The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The public perception of science.

Been given a new assignment for college college, and thought of asking for advice on here.

It's just a short paper however, the task I've got to address is the public perception of science as understood via the media.

I've got to discuss whether concerns raised in the media are justified or scaremongering?

We are prompted to consider the MMR vaccine and Autism, swine and bird flu, SARS, disease and the (UK) DNA database.

But are there any examples knocking about the heads of the Atheists who love science where the public perception of science was either really laudable or damnable that you think I could focus on.

I was also thinking about the rather broad interpretation that media permits so not just Newspapers and tv but obvious places to start.

Also I mean it's obvious to go down - have you seen what Fox news says about Global warming? I was looking for a novel example where I can in particular write about not just how the media got the science right/wrong but how the public reaction was influenced for good or ill by the media.

Any ideas?

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on February 11, 2010 at 3:34pm

I feel the same, I was not that good at science in school but when I do understand it, it is fascinating, and I'm trying to learn more.

Permalink Reply by Richard Healy on November 28, 2009 at 6:20am

And there was me thinking autism was due to "mirror neurons"

the 'MMR causes autism' debacle is probably going to be a central plank of my report, since it is sort of a test case form science - media - public interaction and segues neatly into the scourge of the anti-vax brigade.

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on November 28, 2009 at 9:48am

Check out Ben Goldacre at http://www.badscience.net/

There are plenty of good science blogs which periodically deal with public perception of science too. Most popular being http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ From there you should be able to find tons and tons of info for your paper. Good luck sifting through it all, though! I don't envy you, but it's a really good topic for a paper.

Permalink Reply by Richard Healy on November 28, 2009 at 10:23am

Already been doing so, but thanks for the suggestion! :-)

My Order of "Bad Science" from amazon has just dispatched!

Permalink Reply by equinox on November 28, 2009 at 7:56am

Well, the climategate scandal is a good example of scientists doing sloppy science. I do wonder what the public perception will be when this all plays out, especially if these scientists face criminal charges and are prosecuted.

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on November 28, 2009 at 11:43am

Exactly. That's probably the worst part about it. There's no attempt to explain how we know. It's just yet another 'expert opinion' to them.

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on November 28, 2009 at 3:10pm

In my not-so-humble armchair opinion:

- People believe what they want to believe, hear what they want to hear. You want to drive your Hummer and leave all your lights on 24/7 guilt-free, so you're going to latch onto media articles that say climate change is a scam. The media outlet sees that this kind of article is popular with the base and goes with it (if the media outlet is something like FOX that is a little more concerned with ratings and a little less concerned with accuracy in reporting).

- People want solid, black-and-white answers, but that's not how science works so people distrust competing sources. I'm watching NOVA program on how the Egyptians raised obelisks. It's showing a few different teams of scientists with differing opinions about how it was done. In the end, all that's been proven is that it is possible to raise a 30-ton obelisk using tools and technology available to the Ancient Egyptians. It still doesn't confirm that's exactly how they did it.

- People prefer having someone to blame versus something. I think this is what's happening with Autism and the anti-vaxer movement. "My kid's not 'normal,' and I need someone to blame for that and some way to 'fix' him and make him normal." Symptoms of Autism typically show up right after vaccines are typically given. It's not hard to wonder if one has to do with the other (though in reality, people aren't considering that maybe the timing of the two are a coincidence). Vaccine with harmful crap in it is much easier for people to wrap their heads around than complex genetics and mere hypotheses about environmental factors. Plus, it gives us a someone versus something to blame.

- Finally, why people hold on to increasingly debunked beliefs; because no one wants to be proved wrong. Jenny McCarthy has found an all new avenue of fame by preaching the Good Word of Bad Vaccinations. How eager is she going to be to say, "Oops, forget everything I went on about for years. I was totally wrong. My bad."

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on February 11, 2010 at 3:39pm

How eager is she going to be to say, "Oops, forget everything I went on about for years. I was totally wrong. My bad."

And that shows that a person is letting their pride get ahead of the truth. There are some things that I would LOVE to be wrong about--global warming is one of many. That doesn't mean I'm going to choose the most convenient belief.

Permalink Reply by equinox on November 28, 2009 at 3:36pm

Another climate possibility. A scientist at the SUNY at Albany is being accused of scientific misconduct.

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on November 28, 2009 at 7:12pm

Let me add one more hypothesis: I believe a great number of people are either unable and/or unwilling to wrap their minds around large, complex concepts. That's not meant to be demeaning, but I really do think it's true.

When I end up debating evolution with a theist, I often get the idea that the person seriously can not grasp the concept of millions or billions of years. "A few thousand" or "A few hundred generations before Moses" are far easier numbers to deal with.

When talking causes of Autism, a lot of people have trouble grasping DNA, genetics. how someone can be genetically susceptible to something and not get it while the person not genetically prone to it does. "X causes Y. Vaccine causes Autism" is a far easier statement to grasp so they grasp it.

When talking man-made Climate Change, the evidence and projections involve hundreds of different specialities all pooling their data together like an obscenely huge 3D jigsaw puzzle. There's no single tool to measure a single, simple thing, that says "Oh look; man-made Climate Change." After the first few "Combine this ice core sample with that soil sample with such-and-such geological survey..." it's much easier for people to shake their heads and say "You guys don't know what you're talking about (because I don't know what you're talking about)."

Permalink Reply by equinox on November 28, 2009 at 7:39pm

Right. And it's even worse when the inputs and models get so complex and undocumented that the scientists don't even know what their talking about and can't replicate their published results. No wonder the public perception is challenged.

Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on November 28, 2009 at 10:03pm

Scientists are human too. It's bad enough when the public distrusts the scientific community because they're having legitimate debates and differences of theory, but then a couple of them go and discredit themselves in the name of ... what was one of my theories again? ... The burning need not to be wrong?

The last thing the climate debate needed was a handful of egotistical scientists padding the data further. If that turns out to be what happened. If not, the debate also doesn't need hackers pretending to be scientists padding the data.