Comments on: Poll: Does trust in science need restoring?

By: Nowell Valeri

Nowell Valeri — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:54:40 +0000

I would say moment to moment that we should put our trust in empirical data, but not necessarily in every interpretation of the data that blows through the room. Like witch trials… correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation.

The empirical data from quantum experiments drove Einstein nuts, but they stood nonetheless. What do they mean? Who knows? Some say quantum experiments prove the world on a fundamental level is inherently probabilistic, whereas string theorists insist that regardless of quantum results, there is still a mathematically harmonic balance to the universe- even though we can’t see these “more fundamental” strings. So are string theorists then like deniers of climate change? I’m not touching that with a ten foot pole.

I will agree with Simon above… journalists are not necessarily scientists. You should be wary of one’s credentials before you validate their body of work.

But to answer the question succinctly… no. Believe what you want. Just stop voting.

By: Rich Henne

Rich Henne — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:37:06 +0000

To trust in science is sometimes taken as an affront to religious values. It’s been that way for centuries. To educate people about what science is and how to think critically eliminates the need to trust in science. Those who want to be able to trust in something, do not have a desire to think about it.

By: simon evans

simon evans — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:13:18 +0000

voted no. What we need is for newspapers to report what is happening honestly instead of going for a ‘story’. Witness total rubbish in almost all UK dailies in the last weeks.
eg Phil Jones supposedly admits there is no global warming any more

Maybe you should ask does public trust in journalists need restoring. Ha. And this from a journalist. Problem is alot of them don’t realise how dishonest some of these news stories are.
–> same problem identified in other comments i.e. people are not sufficiently well-defined by ‘journalist’ or ‘scientist’. Some are dishonest. Others not so much. Bets as to which profession attracts the larger number of dishonest or cynical people?

simon

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:04:00 +0000

Absolutely, but then sometimes the point of a question is not to find an answer, but to observe (and learn from) a response…

By: Michael Kenward

Michael Kenward — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:16 +0000

If a scientist saw a poll like this on some other subject, they would have a field day picking it to pieces for being “unscientific”.

Does trust in Maltesers need restoring?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:51:45 +0000

I voted no, but not for the reason that I think that there is no crisis of trust in science. It’s that I don’t think that mistrusting experts/scientists is that bad of a thing. In fact, it’s probably in keeping with the whole contrary strand of science. We should constantly question science that doesn’t make sense to us. Trusting scientists seems like a pretty good way to eliminate my need for critical thinking. And critical thinking is something we need a lot more of these days.

By: Hilary Sutcliffe

Hilary Sutcliffe — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:58:41 +0000

Now there is another interesting question! ‘Science is not a brand’. At first totally agree, but then thought it has values, dedicated funding and promotion, vested interest in upholding it’s image and a whole caboodle of stuff attached to the S word, so perhaps it is. But should it be seen as a brand is another thing again!

Random internet quotes from rather naff website on what is a brand do not resolve the question either way!

“Brands are defined by the customer. They exist as a feeling that extends beyond the product itself.”

A brand isn’t a brand to you until it develops an emotional connection with you.”

The process of forming a brand is the result of “unrelenting passion, not unending spin.”

Fun. Must get back to work, or maybe I can count this as work!

By: James Hayton

James Hayton — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:50:45 +0000

Is this the right question to ask? I’d ask whether there is a crisis of trust in science. If the answer is yes, then of course that needs to be addressed.

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:35:00 +0000

There’s nothing like an ill-defined question to get the blood boiling But I’m going to be cruel and keep it black and white, just to see how people do respond (both to the poll and here in the comments). In part, this is because “science” does tend to be marketed as something with a unique identity – for right or wrong.

By: Hilary Sutcliffe

Hilary Sutcliffe — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:04:13 +0000

Too simplistic, nearly had to vote Yes! As previous rants, for me the use of the S word is the problem. Trust in Climate Science may need restoring, trust in companies use of technologies in food may need restoring, trust in science response to global warming through green energy developments doesn’t need restoring, trust in companies ability to deliver meaningful products in various sectors may need restoring, trust in science ability to get us into space probably doesn’t need restoring, trust in science’s ability to deliver medicines to save us goes up and down like a yo yo, but probably doesn’t need restoring. I won’t go on.

I wonder if it is because I think about science including the commercial development of applications which may or may not be wanted and others think of science as research?

Hmm.

By: alice

alice — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:01:17 +0000

Can we have a option for “science is way too big a category to talk about like this”?

“Science” = not a brand.