Uncertainty perception drives public's trust, mistrust of science

February 22, 2017 by Shilo Rea, Carnegie Mellon University
Credit: Carnegie Mellon University

Many policies—from medicine to terrorism—depend on how the general public accepts and understands scientific evidence. People view different branches of sciences as having different amounts of uncertainty, which may not reflect the actual uncertainty of the field. Yet public perceptions determine action, allocation of funding resources and the direction of public policies. It is therefore necessary to understand perceptions of uncertainty and the influences that political affiliations have on scientific beliefs.

Carnegie Mellon University researchers took the first step to understanding more of the whole picture by measuring scientific uncertainty broadly—across many areas of science, not just topics that are typically polarized. Published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, the researchers found that how people comprehend the accuracy of a specific scientific field drives their of it and how they gauge its uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a natural part of scientific research, but, in the public domain, it can be used selectively to discredit undesirable results or postpone important policies. Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty is an important first step for understanding how to communicate uncertainty," said Stephen B. Broomell, assistant professor of social and decision sciences in the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

To examine perceptions of scientific uncertainty, Broomell and Ph.D. student Patrick Bodilly Kane developed a scale to measure how people judge different sciences. They were then able to create a map that plots scientific disciplines from least to most certain.

"The map shows that perceptions held by the public may not reflect the reality of scientific study," Broomell said. "For example, psychology is perceived as the least precise while forensics is perceived as the most precise. However, forensics is plagued by many of the same uncertainties as psychology that involve predicting human behavior with limited evidence."

Broomell and Kane also found that perceptions of scientific uncertainty were highly correlated with judgments about a particular science's value. And this impacts how people think a scientific field should be funded.

"This tells us that people are not connected to the practice of scientific exploration. When perceived accuracy isn't the same as actual accuracy, this can lead to dangerous choices, as some essential fields like psychology, economics and genetic engineering provide vital social services but may be cut off because of this disconnect," Broomell said.

Many policies -- from medicine to terrorism -- depend on how the general public accepts and understands scientific evidence. People view different branches of sciences as having different amounts of uncertainty, which may not reflect the actual uncertainty of the field. CMU researchers took the first step to understanding more of the whole picture by measuring scientific uncertainty broadly -- across many areas of science, not just topics that are typically polarized.This map plots scientific disciplines from least to most certain. 'The map shows that perceptions held by the public may not reflect the reality of scientific study,' said Stephen E. Broomell. 'For example, psychology is perceived as the least precise while forensics is perceived as the most precise. However, forensics is plagued by many of the same uncertainties as psychology that involve predicting human behavior with limited evidence.' Credit: Carnegie Mellon University

While are not the only factor motivating how science is perceived, the researchers did find that sciences that potentially conflict with a person's ideology are judged as being more uncertain.

"Our political atmosphere is changing. Alternative facts and contradicting narratives affect and heighten uncertainty. Nevertheless, we must continue . This means we must find a way to engage uncertainty in a way that speaks to the public's concerns," Broomell said.

Interestingly, the study showed that the for scientific fields does not carry over and inform perceptions about individual study results. This provides scientists with an opportunity for better communication. Focusing on individual results can help allay misperceptions and concerns. Communicators should therefore focus on the specific details of a study's result rather than engaging in the defense of scientific practice more broadly.

Explore further: Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

More information: Stephen B. Broomell et al, Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2017). DOI: 10.1037/xge0000260

Related Stories

Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

April 4, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientific uncertainty is a 'monster' that prevents understanding and delays mitigative action in response to climate change, according to The University of Western Australia's Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky ...

Economic uncertainty sparks suicide

October 10, 2016

Younger and older males in the USA are more likely to commit suicide at times of increased policy-related economic uncertainty, according to a new study.

Video: What might Trump mean for chemistry?

January 23, 2017

Donald Trump is now the 45th president of the U.S. While much was said about a variety of topics during the presidential campaign, little was said about science. This leaves uncertainty around how the new administration will ...

Certainty in complex scientific research an unachievable goal

February 1, 2017

A University of Toronto study on uncertainty in scientific research could shed light on anomalies that arose in early attempts to discover the Higgs boson and even how polls failed to predict the outcome of Donald Trump winning ...

Recommended for you

Unprecedented study of Picasso's bronzes uncovers new details

February 17, 2018

Musee national Picasso-Paris and the Northwestern University/Art Institute of Chicago Center for Scientific Studies in the Arts (NU-ACCESS) have completed the first major material survey and study of the Musee national Picasso-Paris' ...

Humans will actually react pretty well to news of alien life

February 16, 2018

As humans reach out technologically to see if there are other life forms in the universe, one important question needs to be answered: When we make contact, how are we going to handle it? Will we feel threatened and react ...

Using Twitter to discover how language changes

February 16, 2018

Scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London, have studied more than 200 million Twitter messages to try and unravel the mystery of how language evolves and spreads.

40 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

humy
3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2017
First we need to understand what is wrong with perceptions of uncertainty in science from non-scientists.
The we must educate them to correct those perceptions, NOT appease or support or satisfy them.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2017
I find it ironic that many of those who decry the uncertainty in science run their lives on old superstitions from the Age of Ignorance where nothing can be verified.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2017
Among other things, humy adopting the self serving tenet that "scientists" can never lie and non "scientists" can never be right. As with Trump becoming president, it wasn't so much leaked emails, but the Democrats' obvious contempt for decent people that gave Trump the popularity.
Remember, "scientific" papers are found to have as much as 90 percent irreproducible claims.
And "science" still won't admit sex deviances, including homosexuality, "transgenderism", "bigenenderism", transvestitism, are manifestations of deep, severe mental disease.
And consider that no one who is loyal to "science" has ever condemned Christopher Hitchens depraved "principle" that, if someone doesn't provide evidence or what "scientists" will accept as evidence for what they say, that automatically disproves it and makes the opposite statement automatically true without needing proof.
Whydening Gyre
Feb 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2017
"Democrats' obvious contempt for decent people"
---------------------------------

The genital-grabbing, lying, self-aggrandizing, "decent people"?

How do the religious right not see their hypocrisy?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2017
I find it ironic that many of those who decry the uncertainty in science run their lives on old superstitions from the Age of Ignorance where nothing can be verified.
??? This reads like a sentence someone struggled to write while stoned out of his gourd.

Were you stoned out of your gourd when you wrote this george? Are stoned out of your gourd now (post-nappytime)?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
"Democrats' obvious contempt for decent people"
---------------------------------

The genital-grabbing, lying, self-aggrandizing, "decent people"?

How do the religious right not see their hypocrisy?

Careful, George. Your contempt is showing...
(you just added stupid poignancy to JP's stupid remark...)
bschott
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
Stating that there is certainty in science when there isn't is far more damaging than the fact that the uncertainty itself exists. To those who are aware of the existence of uncertainty it comes across as straight up lying. It's why we all debate here...and why we are allowed to.

"Democrats' obvious contempt for decent people"
---------------------------------

The genital-grabbing, lying, self-aggrandizing, "decent people"?

How do the religious right not see their hypocrisy?

Careful, George. Your contempt is showing...
(you just added stupid poignancy to JP's stupid remark...)

Someone opened up door # Trump...George was ready....

humy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2017
Among other things, humy adopting the self serving tenet that "scientists" can never lie and non "scientists" can never be right.

julianpenrod

False. Please don't lie about what I say or believe.


And "science" still won't admit sex deviances, including homosexuality, "transgenderism", "bigenenderism", transvestitism, are manifestations of deep, severe mental disease.


Is that a scientific fact? No, just your ignorant opinion not based on evidence.


And consider that no one who is loyal to "science" has ever condemned Christopher Hitchens depraved "principle" that, if someone doesn't provide evidence or what "scientists" will accept as evidence for what they say, that automatically disproves it and makes the opposite statement automatically true without needing proof.


Sorry, don't believe you. I don't believe that is anyone's belief including Christopher Hitchens. It is certainly not my belief nor most scientists. LIAR
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
Hi julianpenrod. :)

Science, WHEN DONE PROPERLY, according to scientific method principles of objectivity, dispassionate interpretations, is the foundation of everything in the modern world which allowed YOU to prosper/not die of disease/malnutrition etc like your forebears. :)

But I understand your caution. I myself had occasion to advise some 'scientists' here to NOT sound so 'certain' and/or accuse ME of 'lying while they themselves were the ones obviously wrong all along! But don't 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', julian! Don't sound just as 'certain' while being more erroneous than those you attack! Eg:
And "science" still won't admit sex deviances, including homosexuality, "transgenderism", "bigenenderism", transvestitism, are manifestations of deep, severe mental disease.
Understand, that hormonal/gestation vagaries determine a 'spectrum' of sexual mind/body before birth! And mental diseases/perversions can occur in ALL sexual/religious 'types'. OK? :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)

What's with the attack on gkam for alluding to what Trump himself boasted: ie, his celebrity/power position let him get away with "grabbing females by the pussy"; and other abuses of power/position for his own creepy-character perversions/satisfaction (much like Saville and Rolf Harris abused their celebrity status; and Catholic/Islamic/Jewish etc etc 'priests' abused their position of power/trust).

If you aren't aware of all that, please update yourself on what has been going on before attacking; gkam is obviously fully up on what Trump et al have been getting away with while they claimed to be 'fine, upstanding citizens/professionals worthy of our trust'.

Save your attacks for the Trump et al liars and hypocrites, not the ones who call them out, hey mate! :)

PS @ Ghost: Keep to the facts, not your personal fixations about personalities/ego for your trolling/stalking pleasure, hey? You're OK...when NOT being 'creepy stalking' like that. :)
Bart_A
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2017
The chart above is quite accurate is graphing the true sciences. Who is going to challenge mechanical physics and nanotechnology?

But the ones on the left are inherently faith-based sciences. Psychology can easily become a quack. And psychology has no answers to mental "disease" or sexual deviations. Evolution remains a completely unproven theory at best. Economics has a lot of guesswork in it. And of course climate is a lot of hot air (pun intended) and politics.

The farther left you go on this graph the more close you get to "fake news".

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2017
PS @ Whyde. :)

I just re-read your parenthesized comment, and a possible alternative construct can be placed on it depending on your intention. Can you rephrase/clarify that comment?.... just in case I placed the wrong construction on it due to the lack of contextual clues from your overall post.

If I did err as to your intent, then I apologize in advance, mate! If not, then my above post stands. Either way, good luck. :)
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
Among other things, never supporting non scientists suggests that they can't be right.
The sex deviances, from homosexuality to transvestitism universally have clinical properties of mental disease. Depression that lasts longer than a year, extreme social phobias, extreme anxiety disorders. All sex deviates have self loathing higher than any other group. And it does not come from being "hated' because, if you know what you're doing is right, no one can make you hate yourself! They know they are engaging in filth. And they can't control it! They can't keep from doing it! That's a reason they use drugs so much and why they have such a high rate of suicide, because they can't live with it.
And no matter how much humy tries to lie, that is precisely what Hitchens asserts.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2017
The sex deviances, ...have clinical properties of mental disease.

Interpretation.
All sex deviates have self loathing higher than any other group.

You have reference cite?
And it does not come from being "hated' because, if you know what you're doing is right, no one can make you hate yourself!

If they've socially conditioned you, they can.
They know they are engaging in filth.

Interpretation, again, of a socially conditioned person.
And they can't control it! They can't keep from doing it!

Kinda like...someone being preachy?
That's a reason they use drugs so much and why they have such a high rate of suicide, because they can't live with it.

I'm gonna need a reference for that one, too...
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2017
As an aerospace engineer, I kind of like this chart, but knowing how problematical forensic science is, I think these perceptions need to be taken with a very large grain of salt. I suspect it's just people watching CSI and thinking that's reality. I also find it interesting that climate, which is related to aerospace engineering, is rated so low. That also suggests problems with the perceptions (and, certainly, evolution should be much higher). But I guess that's the point of the study.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2017
PS @ Whyde. :)

I just re-read your parenthesized comment, and a possible alternative construct can be placed on it depending on your intention. Can you rephrase/clarify that comment?

Not an attack. An observation.
In a nutshell, they both did the same thing. Labelled all in a group as guilty of a single or a few individual's foibles.
That's the lazy way out.
Both lacked critical thought.
Ergo, stupid...
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2017
As with Trump becoming president, it wasn't so much leaked emails, but the Democrats' obvious contempt for decent people that gave Trump the popularity.


The voter turnout for the election was a dismal 55% which was the lowest it's been in 20 years. The last time the turnout was this low we got Bill Clinton as result. Trump actually LOST the popular vote by 48:52 which means he was elected into power by a minority of 26.4% of eligible voters.

Approximately 90 million people, nearly 3/4 of the voters were indifferent, boycotted the whole elections, or voted against Trump. Trump actually lost about 2 million voters over Romney since the previous elections. Trump was actually LESS POPULAR than "Mr. R. Money"

He is not a president of the people - he didn't get a massive wave of people joining the Republican side - he is president simply because both candidates were so bad that people didn't even want to vote, and because of the electoral college.
humy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2017
never supporting non scientists suggests that they can't be right.

julianpenrod

That's pretty bad grammar and I assume you meant something like;

"never support the suggestion that non scientists can never be right" ?

If so; NOBODY SUGGESTS THIS nor believes this.

Are SCIENTISTS never right?
Why reject what scientists say about scientific matters over what a none scientist says about science?
Yes, they can sometimes be wrong, but they are more likely to be right about scientific matters.
I suspects you just say this nonsense because you have some unscientific unsound ignorant opinions about some scientific matters that are contrary to what the science says.

Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2017
I think these perceptions need to be taken with a very large grain of salt. I suspect it's just people watching CSI and thinking that's reality.


That's the problem. Perception management.

There's also a little spat between the sciences called the Science Wars that started in the 90's and lead to the intellectual separation of the so called "soft sciences" from theoretical physics. The proponents of the "hard sciences" like Neil DeGrasse Tyson then went on TV in various documentaries that took that conflict out of the academia and started preaching it to the wider public, by creating the rock-steady television Science with a capital S that pretends it's got everything under control with Evidence and Logic and Reason etc. with little room for subjectivity or self-criticism. No "woo stuff" - only Science.

So ironically, it's the same guy who demoted Pluto from being a planet on semantic grounds, to avoid the inconvenience of having more planets, which is arbitrary.
FactsReallyMatter
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2017
First we need to understand what is wrong with perceptions of uncertainty in science from non-scientists.
The we must educate them to correct those perceptions, NOT appease or support or satisfy them.


What you really mean is that you want to clearly identify 'wrong' characteristics of people you don't agree with. Then either beat that out of them or lock them up.

Honesty is always so difficult for you.

humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2017
First we need to understand what is wrong with perceptions of uncertainty in science from non-scientists.
The we must educate them to correct those perceptions, NOT appease or support or satisfy them.


What you really mean is that you want to clearly identify 'wrong' characteristics of people you don't agree with.


FactsReallyMatter

Nope.
As usual, you lie and use moronic straw mans against people just because they don't agree with you and then accuse THEM of doing that; That makes you a HYPOCRITE.

P.S. misetit in my OP "The we must educate .." should have been "Then we must educate ...".
And many (if not most) non-scientists don't need educating about extreme basics about science but, out of those that do, the people we must educate the most are morons like you.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2017
the people we must educate the most are morons like you.

Well, at this point the better way will be to educate everyone else that the prattle of morons doesn't matter. That seems a lot easier to do (educating non-morons is a lot easier than educating morons.)

There will always be crazies, morons, conspiracy theorists, willfully uneducated/stupid/lazy people and those who harbor any kind of delusions. It's a goup that can be allowe to exist but shouldn't be given the time of day.

never supporting non scientists suggests that they can't be right.

That's a useless statement. That's like saying sometimes someone in group A can be right and sometimes someone in groub B can be right. Duh. The point is: which group do you think has it right a lot more? Laymen or scientists. I know whom I'd put my money on (seeing as we're all typing on one of those things that laymen could never have figured out)
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2017
The point is: which group do you think has it right a lot more?


That shouldn't matter. Who's right is right, and it would take an idiot to dismiss some opinion just because it comes from a group that usually gets it wrong. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

(seeing as we're all typing on one of those things that laymen could never have figured out)


What do you mean by laymen? Do you require academic credentials or someone to name you something before you count as non-layman, or do people turn non-layman once they invent something useful?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2017
I myself had occasion to advise some 'scientists' here to NOT sound so 'certain' and/or accuse ME of 'lying while they themselves were the ones obviously wrong all along!
You can tell the psychopaths/narcissists/UFO nuts by how quickly/often they start talking about themselves. And also the neurotic/compulsive fixations on idiot punctuation and emoticons.

"Those of us who have had experiences with psychopaths know that the language of the psychopath is two-dimensional. They are, as someone once said, as "deep as a thimble."

"Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2017
The sex deviances, from homosexuality to transvestitism universally have clinical properties of mental disease
The religions we are left with today have survived by outgrowing and overrunning their less prolific counterparts. To do this they force or coerce their women to do nothing else but make babies until it kills them.

And of course they condemn and punish non-procreative sex in the strictest terms.

This is why julian considers non-procreative sex in any and all forms deviant, but considers ritual cannibalism, or martyrdom and murder to resolve such conundrums as 'can god have a mother?' healthy.

And what about the little effigies of torture murder they wear with pride around their necks? How deviant is that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2017
And they can't control it! They can't keep from doing it! That's a reason they use drugs so much and why they have such a high rate of suicide, because they can't live with it


"Why are so many priests alcoholics?
by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith posted Monday, 25 Aug 2014

"Alcoholic priests do enormous damage to the Church. I think that goes without saying. But what does even worse damage is the way the phalanx of people who surround, protect and enable each alcoholic priest..."
Kron
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2017
The graph of public perception on certainties of scientific knowledge (above) is not ordered on the basis of uncertainty within those fields. The general public has that wrong for starters.
---
On the research itself- not surprising. The public is weary of deceit (no one wants to be perceived as gullible), and with history to go on as example scientific knowledge is subject to change. There are no truths in science. Science is an ever evolving field, changing with gathered information over time.

The general public needs a redefinition of what science is. It is all probabilistic. Nothing is certain. Even when you have an ENGINEERED working rocket (proof of concept), the SCIENCE (concept) behind why rockets work (chemical or thermonuclear reactions powering the rocket, for example) is theoretical in nature.

We may one day figure out that our physical theories are incorrect (and as a betting man I'd wager on this possibility), but the rockets still jet.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2017
The biggest problem here is magical thinking, the idea that if enough people want something to be so, or if an individual wants something to be so enough, it must or can be so. This goes against evidence, and is profoundly psychotic.

Reality is what it is. We don't get a choice. We can change some things; that doesn't mean we can change everything.

This magical thinking was originated by religions, but has spread in the last half-century or so due to the prevalence of Derridist philosophy. One can't deconstruct electrons or black holes. There simply is too much evidence. It's the same with evolution and global warming.

About all one can do is try to get as much evidence as one can, then understand what that evidence indicates are the basic features of reality. Without pride, without prejudice, without fears or desires.

Unfortunately most people aren't taught that. And that's the problem.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2017
Unfortunately most people aren't taught that.

Even if they were: Slagging something off is just so much easier than actually putting in the work to understand it.

Demagogues have latched onto this as they validate that lazyness by just saying "you who are lazy are also right"...and who doesn't want to be told that they are right? It's the first way children get validation. Many have just grown old - and never grown up.

In the end people have gotten so lazy that its no longer about being right. It's just about believing that you are right and that others affirm you in that belief

(and there you have religions and Trump in a nutshell. Applause, please)
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2017
The biggest problem here is magical thinking, the idea that if enough people want something to be so, or if an individual wants something to be so enough, it must or can be so. This goes against evidence, and is profoundly psychotic.


Careful. A lot of things truly are what you say they are. The difficulty is in telling what they are and when they're not.

You should do well to watch the James Burke series, "The day the universe changed". It's all about how our perception of the world changes our understanding of what exist and what is real, and how it continues to do so, and how everything essentially is how we say it is.

Merrit
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2017
The issue is with our culture, media, and politics. People are rather gullible and will believe just about anything that appears credible. The power of Donald Trump's fake news really shows this. Miss information is nothing new though. The cigarette companies are notorious for using it in the past.
As soon as opposing views both seem credible the whole issue falls into uncertainty and it is hard to lift the veil aftwards. Climate change is a great example of this. We really need the government to take an active role in eliminating miss information.
Merrit
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2017
I was also surprised by how are to the left evolution is until I realized it is a religious issue or more precisely religion has an issue with it. But the fact religion has an issue with evolution in the first place is in itself surprising considering it doesn't matter in the least if all the planets and animals were created by God nor does it matter when or how God created them; evolution would still be a valid theory and nothing would change about it. Animals continue to evolve to this day regardless of their origin.

All you religious nut jobs out there are fighting the wrong theory. It is biogenesis you have an issue with.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2017
Careful. A lot of things truly are what you say they are. The difficulty is in telling what they are and when they're not.
The conversation is about science, not beliefs in general. In science, there are data, which are gathered from experimentation and observation, and there are conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and laws of nature, which are determined by organizing the data and logical testing. When beliefs contradict these data, the beliefs are wrong.

You should do well to watch the James Burke series, "The day the universe changed".
Twice so far.

It's all about how our perception of the world changes our understanding of what exist and what is real, and how it continues to do so, and how everything essentially is how we say it is.
Actually it's more about how we stopped making up stories about super magic daddies in the sky and started using science.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2017
@Eikka, your recent outing of yourself as a climate denier means that you have abandoned the path of evidence and are placing your own beliefs above the data.

I don't think I need to point out what this means as to your condescending post above. You're starting to sound like Reality Check.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2017
We really need the government to take an active role in eliminating miss information.
This is a remarkably bad idea. Governments would (and have, and do, and will) use this as license to engage in censorship.

I'll also point out that governments run schools, which are deliberately handicapped from teaching people how to think critically so that demagogues, con-men, outright criminals, and other parasites can get elected. They wouldn't be able to if people were taught to think critically and if most of them did. Of course, most people would abandon religion if they were taught to think critically as well, so all the religionists participate in the handicapping.

This is why we got Trump. And it's why we'll have the next World War, and the one after that.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2017
I wouldn't worry much about a world war yet. Donald Trump has only so much power and most of the world see him as the joke he is. The world war will happen around 2050 if nothing changes when overpopulation and food scarcity come to head and not to mention crisis from rising sea level etc.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2017
We keep getting dictators. When people start thinking they can vote on reality it doesn't turn out well.

I'm much less optimistic than you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@Eikka, ....You're starting to sound like Reality Check.
It's better to be correct while 'sound condescending', than to 'sound so certain' while being IN-correct (as you have been so often in our past exchanges, remember?).

So unless you meant to compliment Eikka (as in 'sounding condescending while being correct', then please construct/employ your 'style comparisons' more carefully, mate. :)

PS: I make no comment on Eikka's correctness or not; just asking you to be more careful when drawing comparisons between me and any other poster here....as my record proves I am probably the most impartial, objective observer/commentator here (sticking strictly to the scientific method and eschewing 'personal' and 'source' based biases). So Da Schneib, unless you meant to compliment Eikka by likening him to me, then I suggest you retract your above comparison claim, tout suite (or tout de suite, for the French purist)! And be more careful next time, ma
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
PS @ Whyde. :)

I just re-read your parenthesized comment, and a possible alternative construct can be placed on it depending on your intention. Can you rephrase/clarify that comment?

Not an attack. An observation.
In a nutshell, they both did the same thing. Labelled all in a group as guilty of a single or a few individual's foibles.
That's the lazy way out.
Both lacked critical thought.
Ergo, stupid...
Not so fast, me hearty! In this instance the Trump-afficionados identified themselves with Trumps style/values/claims etc, it wasn't gkam. He merely alluded to that self-identification and recorded statements to make his point. Whereas 'the other guy' merely based his 'generalizations' opinion on faith and bias per se.

So perhaps your 'observation' may have been based on your own mis-interpretations rather than the actual point he made, Whyde? Anyway, good luck and good thinking, mate. :)

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.