Show of HandsShow of Hands

Comments: Add Comment

sdbrev210 The Pursuit of Happiness
06/14/14 7:56 am

No. Especially the ones that SHOULD have " " around the name.

jalapeno verdadero
06/13/14 10:37 pm

I trust a scientist as much as anyone else who I know nothing about. I trust science 100%. I trust raw data.

Reply
itsOkay no longer answering here
06/13/14 6:41 pm

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.

Reply
itsOkay no longer answering here
06/13/14 6:41 pm

I trust that scientists are just people and their biases influence their interpretations.

itsOkay no longer answering here
06/13/14 6:42 pm

I believe there's a lot of money to be made in the application of science.

sdbrev210 The Pursuit of Happiness
06/14/14 7:57 am

And the misapplication of science, too.

Jimmo Texas
06/13/14 6:07 pm

Just like everything else it is all about the money. Most scientists can "prove" anything as long as they get a proper grant.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:45 pm

You might get money from a private sponsor to study whatever you want. You might even get to publish in a dinky journal. But it's hard to publish BS in a good journal. It happens but it's usually weeded out eventually.

SmileyMoM Lab Rat Vampire
06/13/14 4:51 pm

I trust scientists far more than politicians.

Reply
DarkPrincess In my hiding place
06/13/14 3:25 pm

I trust science. I am more likely to trust scientist but they still have to earn my trust.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:11 pm

Depends on the scientist.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:31 pm

... and who's paying for the study.

AreYou USA
06/13/14 2:45 pm

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.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:17 pm

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.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:38 pm

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.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
06/13/14 2:34 pm

Hell, *I'm* a scientist.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:34 pm

You're a mad scientist. Of course we don't trust you - you're always creating a catastrophe for a superhero to solve :)

Ivyra Earth
06/13/14 2:17 pm

No, but a bit more than other groups.

Reply
RossDMands Miami Township, OH
06/13/14 1:37 pm

I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trust.

Reply
SugarShaq
06/13/14 12:52 pm

"Scientists" is a pretty generic term.

Reply
TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:31 pm

It's vague like asking do you trust Congress, Wall St, police, soldiers, etc. However, if science is working, most scientists should be trusted to report their findings accurately. The conclusions should be sound, but not all need to agree on them.

lightsabr2 The Big Sky
06/13/14 11:34 am

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?

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:21 pm

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.

rons Thanks America
06/13/14 10:49 am

Yes, except the ones that ask for tax payer funding. They may skew their results to the need of the government.

Reply
SugarShaq
06/13/14 12:54 pm

Agree, especially the climatologists who thrive on funding fear.

rons Thanks America
06/13/14 1:21 pm

Wink, wink!

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:21 pm

Politicians can decide priorities (X amount to fund bioterrorism, Y to cancer, Z to stem cells) but they don't decide which scientists receive the money. That decision is peer-reviewed by scientists.

bnnt Los Angeles
06/13/14 10:46 am

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.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:22 pm

Scientists that do that *aren't* "scientists. They are political propagandists.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:10 pm

True to an extent. I don't think we should be investing tax payer money to those who still think the earth is flat. I have no objection to private sponsors funding it.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
06/13/14 10:37 am

I trust them to be curious. I don't trust them to be impartial.

Reply
TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 7:08 pm

Peer-review is supposed to weed out bias. When that fails, back lash against a bad paper will cause authors to withdraw the paper. When that fails, the journal withdraws it. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good system when it works.

WhoAreYou Up In The Trees
06/13/14 10:16 am

Anyone who honestly believes in evolution cannot be trusted.

Reply
blockey
06/13/14 11:56 am

I sure hope you're joking.

WhoAreYou Up In The Trees
06/13/14 12:17 pm

I mean, science itself is based on evidence. Where is the proof of evolution?

blockey
06/13/14 12:19 pm

... Pathetic.

SugarShaq
06/13/14 12:55 pm

I agree, it's pathetic you offer no proof.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/13/14 4:37 pm

WhoAreYou, I have the exact opposite opinion - I wouldn't trust a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution. This not a good poll to debate it, but I'll be sure to post about evolution in the future - it's one of my favorite topics to discuss.

Vincere Seattle
06/12/14 11:48 am

I trust the process; the scientific method and peer review. Works pretty well as long as sources of funding are neutral.

Reply
TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 5:55 pm

Nicely stated. Also need to ensure that results are not suppressed.

Maynard Londor
06/12/14 7:31 pm

I agree on both your points.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:23 pm

^^^ this ^^^ all y'all in this thread!

2katz I live in Nebraska
06/12/14 11:34 am

Some, not all. You can't fix stupid and you can't prevent being co-opted.

Reply
DeusOrbus Stay Positive
06/12/14 8:32 am

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?

Reply
geoag02 Dallas, TX
06/12/14 9:11 am

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.

DeusOrbus Stay Positive
06/12/14 9:12 am

How is international consensus politically motivated?

geoag02 Dallas, TX
06/12/14 9:14 am

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.

geoag02 Dallas, TX
06/12/14 9:15 am

International consensus is motivated by research grants mostly.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:26 pm

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

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:27 pm

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."

commonsense America isnt racist
06/12/14 8:31 am

I trust them like I do any other person. As a group, probably more so.

Reply
TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 6:09 pm

Even Tea Party economists? :)

geoag02 Dallas, TX
06/12/14 6:53 am

I trust science, but not scientists.

Reply
TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 5:58 pm

I agree that I wouldn't trust every scientist, but as a group, I trust them so long as they are allowed to practice science without interference of political agendas.

TierasPet
06/12/14 5:51 am

Not always. Studies, like laws, can be designed to give you the answer you're looking for instead of the truth.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
06/12/14 8:02 am

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

TierasPet
06/12/14 8:17 am

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.

RJ1969 SoCal
06/12/14 9:13 am

How it's used and by whom is a divide rent story, but that's not inherent in science.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/13/14 3:29 pm

And, frequently are.

TierasPet
06/13/14 6:00 pm

I think who pays for the science also makes a difference in the results and in how it is used.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 5:38 am

Yes, this a vague question (trust them with data? Trust them with your money?trust them with your life?) but I left it intentionally vague like the main SOH polls.

Reply
XYRN USA
06/12/14 5:36 am

usually....but not when it's tainted with politics.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
06/12/14 8:03 am

Do you have an example of methods in a study that show inherent political bias?

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 6:06 pm

RJ, what about a study that concludes no change in global temps, because it only looks at surface air temperatures from satellites and doesn't take into account changes in the orbit?

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 6:08 pm

Or a 2006 survey of FDA scientists that found 1 in 5 scientists "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document."

RJ1969 SoCal
06/12/14 6:11 pm

So, you have the documented details. You can put that into context with everything else they are stating and derive your conclusion accordingly.

RJ1969 SoCal
06/12/14 6:12 pm

BYW, 1 in 5 scientist with the FDA....no, those are not scientists. Those are business decisions negotiated by corporations, not scientists doing science.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 8:34 pm

Hmm.. RJ, I think we're on the same side but just debating semantics of what "tainted with politics" means. The 1st example was to answer how someone with a political bias could have a biased method.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 8:34 pm

The overall scientific process (review and confirmation by others) can usually weed out those biases, but this an example of how you can't always trust the conclusions from a single lab.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 8:38 pm

The scientists at the FDA are scientists (I know a former FDA scientist) who are not much different from other scientistsD That example is to show politicians can game the system by putting pressure on which studies are released.

TerryQuinn Stardust
06/12/14 8:42 pm

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.