Search results
Dec 27, 2022 · What is needed is an account of trust in science that enables the public to assess current science for trustworthiness, does not need to wait for a consensus to emerge, and can actually be utilised by a non-expert public. There are three bases central to assessing scientific expertise for trustworthiness: 1) the presence of expertise, 2) the ...
May 4, 2022 · The art of science gets turned against science. To researchers like Parikh at the AAAS, “the power of science” lies in continuously challenging what scientists think they know: “We have hypotheses, we test them, and when the data show that those hypotheses aren’t right, we change them.”
Jul 1, 2021 · One popular move is to insist that science is right—full stop—and that once we discover the truth about the world, we are done. Anyone who denies such truths (they suggest) is stupid,...
- Overview
- Framework
- Counteracting anti-science beliefs
- Study limitations
- The question of democracy
•Researchers investigated the reasons behind why some people overlook scientific evidence when forming opinions.
•They highlighted four underlying principles, alongside ways to overcome them.
•They concluded that “scientists should be poised to empathize” with the people they try to reach to best communicate their ideas.
A poll from September 2021 suggested that 61% of Americans recognized COVID-19 as a major public health threat.
Another recent poll of Americans found a much higher rise in climate concern among Democrat-leaning respondents (27%) compared to those who were Republican-leaning (6%).
Understanding why people may overlook scientific evidence when forming opinions could help scientists and science communicators better engage the public.
For the study, the researchers connected contemporary findings on anti-science attitudes with principles from research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and acceptance versus rejection of information.
In doing so, they identified four principles that underlie the rejection of scientific evidence when forming opinions:
•source of the scientific message — when sources of scientific information, such as scientists, are perceived as inexpert or untrustworthy
•recipient of the scientific message — when scientific information activates one’s social identity as a member of a group that holds anti-science attitudes, that has been underrepresented in science or exploited by scientific work
•the scientific message itself — when scientific information contradicts preexisting beliefs, what people think is favorable and a preexisting sense of morality
•mismatch between the delivery of the message and the recipient’s epistemic style — when information is delivered in ways that a reader does not conceptually understand, or that does not address their need for closure.
To counteract the above principles, the researchers suggested several solutions. For “source of scientific message” they recommended:
•improving the perceived validity of scientists’ work
•conveying warmth and prosocial goals in science communication and using accessible language
•conveying that the source is not antagonistic by portraying both sides of the argument.
To address “recipient of the scientific message,” they recommended activating a shared or superordinate identity when communicating science and engaging and collaborating with marginalized communities.
For “the scientific message itself,” the researchers recommended:
Dr. Scheufele added that while the study has very good intentions, it presumes that large groups of citizens are “anti-science.” He noted that, in his experience, “Americans trust science more than almost any other institution, other than the military.
“People can accurately report on what scientists consider ‘settled findings,’ but they draw very different conclusions about how that aligns with their political or religious values,” Dr. Scheufele added. “This is where the disconnects come from between the somewhat naïve sage-on-the-stage models of science communication […] and the realities of societal debates surrounding science.”
He pointed out that, while scientific studies can provide statistical evidence for different outcomes — be they public health-related or environmental — they can not tell people whether they should act accordingly. This, he thinks, is instead a political question that is “informed, but not determined, by science.”
Dr. Scheufele also noted that citizens and policymakers might have different priorities than scientists and thus prefer different methods and outcomes. “That’s not people being anti-science, those are the realities of democratic science policy-making,” he told us.
Last year, Dr. Scheufele co-authored an article warning against scientists setting out to fix “public pathologies” and build as much buy-in to new science as possible.
In his view, “[a]rtificial intelligence, brain organoids, and other disruptive breakthrough science challenge what it means to be human. In those contexts, blind societal trust in science would be as democratically undesirable as no trust at all.”
“A public that critically engages with and continuously evaluates science is crucially important as we need to make difficult political, moral, and regulatory choices for many of these new areas of science. Simply reducing against anything that doesn’t align with the preferences of the scientific establishment as ‘anti-science’ is not only simplistic, it is inherently undemocratic,” he opined.
Yet he agreed with the authors of the current study who noted that “people with more scientific literacy are simply more sophisticated at bolstering their existing beliefs by cherry-picking ideas and information to defend their worldview.”
- Annie Lennon
Oct 9, 2020 · For example, a majority of Americans trust science as long as it does not challenge their existing beliefs. To the question “When science disagrees with the teachings of your religion, which...
Jul 14, 2022 · Untrustworthy scientists. The first key reason people are anti-science is that they don’t see scientists as credible. This happens when scientists’ expertise is questioned, when they are deemed...
People also ask
Why are scientists distrusted?
Should we trust scientific research?
Would blind societal trust in science be democratically undesirable?
How do scientists foster trust with the public?
Why do we need a trust in science?
Do certainties undermine the scientific process?
Dec 13, 2023 · While science may seem undecided, often as the research accumulates, a scientific consensus emerges, such as, on the causes of climate change. The objectivity of science gives us reason to trust this consensus is likely true. It is only likely true because scientists can, and have been, wrong.
