A new analysis shows that trust in scientific expertise among the American public remained high during the last six decades and that the Trump administration attacks on scientific expertise did not modify the basic confidence of Americans in science and scientific expertise.

The study, “Citizen attitudes toward science and technology, 1957–2020: Measurement, stability, and the Trump challenge,” was published in the journal Science and Public Policy.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The views and actions of the Trump administration with regard to such topics as climate change, environmental protection, and the COVID-19 pandemic were widely condemned as a Republican war on science. But even among conservative Republicans, the proportion with a high level of trust in scientific expertise rose more between 2016 and 2020 than the proportion with a low level of trust.

    So the hypocritical cult seekritly still believe in science while still drinking bleach and horse de-wormer.

    I guess we’re supposed to be relieved or something.

  • bmsok@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The beauty of the scientific method is that you get the chance to be wrong as long as your hypothesis sounds plausible. You’re allowed to explore and innovate.

    Failure and success can both advance knowledge. You just have to know when to say “Well, that didn’t work… what if we try this?”

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Okay, but are we talking real science or Dr. Oz science?

  • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Science, the mode of inquiry, is great and generally requires a broad consensus before something is accepted. Singular studies should be processed with a few grains of salt—academics aren’t immune to bias or faulty reasoning.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Science isn’t to be trusted. It’s to be checked on. We’re not out here advocating for appeals to authority.

      • natecheese@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        One person doing something bad? You clearly didn’t read the article.

        And to suggest that our scientific research institutions shouldn’t be scrutinized or there isn’t room to improve the process is a little naive.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          And to suggest that our scientific research institutions shouldn’t be scrutinized or there isn’t room to improve the process is a little naive.

          But ey didn’t suggest that 🤔

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      This was an amazing read, although that doesn’t mean that science is somehow at fault in this. As usual, it’s people and bureaucratic institutions that make this possible, but it’s also people who find it out and call con-artists out