Scientists seen as competent but not trusted by Americans

September 22, 2014
American adults completed an online survey rating common jobs on their public images of being warm and trustworthy as well as competent and capable. The graph above displays how standard professions are perceived by Americans. Credit: Susan Fiske, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit "warmer," according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm.

In particular, Americans seem wary of researchers seeking grant funding and do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality.

"Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust," said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of . "But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment. Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions."

Fiske has long studied the psychology behind individual intent and motivation. Her research demonstrates that, while expertise is an essential ingredient for credibility, appearing trustworthy is equally as important. Humans are hardwired to detect intent, quickly determining who is friend or foe. And they trust others that seem like themselves, deeming them as warm and trustworthy. Eventually, a person will decide whether the other individual is competent enough to act on their intentions.

Fiske has applied her work to a number of datasets, evaluating professions across a wide spectrum. Into four clusters, she and Dupree have broken down the perceptions Americans have regarding typical jobs in the United States. These perceptions differ on being warm and trustworthy, as well as competent and capable.

To understand how the public responds to science communicators, Fiske and Cydney Dupree, a Princeton graduate student studying psychology and social policy, tested their ideas in two phases. First, they asked an online sample of adult volunteers to list typical American jobs. From that, the researchers honed the list to the 42 most commonly mentioned jobs, which included scientists, researchers, professors and teachers.

Fiske and Dupree then polled a new group of adults about these jobs, asking them to rate the professions based on how American society views them regarding warmth and competence. This method was chosen deliberately, as it allowed Fiske and Dupree to get a better sense of people's reports of public images of groups. This also reduces the many biases attached with reporting one's own individual stereotypes.

Professionals that appear to be caring – such as teachers, nurses and doctors – are seen as both warm and competent. They evoke emotions like pride and admiration. On the opposite end of the spectrum are professions such as prostitutes, garbage collectors, and dishwashers, who are seen as having low warmth and low competence. This reportedly brings forth contempt or disgust by most Americans. The remaining two categories involved somewhat mixed emotions. For example, scientists, engineers and lawyers are seen as competent, but they are not seen as warm. This brings forth emotions like envy and distrust among Americans. Other professions, such as writers, police and bus drivers, are relatively neutral in terms of both warmth and competence. And the final quadrant includes groups that are "pitied," like the unemployed, who are perceived to have high warmth but low competence.

"Science communicators arguably need to know about this possible type of response to them," said Fiske. "From this view, scientists may seem not so warm. Their intent is not necessarily trusted and maybe even resented."

Focusing on scientific communication, Fiske and Dupree administered another online survey asking adults to describe public attitudes toward specifically to provide a clearer picture of the public's seemingly mixed feelings. The researchers used a seven-scale item of distrust that included motives derived from pilot work on scientists' alleged motives. These included such motives as lying with statistics, complicating a story, showing superiority, gaining research money and pursuing a liberal agenda, among others.

In the end, the results run mixed; climate scientists earn a not-terrible mean of 2.16 on a five-point scale of distrust. Responses varied, with some being more distrustful than others. And, among the aforementioned motives, it appears that gaining research money is the Achilles' heel, scoring high above the midpoint as a risk factor for public distrust.

Overall, Fiske and Dupree's work shows that climate scientists seem to be less suspect than pure scientists and researchers. In particular, whose jobs involve teaching and communicating may seem warmer and more trustworthy, seeming to show worthy intentions.

"People are not idiots. The public's issue with science is not necessarily ignorance," said Fiske. "So, the road to communicating climate science starts with some advantages. The public has some knowledge. Climate science communicators have effectively conveyed much evidence, which should encourage their continuing to educate and communicate. Just like other communication, science communication needs to continue to convey warmth and trustworthiness, along with competence and expertise."

Explore further: Do stereotypes drive consumer purchases from for-profit or nonprofit organizations?

More information: The paper, "Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics," was published online Sept. 16 in PNAS: www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.abstract

Related Stories

Researchers chart new path for study of ageism

April 22, 2013

Michael North, a fifth-year graduate student in psychology at Princeton University, knew he was lucky to land a summer research position at the University of Michigan after he finished his bachelor's degree there in 2006.

Intent to harm: Willful acts seem more damaging

July 29, 2013

How harmful we perceive an act to be depends on whether we see the act as intentional, reveals new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Recommended for you

An inflexible diet led to the disappearance of the cave bear

August 23, 2016

Senckenberg scientists have studied the feeding habits of the extinct cave bear. Based on the isotope composition in the collagen of the bears' bones, they were able to show that the large mammals subsisted on a purely vegan ...

Paleontologists discover major T. rex fossil (Update)

August 18, 2016

Paleontologists with the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture and the University of Washington have discovered a Tyrannosaurus rex, including a very complete skull. The find, which paleontologists estimate to be about ...

Was 'Iceman Otzi' a Copper Age fashionista?

August 18, 2016

The 5,300-year-old Alpine mummy known as the Tyrolean Iceman died wearing leather clothes and accessories harvested from no less than five wild or domesticated species, a DNA analysis published Thursday revealed.

162 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

robertgr
2.3 / 5 (35) Sep 22, 2014
"Climate scientists" have tainted the name of scientists. Greed and politics has come to dominate this area of supposed science.
JamesG
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2014
Publish or perish has taken away any trust I have in researchers. They are under so much pressure to perform and publish that they have no choice but to take some short cuts. Also, they are only human and humans make mistakes. We put these people on a huge pedestal expecting everything they publish to be right. When some other group publishes a study that negates everything in the previous study, we lose trust.

A statistics teacher I had in college said it right. One study simply SUGGESTS something. Ten to a hundred studies that reach the same result becomes conclusive. But even then it is incorrect to call it proof. Many conclusive studies have been overturned in later years as new methods of research are discovered.
veritas1989
1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2014
"People are not idiots.... ignorance,"
idiots unequal ignorance

To have a study trigger an action I see two possible ways. The Action is triggered by the industry or Politics. So "mostly" Intelligent profit/self oriented pp.

They need to be convinced that if the study is correct they will profit and the study is legitimate. If they are, they will trigger the action.

These pp in charge will also start to act if enough of the "mean folk" is convinced, because numbers are To convince these pp you can not rely on scientific facts, because most will not understand the complexity because they are not educated enough. So you need to make them believe in YOU, to let them believe in your work. But as long as you are not able to split water, this is waste of time. Use key personal. Convince Intelligent pp in whom the pp already believe in. PP with multi media presence. They can do better, because this what they do.
orti
1.9 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2014
It's not an image problem, it's a facts problem. The UN, CAGW fanatics, and gov grants have totally perverted science. Anyone who loves science should detest what these creeps have done to it. Science is about hard work, diligence, and integrity; not wealth, glory, and status. As Edison said about invention – its 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.
NOM
4.8 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2014
Good thing that the people poled had not been exposed to some of the nutjobs here at physorg, or scientists would be cuddling up with the prostitutes.
foolspoo
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2014
quoting edison completely disqualifies your opinions from a conversation on integrity Orti.
Goika
Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Job001
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2014
Facts include polls about professions. The perception that science deals with things while Doctors, nurses, educators, farmers, or child care workers deal with people needs is telling. Science and engineering aren't hands-on for safety, health, fun or education, and often a step removed through a lawyer, not a good thing. Don't blame anyone else, that won't help, taking responsibility and changing the game will help.
Goika
Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2014
Most scientists I see on tv and in the classrooms are pretty friendly people. It's hard to be friendly on Fox because they get attacked and aren't able to discuss their research, but on PBS scientists are some of the friendliest people, David Attenborough comes to mind.

Hypocritically, I think a lot of the duty for a friendlier outreach falls a lot on social media. The anonymity of the internet means I don't feel like I'm hanging out with someone, which means no social cues to reduce the conflict.

But it's not all on one group, I know I've said some mean things to some of the regulars here. But If you don't understand something, ask an honest question, one thing about the internet is there is always someone smarter than you and you could get most questions answered.
Science nerds need to take a chill pill that not every one spends all their time reading up on this stuff, but a civil discussion is two ways, and every one needs to chill.
Goika
Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2014
"God is not present but I don't have to prove it since, 'You can't prove a negative'."
"God is not present but I don't have to prove what I say, you have to prove what you say."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
"Statements made without proof can be dismissed without proof."
"I don't have to prove what I say because you're so stupid, you wouldn't be convinced, anyway."
Add fen-phen, Vioxx, thalidomide, failure to reveal there was no evidence of banned weapons systems in Iraq, warnings against salt, warnings against cholestrol, warnings against fats, warnings against red wine, the failure to reveal that the "beheading" videos are frauds, and the failure of Phys Org to end the ratings systems which is more a tool of abuse than anything else.
WWII Vet
4.6 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2014
The anti-science comments here are shocking considering what website this is.
WWII Vet
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2014
"God is not present but I don't have to prove it since, 'You can't prove a negative'."
"God is not present but I don't have to prove what I say, you have to prove what you say."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
"Statements made without proof can be dismissed without proof."
"I don't have to prove what I say because you're so stupid, you wouldn't be convinced, anyway."
Add fen-phen, Vioxx, thalidomide, failure to reveal there was no evidence of banned weapons systems in Iraq, warnings against salt, warnings against cholestrol, warnings against fats, warnings against red wine, the failure to reveal that the "beheading" videos are frauds, and the failure of Phys Org to end the ratings systems which is more a tool of abuse than anything else.

What a ramble that was. You're a conspiracy theorist huh? You should check out this article. http://www.nytime...ies.html
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2014
They are under so much pressure to perform and publish that they have no choice but to take some short cuts.

Peer review is still in effect. Short cuts just mean you don't pass it and hence you don't publish if you take 'em.

The pressure to publish is high so scientists tend to publish more incremental results rather than save up for big works. Overall there isn't an effect on the quality of the work (other than that the pressure to publish often cuts into your research time. But since that is done 'on the side' anyways it just means more nights and weekends spent at the lab).
The downside is that you have to read a lot more papers to be up to speed in any particular field thany you had to maybe 30-40 years ago.
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2014
The anti-science comments here are shocking considering what website this is.


What field do you qualify as science? Does your definition embrace theology, alchemistry, and Scientology? Should we ask your permission to criticize science branches that are obviously flawed?

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2014
branches that are obviously flawed?

Would you expound on these 'obvious' flaws?

I'm pretty sure they can be explained away by your inability to understand science and the scientific process.
xstos
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2014
So let me get this straight. We're asking an asinine public who couldn't think critically if their lives depended on it to quantify their mistrust of people working on problems they could never hope to understand for the advancement of humanity? What a joke. I say these people should go back to twiddling their iGadgets, taking selfies and using all the wonders of modern technology these shifty scientists have injected into their lives.

If you ask a pleb for his opinion all you'll get is this noise:

https://www.youtu...4Eu8E2z4
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2014
...can be explained away by your inability to understand science and the scientific process.


Do you imply that all global warming "deniers", including me don't respect entire math, physics, and chemistry fields? That is a blatant lie. In fact, our disagreement is just one puny subject -- "climate science" (perhaps not so puny by funding!). I'm with Richard Lindzen, who thinks that this field is full of "less capable" individuals. What about you, are you sure the most talented students are lining up to push boundaries of climate science?
Goika
Sep 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WWII Vet
4.3 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2014
The anti-science comments here are shocking considering what website this is
If we consider that the cold fusion is ignored http://www.scienc...2fb.htm, isn't the science sorta anti-civilization movement too?

Cold fusion is a fairy tale. If it were achievable why would hundreds or thousands of people spend decades working on fusion reactors? You are a CF kook and have lost all credibility in my book.

http://weeklyscie...two.html

http://www.nytime...ies.html
marcush
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2014
I think the main problem scientists have is that often evidence on an issue points to a scenario that is contrary to what people want to hear. Climate change, environmental degradation, human psychology (especially when it comes to politics), evolution, cosmology, are but a few of the subjects that come to mind. Some of the reactions posted here are clear evidence. The notion that an entire field of science is somehow full of mediocre scientists is laughable. What many people don't seem to understand is that Science is, at its heart, competitive. Its not perfect but generally you get very good people at the top in any field. The competition is also a source of self correction in science since if you can show a previous study to be wrong you gain points. Fabricated or shoddy science gets found out sooner or later.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2014
marcush with a damn good point
I think the main problem scientists have is that often evidence on an issue points to a scenario that is contrary to what people want to hear.
Indeed this is so true.

Especially AGW, of which foundation is basic physics; properties of GHGs, especially the counter intuitive odd properties of water; where adding heat produces a flow which reduces temperatures, that & the massive difference in specific heat of ice, melt water, water & steam. All deniers seem not to be able to get their uneducated heads around that particular issue, yet its a 100% proven fact which has NEVER been refuted ever...!

Also the case with evolution, it has been proven that any simple system of discontinuous components - given enough time & space (which we obviously have) 'naturally produces complexity.

Eg. As demonstrated with genetic algorithms in high end computing systems which effectively speed up evolution billions of times & ALREADY exploited to 'design' products !
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2014
WWII Vet seems upset with
Cold fusion is a fairy tale.
I wouldn't go that far, I have looked at the phenomena for decades & there is evidence of various levels of fusion although not sufficiently energetic enough at present thus it does not appear deterministic.

WWII Vet asked a fair question with
If it were achievable why would hundreds or thousands of people spend decades working on fusion reactors?
Quite simply for the reason given above in conjunction with opportunists getting on the bandwagon & collectively a vast amount of propaganda & prejudice for even suggesting it 'might' be an issue.

WWII Vet unfortunately almost lost it with
You are a CF kook and have lost all credibility in my book.
That is likely the case with the uneducated that don't have a background in physics.

One shouldn't forget there was an unusual explosion at SRI some time ago investigating the phenomena, yet the scientists took great care not to allow a buildup of H2, very odd indeed !
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
@Mike Massen
A cause for the explosion at SRI has been determined and it wasn't odd.

http://pubs.acs.o...26.p008a
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
It's more than just that scientists are telling people things they don't want to hear. There is an active campaign in this country (and you can see it here in the comments) to disparage and undermine science and scientists in this country.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
ctive campaign in this country (and you can see it here in the comments) to disparage and undermine science and scientists in this country.


By whom, scientists?
Activist scientists from the CSPI do more harm than good for science.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2014

Do you imply that all global warming "deniers", including me don't respect entire math, physics, and chemistry fields?

I'm not implying that. I'm flat out telling you.

Respect means nothing. You have to understand the math, physics and chemistry. At the very least you have to have a good understanding of statistical analysis. And the deniers (your good self included) have shown many times - on this comment section or elsewhere - that you don't have that understanding.

What about you, are you sure the most talented students are lining up to push boundaries of climate science?

You will find very talented and less talented people in all fields. What has that got to do with the data and the mathematical methods used? You can't cheat a sensor, physics or math - whether you're talented or not. (if you're not talented and mkae mistakes in your methodology your paper just doesn't get past peer review and you don't publish)
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 23, 2014
Vietvet offered
@Mike Massen
A cause for the explosion at SRI has been determined and it wasn't odd.
http://pubs.acs.o...26.p008a
Although I havent read that particular report (and it would be great to get it without having to subscribe), I recall that shortly after that physical chemists calculated expected yield from such a chemical reaction would be 10x less than that needed to produce the resultant damage. There are two odd issues that were, iirc, never addressed:-

1.Experiments had automatic equipment to remove explosion risk, never proven to be faulty.

2.Amount of energy produced was significantly more than expected from mere chemistry.

The example I posted earlier is just one of anomalies unresolved. It should be noted fusion at room temperature has been demonstrated as other examples, phenomena is probabilistic however.

Eg http://en.wikiped...d_fusion

ie It happens, so should not be dismissed out of hand, details matter.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
@Mike Massen
Some experimenters have had some interesting results and I'll be happy to applaud if anyone if they can unambiguously prove "cold fusion" works, but until then I'll remain a skeptic.
leisurewheels1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2014
This study proves that people are snobs. Or perhaps does not know what competence mean. How can a garbage collector be incompetent? Are their work quality unsatisfactory. In my experience garbage collectors are extremely competent. Same goes for prostitutes, maybe not trustworthy, but their industry would not have withstood all the prosecution if they weren't competent.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
Why should activist scientists like Paul Ehrlich be trusted?
Why should anyone trust a scientist who sues his critics?
Unbiased Observer
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2014
@Antialias
You are displaying a remarkable level of incompetence and prejudice. It makes me doubt you are even capable of the inductive and deductive reasoning critical to the scientific process you claim to hold onto.

Are there examples of mathematical and scientific ignorance on this site? Yes. Are they singularly represented on one side? No. Are there proportionally more examples of ignorance on the AGW side? Absolutely (a product of more aggressive and emotional arguments). Thus your statement needs re-evaluation based upon a fair sample of evidence as opposed to your inclinations.

Remember that article about 99.9% confidence of human activity on AGW? If you defended that drivel, you can chalk your name under the category of the ignorant and kindly remove yourself from future discussions because you would have displayed a complete lack of understanding of mathematics, statistics, and modeling techniques. It was a perfect example of zeal and dogma over facts and scientific data.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2014
Good thing that the people poled had not been exposed to some of the nutjobs here at physorg, or scientists would be cuddling up with the prostitutes.


Not cuddling with them, they ARE prostitutes.
foolspoo
4.8 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2014
You have no idea what you speak of TegiriNenashi. dogmatic doctrines were designed to be above recourse. they are not of the physical world, hence they are not and never can be considered a part of science.
fidh
3.8 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2014
On the graph there is "Warmth" not "Warmth and trustworthiness".
These two are not synonyms of each other so the exclusion of one is intentionally malicious at best.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole article is just the result of not "trustworthy" and not "competent" reporters trying to create an outrage, at which they clearly succeeded.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2014
"Leftists like Emanuel don't see human life as anything more than utilitarian. They see nothing special or unique or inviolable about the Individual or life itself. For them, creating an orderly and structured Utopia takes precedent over the value and rights of the Individual."
http://www.breitb...ath-cult
Emanuel is an MD, Obamacare architect thinks people should die by age 75.
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2014
The boundary between science and pseudoscience is fuzzy. Is alchemistry a pseudoscience? Sure. What about philosophy? Why is there a dedicated term "soft science"? How exactly soft these fields are, is there an instrument to measure it?

Similar to biology with its slippery and ever escaping definition of living things, postulate like "...dogmatic doctrines were designed to be above recourse. they are not of the physical world..." is not entirely satisfactory. Where exactly is the ever expanding physical world boundary? By that definition researchers speculating about multiverse are practicing pseudoscience.

antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2014
Are there examples of mathematical and scientific ignorance on this site? Yes

So? This is the comment sections. There are a maybe half a dozen scientifically literate people frequenting it (and before you ask: don't kid yourself. You are not among them).
You have to expect quite a few scientifically ignorant comments given that the rest aren't trained in that area. Being able to think in such a manner is not something you're born with (and also not something you're taught in school). It's training and hard work - like any other job.

If you defended that drivel, you can chalk your name under the category of the ignorant and kindly remove yourself from future discussions

I don't need to defend anything. The facts speak for themselves. - no need for 'emotional arguments'

(BTW..when you talk about 'drivel' and somesuch - are you even aware that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of? Maybe you should start with the biggest problem: yourself)
Jeppe
Sep 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jeppe
Sep 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2014
@Antialias,

That is a rather telling display of emotion. You don't have a single clue about my educational background (judgment without sufficient evidence). The rest of your argument is irrelevant to the discussion as it can be applied to both sides in equal measure, which invalidates your own argument by natural extension.

Do you remember the article I am referring to? If you did defend that article, you absolutely do need to defend yourself. It was statistically unsound, scientifically lacking, and written to obfuscate the actual matter. It would have been a display of ignorance that you accused others of.

But I agree, let facts speak for themselves, which is my argument for a lot of subjects.

You are incorrect with your last statement. Improper conclusions based upon unsound analysis methodology and statistically unsound techniques are, of course, drivel. But I will accept that you are emotionally compromised at this point.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
That is a rather telling display of emotion

I'm not the one who's rage-voting, here. Wouldn't you say that that is rather telling who of us two is dominated by his emotions?


You are incorrect with your last statement. Improper conclusions based upon unsound analysis methodology and statistically unsound techniques are, of course, drivel.

That's why we have peer review. To weed out the papres that use improper methodology or introduce a bias (mostly without the author's intent, mind. If they knew they were doing bad work or arguing a biased point they wouldn't bother to publish, because something like that you coul EXPECT to not get past peer review)

But I will accept that you are emotionally compromised at this point.

Feel free to do so. I couldn't care less about your opinion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2014
Hi there mikey
I have looked at the phenomena for decades & there is evidence of various levels of fusion although not sufficiently energetic enough at present
Im sorry did you say you havent looked at it IN decades? Because the latest info indicates something significantly energetic.

"1 – The E-Cat is capable of producing at least 3x energy input
2 – The E-Cat has a COP > 10
3 – The ITPR2 will be released before November

...now is high enough to produce an energy revolution"

-Granted these are rumors from a purported Rossi insider. But the third party report (ITPR2) is due out within a few weeks which is based on independent testing and peer review at the testers own facility. Plus, the first 2MW commercial unit has been delivered to a customer and will be open to inspection.

This in addition to the reports and demos already done. Which in summation is a lot more 'evidence' than what was available to you the last time you looked into it.

And lets not forget the hydrino.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2014
Cold fusion is a fairy tale. If it were achievable why would hundreds or thousands of people spend decades working on fusion reactors?
-Because the more traditional method offers many ancillary benefits including the potential for developing all sorts of new tech, and the fact that learning how to store and manipulate plasma is essential for the future. Plus, LENR in useful quantities is supposedly not as easy to achieve as originally thought.

Your 2011 link includes a quiz with some factual errors.

"Fusion requires temperatures in excess of 120 million °C in order to take place." false. Muon-catalyzed fusion occurs at very low temps. And so would the widom-larsen reaction, if true.

"Which of the following is not a by-product of fusion? Neutrons?" Aneutronic fusion produces few or no neutrons.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2014
"So as a whole your skepticism is nonsensical and it will help no one."
@Jeppe
How is nonsensical to be skeptical of something that's yet to be validated?

"it will help no one" is nonsense on your part.
KenWD0ELQ
3 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2014
Scientists are human beings. Like all human beings, most are competent, some are not. Most are honest, some are not. Some will be ethical, while others will do anything for the bonus, the sale, the job, or the grant. For every corrupt businessman who sells faulty products, there's an incompetent surgeon, a plagiarizing journalist, a womanizing televangelist, or a senior researcher who passes off the work of his grad students as his own.

"Climate Science" may be the worst offender in terms of saying ANYTHING to keep the gravy train of government grants coming, but it's hardly the only one.
Unbiased Observer
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2014
@antialias
If your post has no logical foundation and progression of thought, why should it receive a grade higher than a 1? No emotion goes into it. That would actually be an inference to your typical behavior. In fact, that would be rather hypocritical… would it not?

Ideally, yes. However, there have been many cases of peer review failing. There was just a sting operation that caught one. Also another example would be that disproven 97% or 96% statistic. It is clear you aren't familiar with the reality with how papers get published and how peer review typically works… Granted the process changes depending on the field, but it is particularly weak with any soft science.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2014
If your post has no logical foundation and progression of thought, why should it receive a grade higher than a 1?

Rationalise it any way you want. You know what you're doing and by extension what kind of person you are. You may lie to yourself - but I guess no one else is fooled by that particular charade.

However, there have been many cases of peer review failing. There was just a sting operation that caught one.

Wow. One. Really? Do tell. Out of what? More than a million peer reviewed papers per year? Will there be the occasional paper that needs to be redacted? Sure. Will there be the occasional paper that will - gasp - be wrong? Sure. What do you expect when people are researching the unknown? Infallibility?

So please. quantify 'many cases failing'. 2%? 5%? 15%?

It is clear you aren't familiar with the reality with how papers get published

Seeing as I've published a few...*bzzt*..wrong answer.

Jeppe
Sep 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jeppe
Sep 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2014
@antialias
You lie only to yourself and those on this 'forum'.
I said off the top, do you honestly not know what that phrase means? Also is google beyond you?
Let's start analyzing. The vast majority of papers are doomed to insignificance. Makes it impossible to know those numbers without significant expenditure of resources, which no one will do, it becomes a game of relationships (which can work in a perfect world where healthy skepticism is the norm).
In addition, you know that question is impossible to answer with quantification due to the sheer number and resources expended. However, let us look at the 96% statistic in relation to AGW. Disproven, but what was a significant reason? Because it was given to people inclined to already agree with the material. Complete invalidation.
Congrats on being published? So am I. Did you learn nothing under your mentor?
Acceptability != Validity
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2014
Unbiased Observer claimed
However, let us look at the 96% statistic in relation to AGW. Disproven, but what was a significant reason?
Beg your pardon ?

Do I interpret correctly your statement that 96% (papers) disprove AGW ?

If not, so called "Unbiased Observer", then what the heck are you saying & if so - evidence would be smart to include in any claim please ?

@Jeppe
Nice link you offered:- https://www.youtu...mOQXBS68
I had grumbled decades ago they needed to do thermographics but, need more detail, was it plan or elevation & resistivity of electrode to electrical connection,background of electrolyte re emissivity - ie. All the necessary fruit to disregard/qualify ?

Its been known for some time fusion has a probabilistic base/occurence its the number of events & the details of how they are detected which is a major key issue re evidence.

A related link from yours is this one: https://www.youtu...1mpcokBk
which I'm pleased appears serious :-) !
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2014
The vast majority of papers are doomed to insignificance.

So? If a paper helps one other researcher get an idea (or saves them the trouble of reinventing the wheel) it's worth it. Papers aren't there for the fame. They are there to help other scientists do science.

In addition, you know that question is impossible to answer with quantification due to the sheer number and resources expended.

And yet some people have done so:
The number of retractions has grown tenfold over the past decade. But they still make up no more than 0.2% of the 1.4m papers published annually in scholarly journals

To quote your good self:
is google beyond you?


Even being generous and proclaiming: "there remain many undiscovered, false papers" (which is spurious, as they ARE undiscovered, and hence there's no reason for saying there are 'many') then you are still in the low percentile region. This is better than any other approach you care to name.
COCO
1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2014
Dropping the ball on the NIST myth at 911, intellectual discourse on GMOs - Fracking - the Fuku Flu, nano/pharma pollution - a litany of subjects too funded to be questioned - they will reap the whirlwind or not. Thank Gaia for Barry and his leadership during these trying times.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (18) Sep 24, 2014
The Indoctrination of the Goobers is working. Politicizing science has made the Ignorati into allies of the Deniers, . . like George Wallace, who called anybody who achieved anything over high school a "pointy-head", while the goobers lapped it up.

Armed with lies, and assuming scientists have the ethics of businessmen or ignorant goobers, they now keep us from doing important actions.

Most of these folk fell for "WMD!", and were Bush Voters, but now call themselves Tea Folk, thinking we "forgot" who ruined America. They think science is like their Bible, where they can pick and choose what to "believe".

Pathetic.
Unbiased Observer
1.1 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2014
@Mike
No. You don't know the reference, which is fine. That isn't what it means. It is the 'famous' 96% (or 97%) of scientists believe in AGW stat. Rather abrasive and insulting despite the fact it was an issue of confusion. It's rather revealing to the limits of your rational capabilities.
@antialias
Doublethink is truly amazing; I always enjoy observing cases of it. You simultaneously argue that information is known, and in the next statement admit it can't. Consider, if a heavily cited paper is false, then following papers propagated that information resulting in the same.
Also, retractions aren't a measure of success of peer review. It is only a measure of captured events. I will re-iterate since you can't seem to grasp the difference between what the goal of peer review is and what it does. Acceptability != Validity
I have not argued another method at this point.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2014
Doublethink is truly amazing; I always enjoy observing cases of it. You simultaneously argue that information is known, and in the next statement admit it can't.

Then you're not reading it right. It is known how many pares are redacted. Anything else is pure speculation. I was giving you the benefit of some considerable doubt and even then the numbers are pretty awesome in favor of high quality of published papers.

In effect what I'm showing here: you're pulling allegations out of your behind based on a solid level of ignorance.

Consider, if a heavily cited paper is false, then following papers propagated that information resulting in the same.

Citing a paper doesn't mean you take the results of the paper without critically looking at it. If such a paper is wrong that will show up - because it will clash with experiment. (And what you propagate in a paper is YOUR work - not that of the cited papers)
gkam
2.9 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2014
What is this fixation with cold fusion? Some folk here seem to think we are keeping it from them.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2014
Unbiased Observer appearing irrational with
It's rather revealing to the limits of your rational capabilities.
Are you ill or delusional ?
You strung 2 sentences together which paint the opposite picture then accuse me of having limits, you appear significantly mixed up. Please re-read the two sentences you made as quoted
However, let us look at the 96% statistic in relation to AGW. Disproven, but what was a significant reason?
This suggests the 96% was disproven !

You dont seem to follow basic tenets of english language construction not just in that quote but elsewhere...

This might be at the root cause of your various debates which go off-beam & do not converge on an issue, they instead diverge & become slanging/abuse matches.

You certainly started attacking me claiming a limit to my rational capabilities when YOU made, what a appears as a flaw in explanation/construction of a paradigm.

Can you see where You are causing problems in the way your linguistics muddies ?
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2014
@Mike
Are you serious? You attack me after you fail to recognize a reference in a conversation you weren't a part of. That is truly amazing audacity and there is literally no point in continuing any discussion with you if you cannot realize the sheer idiocy of your statements.
I write concisely due to the character limit. It was not unclear. I'm sorry you do not possess the critical reading skills that are required to understand basic human conversation. Furthermore, you don't have a single error-free sentence. Have you heard of fragments, commas, or apostrophes? You have no room to talk.
This suggests the 96% was disproven !

It was child, look it up if you don't believe me. At this point it's only trolls that keep it alive.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2014
@antialias
I never argued that the number of redactions isn't known. You made that leap on your own. Kindly stop trying to place words in my mouth.
I argued that peer review fails. I also have argued that you can't know this data without expending the resources to review each paper. I have also argued that it doesn't measure what you think it measures. A peer review process will measure how acceptable an idea is as opposed to its validity. It does so, and it always will. This is massively dangerous in any 'soft' science and, in reality, is subject to the whims of paying for results, political landscape, and 'publish-or-die.'
You have displayed an idealism that has no basis in reality, which makes me seriously doubt your claim of actually publishing anything that came out of
your behind…

If you have, I am happy that you have seen the process actually succeed. I, however, have seen the opposite and it is especially prevalent in the soft sciences.
gkam
2.9 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2014
Well, the Rockefellers just left the Denier Camp, and Google, too.

The evidence in every field is overwhelming, yet we have the Deniers of the world. Do they know no other civilized nation doubts AGW?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2014
I argued that peer review fails.

No. You just make the claim that it fails. You have yet to produce an argument. Especially a quantification of what you mean by 'in many cases'. Percentage please. Be scientific: provide quantifiable/testable statements.

I argued that peer review fails. I also have argued that you can't know this data without expending the resources to review each paper.

So you argue that X is so where X cannot be known. Forgive me for being somewhat underwhelmed by that sort of 'logic'.

A peer review process will measure how acceptable an idea is as opposed to its validity.

Just shows how much you know about how peer review works. Peer review is ALL about whether the methodology is correct - not whether the reviewer likes the paper or not.

You have displayed an idealism that has no basis in reality

Since I have done peer review many times (and have had peer reviewed papers published). Bzzt. Wrong answer.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2014
"Unfortunately, someone seems not to have got the memo about the dangers of "inflammatory and ad hominem public commentary."

Here he is on his Facebook page discussing the climate sceptics who came to see Michael Mann's lecture in Bristol last night.

Michael E. Mann: It is hard to take Delingpole seriously. The man is a clown, and that's being charitable...

Love you too, Mikey babes. Stay classy! "
http://www.breitb...ue-class
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2014
@antialias
Forgive me for being underwhelmed with your logic. You argue that you want exacts, but then you argue in the same inexactness. You want exacts but believe in AGW. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to cover it.
You acknowledge that the exact figures can't be known but you argue of non-existence, I do not. One data point would show such, which I think we both agree that failures exist.
Peer review is ALL about whether the methodology is correct

In a highly technical ideal world, absolutely. When people start 'trusting' work it starts to be a problem (which I have seen happen) and in a 'soft' science it breaks down as methodology is weak to start...
Since I have done peer review many times (and have had peer reviewed papers published).

To quote you,
Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Kudos, so do I. Our experiences are different, I can acknowledge that.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2014
"Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—"Ocorrafoo Cobange"—who worked at a fabricated institution—"the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara"—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals. "
http://www.the-sc...-Review/

"The most startling was revealed last October when the work of Bell Laboratories' Jan Hendrick Schon came under scrutiny. Schon published 25 papers over the past 3 years. Of those, 16 have been declared to be false. This finding caused the prestigious journal Science to withdraw eight of his papers. "
http://www.infoto...ek.shtml
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2014
"Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity."
"Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated."
"The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results "based on a gut feeling"."
" failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. "Negative results" now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990."
http://www.econom...es-wrong
gkam
3 / 5 (18) Sep 27, 2014
How do we get rid of cut-and-paste trolls?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014
How do we get rid of cut-and-paste trolls?


Physorg is 'cut and paste'.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (16) Sep 27, 2014
ryggesogn2, have you ever written a scientific report yourself?
.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014
ryggesogn2, have you ever written a scientific report yourself?
.

Irrelevant.

Has anyone at physorg?
How about the authors of the articles physorg cuts and paste?

Why are my 'cuts and pastes' any less significant than what physorg cuts and pastes?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2014
It's too bad popular scientists like Tyson must lie.
Scientists should be held to high standards, no?

RichManJoe
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2014
I have to question the validity of the data for this study. Politicians are rated above prostitutes, diswashers and garbage collectors?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2014
Do you imply that all global warming "deniers", including me don't respect entire math, physics, and chemistry fields? That is a blatant lie. In fact, our disagreement is just one puny subject -- "climate science"
@tegiri
well, considering that climate science USES math, physics and more, and that it is ALL in black and white, and that there is a preponderance of information available that DIRECTLY refutes your position, then it is NOT a lie, it is a blatant fact: you IGNORE relevant science and accept ONLY that which agrees with your "faith", much like kohl, prins, Koch brothers and others- IOW, you do NOT respect ANY science field if you IGNORE THEM while advocating against a PROVEN FIELD without any empirical evidence because your POLITICAL background says to do it (or you are paid to)
The boundary between science and pseudoscience is fuzzy
MORE proof that you don't understand REAL SCIENCE.
it is NOT fuzzy. it is a matter of the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which you ignore
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2014
ryggesogn2, have you ever written a scientific report yourself?
.

Irrelevant.

Has anyone at physorg?
How about the authors of the articles physorg cuts and paste?

Why are my 'cuts and pastes' any less significant than what physorg cuts and pastes?
@ryg
1- NOT irrelevant
2- there are some VERY high profile scientists here that have published... some are not using pseudonyms (like Tim Thompson) and some are using pseudonyms (like Q-Star, Runrig, Thermodynamics, and thefurlong) ... and I suspect AA_P is among those who HAVE published scientific papers given some of his answers
3- you have CLAIMED to have a background in science as well as the military, and have UTTERLY FAILED to provide any relevant, knowledgeable facts that show you have a background in EITHER... AND you don't understand/know anything about either one, to boot!
4- PO is a POP-SCI site, not a peer reviewed journal
gkam
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2014
Rygg in the military? Whose?

I served. Let's talk, Rygg.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014

The hypothesis is that scientists are worthy of trust and should be believed.

A famous, popular scientist is caught lying. Regardless of the lie or the reason, if he lies over something so easily verifiable why wouldn't he lie in his research?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014
Rygg in the military? Whose?

I served. Let's talk, Rygg.


Notice whenever ryggy is challenged he goes changes the topic?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014
I didn't change the topic.
The topic is trusting scientists.
No one cares to discuss Tyson's lie?
It's those who are defending lying scientists that are attempting to change the subject and engage in invective.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014
If you want to discuss the military, why are those who are, or were, in the military supporting and defending socialists?
Tyson is protected because he is an AGWite.
We now have military leaders who don't have the courage to resign and would rather get their men killed following a socialist president who has no strategy.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2014
If you want to discuss the military, why are those who are, or were, in the military supporting and defending socialists?
Tyson is protected because he is an AGWite.
We now have military leaders who don't have the courage to resign and would rather get their men killed following a socialist president who has no strategy.[/q

Name one socialist I'm supporting.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2014
VV is NOT supporting anti-socialists. Ergo....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2014
"I know from much of our reader correspondence on this issue that those actually in the scientific community aren't willing to go down on this anti-scientific boat Tyson's in right now. In fact, they sent us other examples of him getting science wrong. Yes, in the media's eyes, Tyson is the high priest of science. In some fanboy communities on the internet, the same. But let's not confuse actual science with making up quotes nobody can verify to make a point about how stars were named."
http://thefederal...said-ok/
Vietvet
5 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2014
VV is NOT supporting anti-socialists. Ergo....


When did you stop beating your wife?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2014
Rygg in the military? Whose?

I served. Let's talk, Rygg.


Is being a professional murderer noble? I see it as belonging somewhere between dishwasher and prostitute. Well below that of the garbage collector.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2014
Rygg in the military? Whose?

I served. Let's talk, Rygg.


Is being a professional murderer noble? I see it as belonging somewhere between dishwasher and prostitute. Well below that of the garbage collector.


Hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard gives you the false courage to say something you don't have the balls to say face to face to any veteran of any service of any country.

Pathetic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2014
Is being a professional murderer noble? I see it as belonging somewhere between dishwasher and prostitute. Well below that of the garbage collector.


Killing to defend private property (which include your life and the lives of others) is not murder and can be noble.

Training and proper equipment is required to only kill the right people and break the right things.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2014
After reading the comments on this one, I see that the Paid Progressive Government Trolls (PPGT) are here in mass.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
Is being a professional murderer noble? I see it as belonging somewhere between dishwasher and prostitute. Well below that of the garbage collector.


Killing to defend private property (which include your life and the lives of others) is not murder and can be noble.

Training and proper equipment is required to only kill the right people and break the right things.

The noble ones therefore are the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, etc... which have fought to defend their "private property (which include your life and the lives of others)" from the imperialistic desires of the isreali and Amerikan war machines. There hasn't been a "noble" cause fought for by Amerikan soldiers since the Civil War.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2014
This forum is about how the conservatives have politicized science in order to fool the goobers, like they did with "WMD!", and "Bring 'em on!". They have convinced themselves that scientists have the same ethics as finance or business or religion or politics, the fields we invented, and change the rules for at will.

Not so in Nature, where the rules do not change, and we do not make them up. We are bound by them. Politicians and businessmen do not understand that in their field fudging the truth is normal, going farther than the truth is normal, but in science it is death.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2014
"Killing to defend private property (which include your life and the lives of others) is not murder and can be noble.
-------

There you have it, killing is noble, if you are selfish.
aroc91
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2014
"Killing to defend private property (which include your life and the lives of others) is not murder and can be noble.
-------

There you have it, killing is noble, if you are selfish.


Protecting your home and family is selfish? What would you do if somebody broke into your house or assaulted you/your family? Let them do it because intervening might necessitate harming them and would therefore, according to you, be selfish?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2014
Why take it to a ridiculous level? He said he would kill to protect property. Would you use his lawn mower?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
Why take it to a ridiculous level? He said he would kill to protect property. Would you use his lawn mower?

As you bring up an analogy of a lawn mower....
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2014
I do not understand how anybody can be so selfish as to kill for money or property, which is money.

Looks like a character issue to me.
aroc91
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2014
He said he would kill to protect property.


He said private property *(which include your life and the lives of others)*

*the important part

Would you use his lawn mower?


As if that isn't fallacious as hell.

Maybe you're right. If somebody starts ransacking my house, I should just let them. Who am I to try to stop them?

gkam
2 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2014
Once again, this forum regards the issue of politicizing science. It is based on fooling the goobers, on using political prejudice to evoke negative emotions, so they are connected with the issue. The purveyors of Filthy Fuels have to do it to keep their hold on us.

They are losing, but it is too bad they had to disparage professionals in their efforts.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
VV is NOT supporting anti-socialists. Ergo....
@ryg
WTF? this is the same thing as saying "RYG does not support anti-pedophile, anti-inbreeding or anti-Necrophilia people, thus we can conclude that Ryg is a corpse defiling inbred pedophile."
If that is the logic you wish to bring to this thread, then by all means, be known for what you are, ryg

Once again, this forum regards the issue of politicizing science.
@gkam
it IS scientific to observe, isn't it?

the unintelligent politicize the issue so that they can justify their actions to themselves. People who do are not capable of comprehending the issues, nor are they able to comprehend what is going on, so they turn to their political group for guidance. which makes as much sense as turning to a pedophile to learn how to control children. (see Ryg for details)

Then there are those motivated by MONEY like here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

gkam
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2014
Stump, once again, those in business or religion or politics do not appreciate the gross differences in ethics and Standard Operating Procedure between them and scientists. They assume everybody fudges and cheats in politics, business or religion, so scientists must do it, too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
Stump, once again, those in business or religion or politics do not appreciate the gross differences in ethics and Standard Operating Procedure between them and scientists. They assume everybody fudges and cheats in politics, business or religion, so scientists must do it, too.
Yep
you nailed it on the head
succinct and cogent!

that is pretty much the underpinning of the entire problem (see Zephir's arguments for proof... or most of the other trolls like CD or RC on most of the science threads!)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
Stump, once again, those in business or religion or politics do not appreciate the gross differences in ethics and Standard Operating Procedure between them and scientists. They assume everybody fudges and cheats in politics, business or religion, so scientists must do it, too.


It is naivete and myopic idealistic belief which suggests that scientists are above that which plagues humanity. You continue to bow to your idols, I'll retain skepticism when necessary.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2014
We, too, are skeptical. I knew better than to fall for two draft-dodging cowards screaming "WMD!" and "Bring 'em on!" from their Undisclosed Locations. That is because I am a Vietnam Vet, who learned the lessons of unrestrained violence.

But because of my education and experience, I am unswayed by politics when it comes to science.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2014
I should have added, "as much as possible." I too am imperfect.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
We, too, are skeptical. I knew better than to fall for two draft-dodging cowards screaming "WMD!" and "Bring 'em on!" from their Undisclosed Locations. That is because I am a Vietnam Vet, who learned the lessons of unrestrained violence.

But because of my education and experience, I am unswayed by politics when it comes to science.

And blinded by the inability to recognize that politics pervade the sciences as well. And lest we not forget the Gulf of Tonkin and inaction prior to Pearl Harbor by FDR, the M.O. used by Bush has a long tradition in Amerika.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2014
It is naivete and myopic idealistic belief which suggests that scientists are above that which plagues humanity. You continue to bow to your idols, I'll retain skepticism when necessary.
@cd
i don't know about you, but no one here is saying that scientists are above are above that which plagues humanity... but there are controls out there to insure that these things are mitigated as well as removed, as much as possible, from the science

this is a FAILING of your EU religion (no controls)

Science works by allowing the evidence to trump belief, which is probably the largest failing of you and your EU religion

Your religion has been debunked with physics YET you still cling to it with faith and hope

(which is why you are an acolyte proselytizing rather than a rational thinker talking science)

even with the failings science may have, it is a far better system than your religion

keep your faith.
i will trust in SCIENCE
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
learned the lessons of unrestrained violence.

What unrestrained violence?
Had the violence really been unrestrained by the US, the war would have been over quickly.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2014
"Had the violence really been unrestrained by the US, the war would have been over quickly."
--------------------------------------

I meant with SURVIVORS, Rygg, including us. I remember it well. Where were you?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
I meant with SURVIVORS, Rygg, including us.

What's your point?

Korea and Vietnam were restrained wars.
Are you suggesting they should have been unrestrained and fought for total surrender by Korea and Vietnam?
That should be be the lesson.
Don't engage unless prepared to completely destroy the enemy.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2014
Where did you say you were?
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2014
learned the lessons of unrestrained violence.

What unrestrained violence?
Had the violence really been unrestrained by the US, the war would have been over quickly.


War, another subject you don't know shit about, just like history and economics.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
"Yet, since the end of the Second World War, without committing a single soldier to battle, the Soviet, aided by our own political blunders, has gained a dominion over territory and peoples without parallel in all of history--a dominion which it will take years for it to assimilate and administer."
""There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China.

They are blind to history's clear lesson. For history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war."
""All men of good conscience earnestly seek peace. The method alone is in issue. Some, with me, would acheive peace through a prompt and decisive victory at a saving of human life., others through appeasement and compromise of moral principal, with less regard for human life. "
http://www.freere...36/posts
Why did the 'liberals' want to appease the communists?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
Had the US and its allies chosen to force China in Korea and help the French in Vietnam, in the 50s, history would be different.
Millions of North Koreans may not have starved to death and Korea would be an even larger economic power than it is today.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2014
Had the US and its allies chosen to force China in Korea and help the French in Vietnam, in the 50s, history would be different.
Millions of North Koreans may not have starved to death and Korea would be an even larger economic power than it is today.


Like I already pointed out, you don't know history.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2014
" help the French in Vietnam,"??

What? This guy is apparently unaware we are the reason the French were even back in Vietnam, or Indo-China at the time. The clothes the French troops wore at Dien Bien Phu, the paychecks in them, and the goods and weapons were all paid for by the US.

After the loss to the Viet Minh in 1954, we divided the nation into two nations artificially, then we promised free elections in the entire country, but only after two years, figuring we could swing folk into our camp by then. But when the CIA finally admitted over 90% of all Vietnamese would vote for their George Washington, Ho Chi Minh, we reneged on our promise in 1956 and started the Vietnam War.

You can see the video of John Foster Dulles announcing our betrayal.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
MacArthur was correct.

Most of the conflicts now are all the result of the Allies creating nation-states were none ever existed before.
Yugoslavia was a classic case. The entire Middle East was created artificially after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
One can keep playing 'what-ifs' all day. What if the Japanese were left alone.....?
What if the everyone would have laughed Marx and Engles off the world stage?
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2014
Rygg, you were not there, you have no idea of what you speak. Did you look up John Foster Dulles reneging on free elections? Want me to find it for you?

But again, this thread is about the conservatives using politics to smear the professions of scientists, and using the same goobers they fooled with screams of "WMD!".
verkle
Sep 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2014
@verkle
"The infusion of public money and politics has damaged our reputation."

Why the "our"?

You sure as hell are no scientist.
NOM
5 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2014
Agreed. verkle is no scientist. Applying his post history to the above graph, he is a garbage collector by occupation.

Sorry if I've offended any garbage collectors.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2014
@verkle
"The infusion of public money and politics has damaged our reputation."
Your constant posting of drivel has shattered your reputation beyond any hope of salvage.. DO NOT besmirch scientists by trying to pretend you are one, that is one fairy tale no-one is going to fall for.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2014
"Rhode Island Child Dies From Complications Of Enterovirus That Has Been Affecting Kids Nationwide"
http://connecticu...ionwide/
"Obama administration is initiating a program to give refugee status to some young people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in response to the influx of unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border."
http://hosted.ap....15-52-33
"After first Ebola case, red flags emerge that U.S. unprepared for pandemic'
http://www.washin...ic-prep/
"Mosquito Virus That Walloped Caribbean Spreads in U.S."
http://www.bloomb...ean.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2014
This discussion has really gone off topic
@verkle
not as bad as some religious nut ignoring empirical evidence for the sake of a religious belief though
I wish the article were a little more impartial to scientists. Instead, they speak of climate "scientists" 5 times. No wonder the public does not trust scientists in general. Scientists used to be more honorable and respected. The infusion of public money and politics has damaged our reputation
1- you are not a scientist
2- yes, the public doesn't trust scientists, but that is due to idiotic religious extremists and the payment of large sums of money by large rich corporations and people with an agenda, like here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Read that study with it! it is an EYE opener!
3- Climate Science is mentioned so often because there is a LOT of money being dumped into anti-science campaigns to undermine the scientists so that the big corp/oil can make even MORE profits
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2014
Yes, lots of GOVT money is being pumped into the IPCC and govt grants.
Big cronies of the govt like Solyndra, BP and GE are sucking up all sorts of 'free' money to build 'green' energy systems.

SURFIN85
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2014
RE: "Americans don't trust Scientists"

As a scientist, believe me, the feeling is mutual.

Time and time again, science has delivered strange fruit to this besotted, backward people and they have consistently abused the power and privilege of it.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2014

As a scientist, believe me, the feeling is mutual.

Time and time again, science has delivered strange fruit to this besotted, backward people and they have consistently abused the power and privilege of it
@SURFIN85
Not all of us are idiots

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2014
RE: "Americans don't trust Scientists"

As a scientist, believe me, the feeling is mutual.

Time and time again, science has delivered strange fruit to this besotted, backward people and they have consistently abused the power and privilege of it.

Another reason not to trust scientists, arrogance.
Goika
Oct 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
The scientists consider only the things, which can be proven.


That is quite naive assertion. Scientists don't possibly have time to become experts in each an every field. So, what do you do when you don't have time to investigate the field? You trust your judgement to somebody else.

It is not a secret that most of university scholars are "progressively" leaning. Naturally, they feel obliged to support their party stance on the issue. As another example, there was concern about alleged "war on science" conducted by previous administration. Naturally, when your colleagues are under unfair pressure, wouldn't it be morally irresponsible not to express solidarity with them? (http://www.petiti...ct.org/)
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014

As a scientist, believe me, the feeling is mutual.

Time and time again, science has delivered strange fruit to this besotted, backward people and they have consistently abused the power and privilege of it
@SURFIN85
Not all of us are idiots


You are the epitome what he is describing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
"In a report on a mysterious virus causing paralysis in children that aired on "CBS This Morning" earlier this week, Dr. David Agus, a medical contributor for CBS News and a University of Southern California medical professor, discussed a so-called enterovirus that is believed to behind paralysis and muscle weakness in nine Colorado children."

""Well, the world is flat," Agus explained. "Right now, anybody can get on a plane and end up anywhere in this country and spread these viruses. And we have to be aware of it. We don't know exactly why there was a dramatic spread this year. But something is happening now. We have multiple viruses. And together with global climate change, things are changing in the virus world and we have to pay attention.""
http://www.breitb...is-Virus
Scientist says Ebola is the caused by global warming.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2014
"Scientist says Ebola is the caused by global warming."

He said no such thing.

You either can't read or your lying, though it's probably a combination of both.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2014
" But something is happening now. We have multiple viruses. And together with global climate change, things are changing in the virus world and we have to pay attention."

It's implied.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2014
"To be clear, it isn't Tyson's science that is the point of contention here. Who doesn't want to listen to him talk about supernovas and the large magellanic cloud?

The problem is the belief of his fans—encouraged by him—that science has all the answers; that anyone who believes in physics must adhere to a progressive secularism; that anyone not on board is—to borrow from the accusations of Tyson's defenders—guilty of anti-intellectualism, climate "denial" and racism.

Properly understood, science is a tool, an incredibly powerful one, but still just a tool. G.K. Chesterton wrote long ago, "Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say.""
"The Bush quote controversy reminds us that the self-styled champions of science are, like anyone else, prone to sloppiness, pomposity and error. Just don't tell the adherents of the Tyson cult. It's not polite to scandalize the faithful."
http://www.politi...2014/10/
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
You are the epitome what he is describing.
@cd
Because I expect empirical evidence for claims?
or because I don't mess with debunked pseudoscience like eu?
YOU are the one who doesn't trust "mainstream" science because it proved your blessed religious order of eu was pseudoscience and horsepuckey...

It's implied.
@rygtard
After reading and re-reading what you wrote... there is NO WAY that it is "implied" that "Ebola is the caused by global warming", you moron.

Are you illiterate?

affected by? yes
caused by? not a chance!

and again, you troll and derail a conversation with idiocy

you need to work on comprehension and reading skills

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
" But something is happening now. We have multiple viruses. And together with global climate change, things are changing in the virus world and we have to pay attention."

It's implied.


In the English language, one doesn't just string random sentences together.
If the medical doctor professor did not want to conflate AGW with Ebola and other recent viruses, why did he include 'climate change' to changes in the virus world?

Will any AGWite state this MD professor was a moron for imply 'climate change' was to blame for Ebola and other viruses?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
"Globalization and climate change are important phenomena in a changing world. To date, only the effect of globalisation on infectious diseases, from vector-borne to respiratory infections, has been well established. The influence of cyclic natural climatic events and local variations in temperature and precipitation has also been recognised; however, there is still no conclusive evidence of an effect of global warming on infectious disease patterns."
http://www.ncbi.n...19351987
"Global travel and climate warming could create the right conditions for outbreaks of a new virus in this country that is carried by an invasive mosquito spreading across the U.S., according to a new Cornell computer model."
http://news.corne...y-likely
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
"The study was funded by a National Institute for Food and Agriculture Hatch grant and Cornell's Atkinson Center Climate Change and Disease Program."

NIFA is a govt agency.

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/

"The Atkinson Center is supported by a generous donation from
David and Patricia Atkinson, with additional funding from Cornell
University, Kathleen Marble, Yossie Hollander, Jill and Ken Iscol, the
Towards Sustainability Foundation, and Cornell alumni and friends"
http://www.acsf.c..._web.pdf

It's interesting how these university foundations are less than crystal clear regarding who is funding the operation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2014
"Bird flu, cholera, Ebola, plague and tuberculosis are just a few of the diseases likely to spread and get worse as a result of climate change, according to a report released yesterday by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)."

http://www.scient...e-worse/

Why wouldn't the MD be implying Ebola is caused by AGW when Scientific American says it is?
Eseta
Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eseta
Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2014
why did he include 'climate change' to changes in the virus world?
@rygtard
try re-reading for clarity or comprehension and you will get it: I will quote the relevant part of your post
And together with global climate change, things are changing in the virus world
IOW- Much like drought or other species adjustment to AGW, it is a factor that could exacerbate the situation a great deal. Learn to read, stupid!
Will any AGWite state this MD professor was a moron for imply 'climate change' was to blame for Ebola and other viruses?
Nope. We will call you stupid for not being able to comprehend that he is stating that it is an exacerbating factor that increases risk, then laugh at you
Why wouldn't the MD be implying Ebola is caused by AGW when Scientific American says it is?
They aren't either... did you miss the part
are just a few of the diseases likely to spread and get worse as a result of climate change
not even a good TROLL... just a stupid inability to comprehend basic English
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2014
He said no such thing
He even said it in the title.. ;-) After all, it's not first disease induced with global warming (http://www.scient...-crops/)
@Eseta-Zephir
At least YOU have an excuse, English not being your natural language and your inability to comprehend syntax well, but it explains in the first paragraph of EACH article you linked... let me quote them
Last year's drought increased the spread of a carcinogenic mold called aspergillus (Aspergillus flavus)
AGW is an exacerbating circumstance in drought, therefore disease here
While many infectious diseases were once all but eliminated from the United States, there's evidence that climate change is a factor that could help them expand their range and make a comeback.
same thing
As temperatures increase and rainfall patterns change - and summers become longer - these insects can remain active for longer seasons and in wider areas
AGW makes it worse
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2014
He said no such thing
He even said it in the title.. ;-)
@Eseta-Zephir
NO, he DIDN'T... only that idiot TROLL ryg said it...
and you

perhaps you could try using this link to help with the problems if comprehension?
http://dictionary...nce.com/

You can also try this one: https://translate.google.com/

Maybe you can get the page translated for comprehension? obviously you are having issues with English, as proven with THIS link in another thread: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

Of course, that latter link may well be your inability to comprehend physics more so than English... so it will not help with that.

NOM
4.4 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2014
@Rygtard
Do you not read English very well? Is that why you manage to get your facts so completely arse-backwards?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2014
"Tyson fabricated a quote from a newspaper headline and to this day has offered zero evidence that this headline exists, other than his memory (you'll just have to take it on faith). Tyson fabricated a quote from a member of Congress and to this day has offered zero evidence that this quote has been uttered, other than his own insistence that it was privately said in his presence (you'll need to take that one on faith, too). Nor has Tyson offered any evidence whatsoever to independently corroborate his jury duty story, which, to my knowledge, has at least four different versions (you'll need to take Tyson's story about that on faith, too)."
http://thefederal...-my-bad/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
"Attkisson cited "a study published in Virology Journal," which "found EV-D68 among some of the 3,375 young, ill people tested in eight Latin American countries, including the Central American nations of El Salvador and Nicaragua, in 2013." And she mentioned that "though the U.S. government is keeping secret the locations of the illegal immigrant children, there are significant numbers of them in both cities in which the current outbreak was first identified, Kansas City, Missouri and Chicago, Illinois." "
http://www.breitb...ponsible
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
scientists successfully for whole century managed to ignore and deny cold fusion, which runs with energy density ten kilowatts per gram. One should ask, what else they should deny for not to appear trustful in the eyes of laymen
TEP320-ZEPHIR
1- faulty logic
2- fallacious premiss based upon conspiracy
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

3- NO working prototype (considering that ANY 100y/o technology should be easily replicated today, then perhaps you should build the working prototype of this century old denied cold fusion generator)
therefore this is judgement based upon fallacy
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even sure about the former
you do realize that EInstein was also referring to the stupidity of people who hold fast to debunked pseudoscience that was proven wrong?

TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2014
Cold fusion prototype demonstrated to scientists, magnetic motor prototype demonstrated to scientists
@Zephir
silly me... I keep forgetting about all those half-century old fusion plants that supply electricity to the world... /sarc/ /satire/ Are you willing to believe in Higgs boson just after someone will bring its prototype? I am willing to accept the knowledge that something is possible until it is either proven correct or proven wrong
this is the problem that you and I have: aw/daw is proven wrong: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
but you can't seem to accept the evidence
I will believe in cold fusion when there is a working prototype that I can see and use etc
IOW- I follow the evidence, not make sh*t up in order to justify my faith & belief
contemporary science recognizes a better & more reliable criterions of validity
called empirical evidence, working prototypes, some people even called it proof...
Science works
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
"While I could give a multitude of reasons for leaving my studies – some more concrete, others more abstract – the essential motivation stems from my personal conclusion that I've lost faith in today's academia as being something that brings a positive benefit to the world/societies we live in. Rather, I'm starting to think of it as a big money vacuum that takes in grants and spits out nebulous results, fueled by people whose main concerns are not to advance knowledge and to effect positive change, though they may talk of such things, but to build their CVs and to propel/maintain their careers. "
http://crypto.jun...gnation/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
"Kahan's results also show that people who identify with the Tea Party have a slightly higher level of science comprehension (it's a tiny effect but it is there) than the average American, according to a nationally representative sample of US adults."
http://www.nybook...ally-do/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2014
"CDC Didn't Monitor Anyone Who Came in Contact With Duncan at Hospital"
http://www.breitb...Hospital

Just received a text alert that a patient from Boston area is being isolated with Ebola like symptoms.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
Now medical leaders are seen as incompetent AND should not be trusted.

http://www.breitb...-Dignity

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.