Do you trust scientists?
I trust the process; the scientific method and peer review. Works pretty well as long as sources of funding are neutral.
I trust science, but not scientists.
Do you have an example of methods in a study that show inherent political bias?
I trust scientists that don't claim something is conclusive and doesn't require any more research.
Scientists that do have an obvious hidden agenda.
I trust that scientists are just people and their biases influence their interpretations.
That's why science is the way that it is, so it can be evaluated. If the study is designed to produce a a specific result, then that will be apparent when you read the methods. Then, the validity/relevance of the study can be put in proper contex
Anyone who honestly believes in evolution cannot be trusted.
Often that is result of ppl jumping on unreplicated, biased, too-few-subjects, etc, studies then misrepresent &/or distort facts of study for ulterior motives. Study may be accurate in terms of results. But bias/misrepresentation skew conclusion.
I trust scientists, but not always science headlines. What was the one yesterday? "Study links eating grits to homosexuality"? What kind of whacko is doing this kind of research?
Some fields of science have become politically motivated and scientists in those fields are in encouraged to come to particular conclusions, like doctors may be encouraged to diagnose a particular condition so they may prescribe a particular drug.
I trust scientists far more than politicians.
Depends on the scientist.
"Scientists" is a pretty generic term.
Nicely stated. Also need to ensure that results are not suppressed.
usually....but not when it's tainted with politics.
I trust that science says what it really says. I trust that scientists disagree on how to interpret the data and results which is why they disagree about stuff. I trust that it's incomplete which is why former "truths" are disproven.
I believe there's a lot of money to be made in the application of science.
I mean, science itself is based on evidence. Where is the proof of evolution?
... and who's paying for the study.
I agree on both your points.
Yes, except the ones that ask for tax payer funding. They may skew their results to the need of the government.
Not always. Studies, like laws, can be designed to give you the answer you're looking for instead of the truth.
How is international consensus politically motivated?
How it's used and by whom is a divide rent story, but that's not inherent in science.
I would encourage everyone to study a little about a subject before consulting an expert on that subject. You should still consult the expert but know enough to be able to detect BS when it is being thrown at you.
It can be put into proper context but usually is not. My problem with this is that science should not be biased. However, it definitely is which causes problems and questions which politicize it.
International consensus is motivated by research grants mostly.
More than economists.
I trust them like I do any other person. As a group, probably more so.
You go to a pediatrist if you have foot problems, a gynecologist for vagina related problems, etc. Those people are experts in their medical field, why would it be any different for a Biologist Climate Scientist, or any other scientist?
I sure hope you're joking.
May not be the research; then again, could be. Often it's the media misrepresenting actual results &/or jumping to conclusions study doesn't support.
I agree, it's pathetic you offer no proof.
^^^ this ^^^ all y'all in this thread!
Hell, *I'm* a scientist.
Point @ which *any* field of study/research *summarily* dismisses opposing viewpoints, on *any* issue, they are no longer trustworthy. Scientists follow scientific method. Which means, *every* result is challenged & rechallenged & counter-challenged
There is no such thing as "settled science." Instant anyone makes such a declaration one knows they are hearing an uneducated, unmitigated, fool... not a "scientist."
I wish I was.
I don't because science changes so much. One year we find out something is good for you and thirty years later it's damaging to you. It's not that science it's fickle, it's the people who practice it.
You're a mad scientist. Of course we don't trust you - you're always creating a catastrophe for a superhero to solve :)
The press often reports that latest new study. It's good to know, but it takes years of replication from other labs to start to believe it. The scientists might have done nothing intentionally wrong.
So I think you mean that the scientists and scientific process are trustworthy so long as they are allowed to work without intimidation and not have their funding/publications restricted to support a political/corporate agenda.
I trust a scientist as much as anyone else who I know nothing about. I trust science 100%. I trust raw data.
Some of them.
And the misapplication of science, too.
No, but a bit more than other groups.
I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trust.
Agree, especially the climatologists who thrive on funding fear.