Do you trust scientists?
No. Especially the ones that SHOULD have " " around the name.
I trust a scientist as much as anyone else who I know nothing about. I trust science 100%. I trust raw data.
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 trust that scientists are just people and their biases influence their interpretations.
I believe there's a lot of money to be made in the application of science.
And the misapplication of science, too.
Just like everything else it is all about the money. Most scientists can "prove" anything as long as they get a proper grant.
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.
I trust scientists far more than politicians.
I trust science. I am more likely to trust scientist but they still have to earn my trust.
Depends on the scientist.
... and who's paying for the study.
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.
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.
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.
No. I trust science.
Hell, *I'm* a scientist.
You're a mad scientist. Of course we don't trust you - you're always creating a catastrophe for a superhero to solve :)
No, but a bit more than other groups.
I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trust.
"Scientists" is a pretty generic term.
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.
Some of them.
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?
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.
Yes, except the ones that ask for tax payer funding. They may skew their results to the need of the government.
Agree, especially the climatologists who thrive on funding fear.
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.
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.
Scientists that do that *aren't* "scientists. They are political propagandists.
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.
I trust them to be curious. I don't trust them to be impartial.
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.
Anyone who honestly believes in evolution cannot be trusted.
I sure hope you're joking.
I wish I was.
I mean, science itself is based on evidence. Where is the proof of evolution?
I agree, it's pathetic you offer no proof.
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.
I trust the process; the scientific method and peer review. Works pretty well as long as sources of funding are neutral.
Nicely stated. Also need to ensure that results are not suppressed.
I agree on both your points.
^^^ this ^^^ all y'all in this thread!
Some, not all. You can't fix stupid and you can't prevent being co-opted.
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?
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.
How is international consensus politically motivated?
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.
International consensus is motivated by research grants mostly.
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 trust them like I do any other person. As a group, probably more so.
More than economists.
Even Tea Party economists? :)
I trust science, but not scientists.
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.
Not always. Studies, like laws, can be designed to give you the answer you're looking for instead of the truth.
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
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.
How it's used and by whom is a divide rent story, but that's not inherent in science.
And, frequently are.
I think who pays for the science also makes a difference in the results and in how it is used.
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.
usually....but not when it's tainted with politics.
Do you have an example of methods in a study that show inherent political bias?
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?
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."
So, you have the documented details. You can put that into context with everything else they are stating and derive your conclusion accordingly.
BYW, 1 in 5 scientist with the FDA....no, those are not scientists. Those are business decisions negotiated by corporations, not scientists doing science.
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.
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.
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.
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.