US AP: Confidence in science fell in 2022 while political divides persisted, poll shows - “Science must be bipartisan. The causes of Alzheimer’s are the same whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. The fusion that goes on in the sun is the same whether you live in Topeka or you live in San Francisco.”

Confidence in science fell in 2022 while political divides persisted, poll shows
Associated Press (archive.ph)
By Maddie Burakoff
2023-06-15 18:52:37GMT

NEW YORK (AP) — Confidence in the scientific community declined among U.S. adults in 2022, a major survey shows, driven by a partisan divide in views of both science and medicine that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Overall, 39% of U.S. adults said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community, down from 48% in 2018 and 2021. That’s according to the General Social Survey, a long-running poll conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago that has monitored Americans’ opinions on key topics since 1972.

An additional 48% of adults in the latest survey reported “only some” confidence, while 13% reported “hardly any,” according to an analysis of the survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The survey showed low confidence levels among Republicans as partisan gaps that emerged during the pandemic era have stuck around, said Jennifer Benz, the center’s deputy director.

“It doesn’t look all that dramatic when you just look at the trends for the overall public,” Benz said. “But when you dig into that by people’s political affiliations, there’s a really stark downturn and polarization.”

Between surveys in 2018 and 2021, as the pandemic took hold, the major parties’ trust levels headed in opposite directions. Democrats reported a growing level of confidence in science in 2021 — perhaps as a “rallying effect” around things like COVID-19 vaccines and prevention measures, Benz said. At the same time, Republicans saw their confidence start to plummet.

In the 2022 survey, Democrats’ confidence fell back to around pre-pandemic levels, with 53% reporting a great deal of confidence compared with 55% in 2018. But Republicans’ confidence continued its downward trend, dropping to 22% from 45% in 2018. Confidence in medicine has also grown more polarized since 2018. That year, Democrats and Republicans were about equally likely to say they had high confidence. By 2022, though, Republicans’ confidence had fallen to 26%, while Democrats’ has remained about the same as it was before the pandemic, at 42%.


Overall, 34% of Americans reported a great deal of confidence in medicine in 2022, compared with 39% before the pandemic.

Generally, scientists have had a high level of trust compared to other groups in the U.S., said John Besley, who studies public opinion about science at Michigan State University. And even with the latest declines, confidence in science is still higher than many other institutions, he pointed out.

But the split between political parties is a cause for concern, experts said.

“You can definitely see the impact here of people taking cues from their political leaders,” Benz said.

For Sudip Parikh, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the drops were “disappointing but not surprising.” He sees them as part of an “overall pulling apart of our communities” and a loss of trust in many institutions.

The latest survey found that distrust has grown for some other groups, too. According to the 2022 survey, confidence in the Supreme Court has plunged to its lowest level in at least 50 years. Americans also reported lower levels of trust in education, the press, major companies and organized religion.

Besley said that scientists should communicate about their motives to help show that they are trustworthy: “Not only do we have some expertise, but that also we’re using that expertise to try to make the world better,” he said.

Parikh thought the stakes are high for rebuilding trust in science — and doing so across political lines.

“Science must be bipartisan,” he said. “The causes of Alzheimer’s are the same whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. The fusion that goes on in the sun is the same whether you live in Topeka or you live in San Francisco.”

The General Social Survey has been conducted since 1972 by NORC at the University of Chicago. Sample sizes for each year’s survey vary from about 1,500 to about 4,000 adults, with margins of error falling between plus or minus 2 percentage points and plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The most recent survey was conducted May 5, 2022, through Dec. 20, 2022, and includes interviews with 3,544 American adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
 
Didn't they just announce that all of the science around potential Alzheimer's cures was wrong because falsified data had led them to an incorrect conclusion.
https://www.sciencealert.com/there-...-stop-blaming-amyloid-plaques-for-alzheimer-s
Yup.
Where does that say anything was falsified? It was just a hypothesis that looked good and so far hasn't panned out.
Saw someone above posted the link, but yeah it’s been one of those things that a lot of people have said that ‘amyloid inly and first’ can’t be the full picture and have all been demonised for it.
Western blots are easy to fake. Interestingly the same was done with covid shots - the contents of the stuff was examined by the equivalent method for nucleotides and the blots seem to have been faked. There wasn’t just those set size of mRNAs in the vials
But anyway. The article still sees science as a series of set truths which is the root of our current view and problems with it. This ‘the fusion is the same no matter what’ attitude sees science as ‘this is a fact. The fact is true and if you don’t belive it you’re an heretic.’
But that’s not what science is. Science is a process, not an endpoint. If you can’t question it or being new data and ask ‘is this still what we thought’ or ‘I think you’re wrong because …’ then it’s not science, you’re just being told something and asked to believe it.
This article is nothing to do with what science is, it’s a panic that the plebs don’t believe what they’re told
 
It makes me so happy to see the "I fucking love science" midwits get their assholes blown out again and again. An entire generation that was led down the primrose path by reddit and xkcd comics is now realizing the most important statistic of all: 98% of scientists agree with the people that fund them.

Side note, what the fuck is it with these people acting as though you need to "believe in science"? I thought the whole point of science is that it doesn't need me to believe, it just works. If I throw a ball into the air, gravity will guide it back down into my hand with or without my belief. That's the magic of science, at the risk of sounding a bit reddit. But now? Don't look for evidence of efficacy, symptoms mean its working, ignore the clots. We already told you it's safe and effective goyim, now cool it with these conspiracy theories. Now cut your dick off and listen to me tell you about how God definitely isn't real because you can't observe him, but subatomic particles that you can't observe are totally real because I told you so. Don't ask questions.
 
Maddie takes it up the ass, doo-dah, doo-dah.

Maddie takes it up the ass, all the live-long day!

Bitch.

Not just science that's seen a precipitous loss of trust, but also government/law enforcement/mainstream media/the judiciary at any and all levels, due to the Chinese Flu. We got to see just how fast so many "elected officials" turned into fucking tyrants as bad as my namesake, how fast Officer Friendly turned into a thug worthy of my namesake's NKVD, how fast the "mainstream media" turned into the lying Pravda, Izvestia, and Tass of my namesake, and just how fucking slowly the judiciary was to protect people's rights.

As an aside, a good three times as many have died of heart disease and cancer than from the Chinese Flu during this time frame. As one who has had open-heart surgery, cancer, and the Chinese Flu, the Chinese Flu was a nothingburger compared to the heart and the cancer. Yet we didn't fuck over our people and fuck up our country trying to treat and prevent the spread of heart problems and cancer, did we.

The memories of this national atrocity won't go away any time soon. Rest assured one day, sadly, there will again be some sort of national calamity, and government/science/law enforcement/mainstream media and the judiciary shouldn't be surprised when most people ignore and/or work around any bullshit edicts handed down.
 
Yup.

Saw someone above posted the link, but yeah it’s been one of those things that a lot of people have said that ‘amyloid inly and first’ can’t be the full picture and have all been demonised for it.
Western blots are easy to fake. Interestingly the same was done with covid shots - the contents of the stuff was examined by the equivalent method for nucleotides and the blots seem to have been faked. There wasn’t just those set size of mRNAs in the vials
But anyway. The article still sees science as a series of set truths which is the root of our current view and problems with it. This ‘the fusion is the same no matter what’ attitude sees science as ‘this is a fact. The fact is true and if you don’t belive it you’re an heretic.’
But that’s not what science is. Science is a process, not an endpoint. If you can’t question it or being new data and ask ‘is this still what we thought’ or ‘I think you’re wrong because …’ then it’s not science, you’re just being told something and asked to believe it.
This article is nothing to do with what science is, it’s a panic that the plebs don’t believe what they’re told
I like @AnOminous and agree with 99% of what he says but avoid Covid fraud talk or he'll lose it.

Brett Weinstein recently did a fascinating interview regarding the bullshit they pulled regarding Ivermectin: https://youtu.be/umLgGcmm7ac
 
Saw someone above posted the link, but yeah it’s been one of those things that a lot of people have said that ‘amyloid inly and first’ can’t be the full picture and have all been demonised for it.
Science is great. The scientific method is great. Scientists are not so great, and the "scientific community" is shit.
 
Too late. The actions of your masters have spooked the cattle. The plandemic and the totally deadly muh climate to deprive people of personal belongings as well as a very real agenda to turn their children into self-hating troons all for the dreams of the elites' utopia.

What would solve this plague of disbelief is honest to God prosperity for the plebs. A stable household and a country that actually supports its people. But not going to happen because of that dream to reduce people into serfs with no options than to bend down and take it.


Unfortunately, even the most retarded person still wants prosperity. So instead of getting your utopia, you'll just restart the age of Piracy instead.


TL;DR: Act like stereotypical super villains, people will respond in kind.
 
What would solve this plague of disbelief is honest to God prosperity for the plebs. A stable household and a country that actually supports its people. But not going to happen because of that dream to reduce people into serfs with no options than to bend down and take it.
Wait, that wasn't supposed to be satire?

These people should be the first ones sent to the gas chambers.
 
Science is great. The scientific method is great. Scientists are not so great, and the "scientific community" is shit.
A whole lot of the problem is how funding works. Every system is exploitable, so the longer a system stays in place, the more it tends toward corruption. It's long past time for a shake up.
 
Everyone knows the famous part of President Eisenhower’s farewell address warning about the military-industrial complex:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little resemblance to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.


Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
What few people know is the part immediately following that, which warns against the scientific-technological elite:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

There’s a reason why most people only know half of the speech. The same people who decry oil companies funding research because of conflicts of interest have no problem with the government funding studies.
 
A whole lot of the problem is how funding works. Every system is exploitable, so the longer a system stays in place, the more it tends toward corruption. It's long past time for a shake up.
The whole system is fucked up. If your research produces a null result, it's much harder to get published. if youi don't get published, you don't get funding. There's selective pressures to only do research that you are confident will get results, and you may be pressured to falsify your results to get said results. We lost 15 years researching alzimers because all research focused on the results from that falsified experiment, and they never produced results. What other things are we barking up the wrong tree? What if we are wasting decades of research because of a falsified report on string theory or something, and we could've had cold fusion in the 90's but we were looking in the wrong place?
 
What if we are wasting decades of research because of a falsified report on string theory or something, and we could've had cold fusion in the 90's but we were looking in the wrong place?
Cold fusion was deboonked pretty quickly, largely because it was a completely novel concept but one that would be really profitable to have work. So a bunch of people immediately tried to reproduce it and struck out. The amyloid plaque hypothesis looked good and seemed to make sense.

Also medical science is almost not even science since it's more concerned with results than explanations.

So if your new cancer drug gets 50% better results with fewer side effects, your theory of why that is could be complete bullshit, but you're still going to be prescribing that drug.
 
Science is great. The scientific method is great. Scientists are not so great, and the "scientific community" is shit.
Couldn’t agree more.
So if your new cancer drug gets 50% better results with fewer side effects, your theory of why that is could be complete bullshit, but you're still going to be prescribing that drug.
This is something that needs to be made more obvious to people. We do t know how half this stuff works. Probably more than half. SSRIs - no idea how they work, there’s a nice mechanism about serotonin and synapses but it seems to be based on an idea of what should happen rather than what happens. Anaesthesia? Not really sure how that works either. I would bet that the proportion of drugs that we know, absolutely, how they work is less than half. Prozac for example - it’s touted as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and the public line is ‘you have a serotonin imbalance’. But that again seems to be not entirely true. The drug also hits the receptors that fire when you have pleasant social interaction, and it also seems to alter how bdnf is working. BDNF is a very interesting molecule with multiple functions (including autism imo) and one is brain plasticity . My guess would be that it gradually reinforces the pathways, rewires the brain, as it were that being out with pleasant company does. But all SSRIs have unpleasant side effects that we don’t really have mechanisms for either.
And on one level yeah, if it works and it’s safe, it’s getting used. No one cares about mechanisms when we found clove oil helps toothache or willow bark or poppies helps pain. But I think people put far far too much trust in medical science and science in general.
Certainly the last couple of years has removed any last bit of trust or confidence I had in ‘the community.’
 
Couldn’t agree more.

This is something that needs to be made more obvious to people. We do t know how half this stuff works. Probably more than half. SSRIs - no idea how they work, there’s a nice mechanism about serotonin and synapses but it seems to be based on an idea of what should happen rather than what happens. Anaesthesia? Not really sure how that works either. I would bet that the proportion of drugs that we know, absolutely, how they work is less than half. Prozac for example - it’s touted as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and the public line is ‘you have a serotonin imbalance’. But that again seems to be not entirely true. The drug also hits the receptors that fire when you have pleasant social interaction, and it also seems to alter how bdnf is working. BDNF is a very interesting molecule with multiple functions (including autism imo) and one is brain plasticity . My guess would be that it gradually reinforces the pathways, rewires the brain, as it were that being out with pleasant company does. But all SSRIs have unpleasant side effects that we don’t really have mechanisms for either.
And on one level yeah, if it works and it’s safe, it’s getting used. No one cares about mechanisms when we found clove oil helps toothache or willow bark or poppies helps pain. But I think people put far far too much trust in medical science and science in general.
Certainly the last couple of years has removed any last bit of trust or confidence I had in ‘the community.’
You make it sound like the medication discovery process is pretty much like how natural remedies were found, only with more words and money involved.
 
You make it sound like the medication discovery process is pretty much like how natural remedies were found, only with more words and money involved.
The FDA approval process is long and arduous, and does generally require showing a lack of adverse outcomes outweighing the potential benefit of the drug. Sometimes drug companies blatantly cheat on this shit with bad results for patients, e.g. Vioxx, off-label use of SSRIs, SSRIs in general.

I'm not going to go all scilon about SSRIs, because they do have their uses, but for some people they're really bad, yet psychs prescribe them as some kind of one-size-fits-all solution. PROTIP: if the shrink has corporate schwag all over their office from the very company that makes whatever they're prescribing you, take this fact into consideration when deciding to take their medical advice.
 
People being hit with ever changing Covid info/disinfo and then immediately hit with "males can be women, the sex binary isn't real, you bigot IT'S HER PROSTATE" has caused people to lose trust in science? No fucking shit. As for everything else they listed Americans losing trust in, good. They all deserve to have trust lost in them.
 
Back