways that diverge from the values and preferences of the broader public. The new AEI survey provides some data that supports the idea that loss of trust in science may indeed have a causal element related to the politics and advocacy of scientists.
[...] Let’s review:
In short, scientists overall are different than most people in American society. (Scientists overall are also disproportionately white, male and secular. [i.e., a self-hating privileged class whose decision-making is potentially compromised by feelings of guilt, whether real or pretentious])
Consequentially, as a group scientists and the institutions that they lead typically have chosen to express values and politics that are broadly inconsistent with those of normal Americans. The consequences are predictable — Consider the steep drop in trust in science among Hispanic and Black Americans found in the new AEI survey...
[...] Here is where things may get a bit uncomfortable for the scientific community — to the extent that the community, or more accurately, its influencers and leaders seek to pursue the community’s narrow interests over the broader common interest values expressed by the public, the public will overall increasingly lose confidence in the scientific community, while those who most closely share the scientific community’s narrow interests will express increasing confidence in science.
This is not rocket science.
Elsewhere I have documented examples of prominent members of the scientific community cheerleading for Democrats, expressing disdain and disrespect for Republicans and government more generally, denigrating the general public, the less educated and opposing policy goals that the general public thinks are pretty important, like economic growth.
More than a decade ago Dan Sarewitz warned us that the scientific community faced a fork in the road:
Scientists and the institutions that they lead probably cannot do much to arrest the overall decline in public support for institutions, but it is well within our scope and responsibility to address the partisan, educational, religious, economic and racial divides in how science is trusted among the broader public.
In fact, addressing the crisis of confidence in public trust in science should be the community’s top priority. It is that important... (MORE - missing details)
Not sure the provenance of this rests primarily at the individual level. There's also the influence that administrators of educational/research institutions, and industrial employers, and science publishers, have on the scientists in coercing them to conform to their political preferences and policies.
- - - - - - - - - -
The public is OK, it's us scientists who are the problem
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the...scientists
EXCERPTS: The new AEI survey reinforces evidence showing that even as trust and confidence in science among the American public overall remains relatively high in a time of broad public distrust of institutions, science too has experienced a decline in public trust.
[...] Typically, the idea of a crisis of public trust in science is quickly accompanied by a diagnosis (from us scientists, of course) that identifies the crisis as a failure of the public, e.g., in being easily duped by monied interests or evil politicians, and simply not smart enough to know enough to come to the proper views.
This of course is a version of the old deficit model which posits that the public has a knowledge deficit, which if corrected through science communication and education would then lead to changed policy and political preferences — as well as increasing overall public trust in science.
Here I wish to overview an alternative argument that I’ve been making for almost two decades — trust in science (including scientists and scientific institutions) is placed at risk when leading scientists and institutions become politically active in ways that diverge from the values and preferences of the broader public. The new AEI survey provides some data that supports the idea that loss of trust in science may indeed have a causal element related to the politics and advocacy of scientists.
[...] Let’s review:
- Those with greater educational attainment have increasingly voted Democratic;
- The wealthy (which overlaps with those with greater educational attainment) also have increasingly voted Democratic;
- However, neither a majority of Americans nor a majority of Democrats are highly educated or relatively wealthy;
- But scientists are both highly educated and relatively wealthy [???];
- All of these dynamics are more extreme at higher levels of education (notably at the Ph.D. level).
In short, scientists overall are different than most people in American society. (Scientists overall are also disproportionately white, male and secular. [i.e., a self-hating privileged class whose decision-making is potentially compromised by feelings of guilt, whether real or pretentious])
Consequentially, as a group scientists and the institutions that they lead typically have chosen to express values and politics that are broadly inconsistent with those of normal Americans. The consequences are predictable — Consider the steep drop in trust in science among Hispanic and Black Americans found in the new AEI survey...
[...] Here is where things may get a bit uncomfortable for the scientific community — to the extent that the community, or more accurately, its influencers and leaders seek to pursue the community’s narrow interests over the broader common interest values expressed by the public, the public will overall increasingly lose confidence in the scientific community, while those who most closely share the scientific community’s narrow interests will express increasing confidence in science.
This is not rocket science.
Elsewhere I have documented examples of prominent members of the scientific community cheerleading for Democrats, expressing disdain and disrespect for Republicans and government more generally, denigrating the general public, the less educated and opposing policy goals that the general public thinks are pretty important, like economic growth.
More than a decade ago Dan Sarewitz warned us that the scientific community faced a fork in the road:
[...] The more… the science community, is seen to line up behind one party, the less claim it will have to special status in informing difficult political and social decisions. Public regard for scientists remains particularly high, and for politicians, particularly low. Blurring the boundaries between these groups is not likely to redound to the benefit of politicians, but to the detriment of scientists.
Scientists and the institutions that they lead probably cannot do much to arrest the overall decline in public support for institutions, but it is well within our scope and responsibility to address the partisan, educational, religious, economic and racial divides in how science is trusted among the broader public.
In fact, addressing the crisis of confidence in public trust in science should be the community’s top priority. It is that important... (MORE - missing details)
