Apparently, scientists don’t know the risks & benefits of science

If you want to find out how bleach works or what keeps the airplanes in the air or why is the rainbow the same sequence of colors or if it’s dangerous to let your kid play with snails would you ask a scientist or your local priest?

The answer is very straightforward for most of the people. Just that for a portion of the people the straightforwardness is viewed by the other portion as corkscrewedness. Or rather just plain dumb.

Cacciatore et al. (2016) asked about 5 years ago 2806 American adults how much they trust the information provided by religious organizations, university scientists, industry scientists, and science/technology museums. They also asked them about their age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, income as well as about Facebook use, religiosity, ideology, and attention to science-y content.

Almost 40% of the sample described themselves as Evangelical Christians, one of the largest religious group in USA. These people said they trust more their religious organizations then scientists (regardless of who employs these scientists) to tell the truth about the risks and benefits of technologies and their applications.

The data yielded more information, like the fact that younger, richer, liberal, and white people tended to trust scientists more then their counterparts. Finally, Republicans were more likely to report a religious affiliation than Democrats.

I would have thought that everybody would prefer to take advice about science from a scientist. Wow, what am I saying, I just realized what I typed… Of course people are taking health advice from homeopaths all the time, from politicians rather than environment scientists, from alternative medicine quacks than from doctors, from no-college educated than geneticists. From this perspective then, the results of this study are not surprising, just very very sad… I just didn’t think that the gullible people can also be grouped by political affiliations. I though the affliction is attacking both sides of an ideological isle in a democratic manner.

Of course, this is a survey study, therefore a lot more work is needed to properly generalize these results, from expanding the survey sections (beyond the meager 1 or 2 questions per section) to validation and replication. Possibly, even addressing different aspects of science because, for instance, climate change is a much more touchy subject than, say, apoptosis. And replace or get rid of the “Scientists know best what is good for the public” item; seriously, I don’t know any scientist, including me, who would answer yes to that question. Nevertheless, the trend is, like I said, sad.

107-copy

Reference:  Cacciatore MA, Browning N, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA, & Corley EA. (Epub ahead of print 25 Jul 2016). Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities. Public Understanding of Science. PMID: 27458117, DOI: 10.1177/0963662516661090. ARTICLE | NPR cover

By Neuronicus, 7 December 2016

Save

Save

Pic of the Day: Neil on teaching creationism

104neil-copy
Dr. deGrasse Tyson’s picture is from Wikimedia released under PD and the quote is from a “Letter to the Editor” of New York Times retrieved from the Hayden Planetarium website on Nov. 2, 2016.

THE FIRSTS: The word ‘scientist’ (1834)

Scientist, by any other name…

History of science is, unfortunately, not among the mandatory classes required for earning a diploma that allows oneself to be called a scientist. Worrisomely, nor is Logic as a formal class. All the more the pity because in the Middle Ages, when the word science entered the English language, to have scientific knowledge meant you have arrived at it by following the Aristotelian way of logical reasoning (a.k.a deductions and inductions). To be fair, the word existed already in Romance languages with the same meaning: new knowledge obtained by applying the rules of Aristotelian syllogisms. By the way, Aristotle is also the guy to whom we owe the basis of the scientific method, but that’s a story for another day.

Although words like scientific or science were altogether frequently used with regards of the scholarly endeavors of the ladies and gentlemen of the early 19th Century (yes, there were ladies too that dabbled into the sciences, even if sometimes it was only to write about the spectacular discoveries and controversies of their time), the term scientist has been officially coined in 1834 by William Whewell. A man truly blessed in the art of words, being credited with coining a lot of other famous words like anode and physicist, he proposed the word in a review of a science popularization book written by one Mrs. Somerville. The circumstance of how this came to be is masterly imparted to us by Sydney Ross in a superb historical account of the word scientist, published in 1962.

For the rounded scientist or for the merely curious, I truly recommend the lecture of the referenced papers. They’re delightful!

94 - Copy

Reference 1. [Whewell W] (1834). Art. III. [Review of] On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences. By Mrs. Somerville. The Quarterly Review, 51: 58-61. FULLTEXT PDF at GoogleBooks

Reference 2. Ross S (1962). Scientist: The story of a word, Annals of Science, 18:2, 65-85, DOI: 10.1080/00033796200202722. FREE FULLTEXT PDF

P.S. I checked and Wikipedia is correct with the following statement:

“To be exact, the person coined the term scientist was referred to in Whewell 1834 only as “some ingenious gentleman.” Ross added a comment that this “some ingenious gentleman” was Whewell himself, without giving the reason for the identification. Ross 1962, p.72.”

Even if, by some very slim chance, the “ingenious gentleman” was not Whewell himself, Whewell did propose the term scientist in a more formal manner six years later in 1840 bringing more than just linguistic justifications, like the diversity of those engaged in scientific endeavors and how they don’t call themselves natural philosophers anymore.

By Neuronicus, 9 August 2016

64% of psychology studies from 2008 could not be replicated

Free clipart from www.cliparthut.com
Free clipart from http://www.cliparthut.com

It’s not everyday that you are told – nay, proven! – that you cannot trust more than half of the published peer-reviewed work in your field. For nitpickers, I am using the word “proven” in its scientific sense, and not the philosophical “well, nothing can be technically really proven, etc…”

In an astonishing feat of collaboration, 270 psychologists from all over the world replicated 100 of the most prominent studies in their field, as published in 2008 in 3 leading journals: Psychological Science (leading journal in all psychology), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (leading journal in social psychology), and Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (leading journal in cognitive psychology). All this without any formal funding! That’s right, no pay, no money, no grant (there was some philanthropy involved, after all, things cost). Moreover, they invited the original authors to take part in the replication process. Replication is possibly the most important step in any scientific endeavor; without it, you may have an interesting observation, but not a scientific fact. (Yes, I know, the investigation of some weird things that happen only once is still science. But a psychology study does not a Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 make)

Results: 64% of the studies failed the replication test. Namely, 74% social psychology studies and 50% cognitive psychology studies failed to show significant results as originally published.

What does it mean? That the researchers intentionally faked their results? Not at all. Most likely the effects were very subtle and they were inflated by reporting biases fueled by the academic pressure and the journals’ policy to publish only positive results. Is this a plague that affects only psychology? Again, not at all; be on the lookout for a similar endeavor in cancer research and rumor has it that the preliminary results are equally scary.

There would be more to say, but I will leave you in the eloquent words of the authors themselves (p. aac4716-7):

“Humans desire certainty, and science infrequently provides it. […]. Accumulating evidence is the scientific community’s method of self-correction and is the best available option for achieving that ultimate goal: truth.”

Reference: Open Science Collaboration (28 August 2015). PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251):aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716. Article | PDF | Science Cover | The Guardian cover | IFLS cover | Decision Science cover

By Neuronicus, 13 October 2015