If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   This is Amurica, dammit. We ain't got no time for none o' that gobbledygook nonsense from them dadblamed scientific fellers   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 308
    More: Scary, science journalist, Americans, Amurica, American Reporter, Marie Curie, advanced study, distrust, Molecular Biology  
•       •       •

21186 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2013 at 8:36 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



308 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-21 06:13:35 PM
Why would Americans need scientists when they have Fox News?
 
2013-12-21 06:25:18 PM
To be fair, what is the value of a "Huffpost/youthgov" poll?

Go to Pew if you want confirmation that this is a Mouthbreather Nation.
 
2013-12-21 06:42:20 PM

clancifer: Why would Americans need scientists when they have Fox News?


cloudfront.mediamatters.org
"It snowed during winter in New York, clearly global warming is a myth."
 
2013-12-21 06:52:07 PM
Lynx hair, hockey stick, Siberian pine tree, something, something...
 
2013-12-21 06:56:17 PM
Conservative Republicans don't believe in science. They believe in it when it serves their immediate purposes but other than that, it's liberal Godlessness.

We needed a study to determine that?
 
2013-12-21 06:56:51 PM
Let's just get this out of the way:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-21 06:57:49 PM
If you actually read TFA, Americans don't distrust science itself. We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.
 
2013-12-21 06:58:51 PM
To be fair, accurately explaining science often involves qualifiers, nuance, etc., etc., which are some of the things people seem to be worst at.

You tell the average person "X is true under specific condition Y" and it tends to immediately become "X is true, period!"
 
2013-12-21 07:06:56 PM

HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.


Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.
 
2013-12-21 07:12:23 PM
science doesn't prove anything. if you look at creationism you realize that its the only possible answer to all the questions.
 - "jesus camp"
 
2013-12-21 07:15:07 PM

Mugato: HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.

Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.


Or the "articles" and "scientific studies" that are occasionally published that talk about how marijuana will kill you, cigarettes won't, and Cocoa Puffs will help you maintain an erection.
 
2013-12-21 07:17:17 PM

Mugato: HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.

Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.


I'd have to see how the question was worded.  If it was 'do you implicitly trust all scientists' I'd say no.  I trust the general consensus that climate change is real, and that it's being caused by human activity, but there are 'scientists' who claim the opposite, and I realize that they're full of baloney.
 
2013-12-21 07:19:32 PM

HotWingAgenda: Or the "articles" and "scientific studies" that are occasionally published that talk about how marijuana will kill you, cigarettes won't, and Cocoa Puffs will help you maintain an erection.


...that do not represent the majority or even a fraction of the scientific community. What are you even talking about?
 
2013-12-21 07:24:08 PM

Mugato: HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.

Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.

Why should I listen to an Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Women's Studies member of the scientific community. It is Climate Change and it has been happening for 4.5 billion years.

 
2013-12-21 07:25:41 PM
There's a bigger problem and it's that science has become politicized.  Because of that, politicians are prone to hyperbole and fear-mongering when describing a scientific finding.  It shouldn't be a shock that people are skeptical.  It would be much better for politicians to take a common-sense approach to how we respond to science rather than ZOMG THE WORLD WILL END!  I'm not taking sides on the political issue, just pointing out a few things:

Think about this...in my lifetime I've heard:
We're going to have a new Ice Age (70's) vs Global Warming (2000-present)
Cholesterol will kill me
Aspartame will kill me
Cell phones cause cancer and will kill me
The Ozone Hole will kill everyone
Genetically Modified food will kill me
And so on....

A lot of it has to do how things are phrased by politicians (and I'm picking an easy one as it was in the news last week).

WRONG:
Al Gore:  The Polar Ice Caps will melt in 5 years if we don't do something about global warming NOW!

RIGHT:
The scientific evidence showed by studies a, b, and c shows that we are harming the planet and we can do x, y, z, to improve the situation.  We need to strike a balance between economic impact of these initiatives and doing what's right for the planet.

Why:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that humans have negatively impacted the environment, the question is what do we do to resolve the issue that won't have major negative economic impact on people now (because that really is the worry).
 
2013-12-21 07:27:37 PM

bojon: Mugato: HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.

Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.

Why should I listen to an Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Women's Studies member of the scientific community. It is Climate Change and it has been happening for 4.5 billion years.


You could listen to a climatologist, you know, the people who actually study the climate and overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.
 
2013-12-21 07:50:09 PM
What a gobbledygooker may look like

catch-americain.wifeo.com
 
2013-12-21 07:51:04 PM
[insertanyoneoffiftycarlsaganquoteshere.jpg]
 
2013-12-21 08:19:16 PM
Most Americans couldn't solve a simple physics problem if it bit them on the ass.
 
2013-12-21 08:20:35 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: bojon: Mugato: HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.

Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.

Why should I listen to an Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Women's Studies member of the scientific community. It is Climate Change and it has been happening for 4.5 billion years.

You could listen to a climatologist, you know, the people who actually study the climate and overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.

I also left out Geologists and Astronomers. You know the ones that say Mars had water and is now hotter than it was. Probably due to the sun and not the SUVs that we sent. Climatology is a new science.

 
2013-12-21 08:24:13 PM
112% of the time, surveys are accurate -12.567% of the time!
 
2013-12-21 08:31:10 PM

Sid_6.7: To be fair, accurately explaining science often involves qualifiers, nuance, etc., etc., which are some of the things people seem to be worst at.

You tell the average person "X is true under specific condition Y" and it tends to immediately become "X is true, period!"


Honestly, that responsibility is shared among scientists and journalists, and neither group is great at it.  Scientists, naturally, avoid simplifying their work down to a single sentence because it's sometimes impossible to explain what is going on in one sentence.  At other times I think they just get lost in the weeds and forget that not everyone is an expert in their particular field.  Journalists are frequently so bad at science and math in that they are incapable of reporting stories with any accuracy.

So you have a group of smart people trying to explain something difficult to a group of ignorant people, who then try to explain it to a group of even more ignorant people, and we wonder why the message gets lost.

I'm now working at a fairly large research university and we're trying to get a few million to set up a grid for research.  The head of the project was using the research abstract to apply for grants to pay for electricity.  The abstract was two pages long.  I tried (unsuccessfully) to convince him that the local power company does not care about the details of the research.  They only care about "big computer=big power" and we'll slap some stickers on the outside they can use for press.  I'm still not sure they're going to donate any money or power for the project, but we have a presentation next week and they're sending some people along.  At some point after the initial two hour presentation from the head of the project I'm sure I'm going to have to stand up like Phil Hartman's Cave Man and say "BIG POWER!"
 
2013-12-21 08:40:46 PM
media.tumblr.com

No one should have faith in scientists.  Science isn't about faith - it's about skepticism.
 
2013-12-21 08:40:51 PM

Mugato: HotWingAgenda: Or the "articles" and "scientific studies" that are occasionally published that talk about how marijuana will kill you, cigarettes won't, and Cocoa Puffs will help you maintain an erection.

...that do not represent the majority or even a fraction of the scientific community. What are you even talking about?


Clearly, you've never gone coo coo for Coca Puffs.

/what, you thought it was just a marketing slogan?
 
2013-12-21 08:41:56 PM
What did the Vietnamese cannibal say to his fellow hunter? Gobbledygook
 
2013-12-21 08:42:51 PM
That's the great thing about science, you don't need to have faith in it.  If anything, you shouldn't have faith in it.  Little known fact: scientists publish their findings and data, and you can make your own decisions based on what you read.
 
2013-12-21 08:43:59 PM
i.xstend.com
 
2013-12-21 08:45:30 PM
Though funding and policy do depend on public opinion, the wonderful thing about science is that your opinion is irrelevant. Science plays the long game and it always wins.
 
2013-12-21 08:45:37 PM
The EPA cooked the data on 2nd hand smoke studies to further a political agenda.
 
2013-12-21 08:46:33 PM

Lsherm: Honestly, that responsibility is shared among scientists and journalists, and neither group is great at it


Fortunately, someone's trying to fix the first one: Center For Communicating Science

I've taken some of their improv training.  The main drive is to make your science less impersonal and put some of yourself into what you're talking about.  You're trying to connect with your audience and tell them why they should care, not thoroughly convey all of your results.
 
2013-12-21 08:47:03 PM

bojon: Mugato: HotWingAgenda: We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.

Right, like that argument that 99% of the scientific community base their reputations on their assertions that global warming is real because of the grants they receive from...someone.

Why should I listen to an Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Women's Studies member of the scientific community. It is Climate Change and it has been happening for 4.5 billion years.


Groan.  This is a terrible argument. Yup, climate changes. What Earth's climate was 4.5 billion years ago, or even 55 million years ago is irrelevant.  People, their food species, and their crops evolved (oops, that other trigger word!) in THIS climate or something a bit cooler, and significant warming is going to be very bad for us.

Additionally, the rate of change right now is alarming.  It is not a rate of climate change that is common in Earth's history.
 
2013-12-21 08:47:06 PM
One of our earliest coins....
 
2013-12-21 08:47:31 PM

fatassbastard: Let's just get this out of the way:

[i.imgur.com image 500x341]


Doesn't matter. Because averages.
 
2013-12-21 08:47:32 PM
the801: science doesn't prove anything. if you look at creationism you realize that its the only possible answer to all the questions.
 - "jesus camp" RAND PAUL
 
2013-12-21 08:48:08 PM
You can't reason out of a position they didn't reason themselves into to begin with.
 
2013-12-21 08:48:50 PM

slayer199: We're going to have a new Ice Age (70's) vs Global Warming (2000-present)
Cholesterol will kill me
Aspartame will kill me
Cell phones cause cancer and will kill me
The Ozone Hole will kill everyone
Genetically Modified food will kill me


"Science" didn't say any of this.

slayer199: Al Gore: The Polar Ice Caps will melt in 5 years if we don't do something about global warming NOW!


I'm no fan of Mr. Gore, but he didn't say this.

...or maybe that was your point?
 
2013-12-21 08:49:03 PM

middlewaytao: One of our earliest coins....


img.fark.net
 
2013-12-21 08:50:22 PM
And this is the reason why.

It's not that people are too stupid to understand science, it's that science has advanced to such a degree that it has effectively become incomprehensible to most people. That's not the fault of education -- I don't think education can solve this problem (or even keen up with the rapid pace of change). The truth is our society has become so complex and so highly specialized that none of us ever understand everything that's going on, and when we don't understand something, we tend to fear and repel it.

Or as James Burke aptly put it: Never before have so many people understood so little about so much.
 
2013-12-21 08:50:37 PM

vygramul: You can't reason out of a position they didn't reason themselves into to begin with.


...and also there's this. The version I say: "You can't use logic and reason to change an opinion that was not formed using logic and reason."
 
2013-12-21 08:52:47 PM
came for insane clown posse references, leaving disappointed
 
2013-12-21 08:55:04 PM
www.southpark.com.br
 
2013-12-21 08:56:58 PM
I don't trust the average journalist to explain science. Unless the journalist is also trained in that f ield, theytgttttttttfrd

middlewaytao: middlewaytao: One of our earliest coins....

[img.fark.net image 620x350]


They misspelled "Endust."
 
2013-12-21 08:57:04 PM
when seyeintes can eksplane mag-nets, then i beleeve them.
 
2013-12-21 08:57:08 PM

HotWingAgenda: If you actually read TFA, Americans don't distrust science itself. We distrust scientists who are funded and kept in the pocket of major corporations and political factions, and we have zero trust in some twit with a journalism degree trying to mouth off about his political views on science.


so very, very THIS.

the unfortunate thing is that lobbying interests constant astroturfing and spewing junk science to muddy the waters of discourse -is- actually undermining our cultures overall trust for science in general. while it may be an unintended second order effect, it still serves them well and its still -exactly- what they desire.
 hell, if they undermine our faith in science enough, they won't even need to commision fake studies anymore. similar to the way that censorship is no longer necessary if you can arrange for the population to be functionally illiterate.
 
2013-12-21 08:57:24 PM
What if God used science to create everything?
 
2013-12-21 08:57:41 PM

trippdogg: No one should have faith in scientists. Science isn't about faith - it's about skepticism.


A proper skeptic should have the willingness to change their minds when confronted with evidence as to their error or to the invalidity of their hypothesis. Too many skeptics these days are incapable of such self-reflection and are not in fact "skeptics" of any type. They are reactionaries hiding behind the term of skeptic to disguise their true motive of never allowing progress, or consensus, or even study of the problem. That's not proper skepticism.

You may or may not agree with this, but I'm using your statement to put that out there. I think it's an important point to make.

It's not going to be the industrialists who "go Galt" one day. It's going to be the scientists and "idea creators" who look around at all the willful ignorance and irresponsibility they're propping up by trying to do the right thing and solve the world's problems in spite of the world's attitudes, and say "you know what? Screw this. We're taking over Colorado, kicking out all of the rednecks, and putting up this anti-idiot field to keep out everyone with an IQ less than (100/derp), and the rest of you nimrods can fend for yourselves. We'll let you in when you agree to get an education. Or invent something cool. That's always welcome."

/I wonder how you quantify derp? Someone will figure it out
//It certainly is an intelligence modifier, with an inverse relationship to IQ
///personal hypothesis
 
2013-12-21 08:58:17 PM
If I can't have blind faith in scientists, who can I trust without thinking?
 
2013-12-21 08:58:27 PM
Who needs science when we have guns?


static.fjcdn.com
 
2013-12-21 08:58:51 PM

fatassbastard: "Science" didn't say any of this.


Actually, there were studies that did.  All of it.

fatassbastard: I'm no fan of Mr. Gore, but he didn't say this.

...or maybe that was your point?


Precisely.
 
2013-12-21 08:59:36 PM
Ishkur: That's not the fault of education

In a way it is. A strong background in astronomy/cosmology/geology would help smash a lot of the superstitious/ignorant anchors that our people have. I don't presume to be a wizard with the universe but its complexity doesn't scare me to the point that I need to supplant it with a simple, unprovable alternative.
 
Displayed 50 of 308 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report