/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1670578]

66% of scientists are liberal or very liberal, much higher than the general public. Only 6% identify themselves as Republican.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.1670583]

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1670587]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias

[Anonymous No.1670593]

97% of scientists say life has evolved over time and 84% of scientists say the Earth is heating due to anthropogenic causes. Both of these numbers are far higher than the public thinks.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.1670601]

>>1670583

Citation happily provided.

http://people-press.org/report/528/

[Anonymous No.1670607]

Only 33% of scientists believe in god, much lower than the general public. Scientists are more likely to be 'spiritual' than the public.

Scientists also identify themselves as 'atheist' or 'agnostic' at much higher numbers than the public.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.1670622]

Scientists identify global warming as a serious risk to humanity, much higher than the public.

Scientists also overwhelmingly support the idea the warming is anthropogenic (84%) as compared to natural (10%). Combined, 94% of scientists support that the Earth is warming, with most of those supporters citing anthropogenic sources.

[Anonymous No.1670634]

>>1670578

Wait, on the Ideology category, the percents add up to above 100%. Is the 14% of people considered "Very Liberal" relative the general population, like the other categories, or is it relative to the Liberal population (In other words, is it 14% of the people in America, or 14% of Liberals?).

[Anonymous No.1670643]

Most scientists (97%) say that humans and other life have evolved over time. Of the 97%, 87% say that this evolution had no guidance whatsoever. 10% of scientists support "theistic evolution".

These numbers are at much higher frequencies than the public. Much of whom support creationism (31%). Only 32% of the public supports pure Darwinian evolution.

[Anonymous No.1670652]

>>1670634

Apologies, that 14% is of those who describe themselves as liberals. With that error caught, 52% of scientists describe their ideologies as liberal or very liberal.

Thanks for the correction.

[Anonymous No.1670664]

(A separate study, link below)

Church attendance vs. belief in evolution seem to be heavily inversely correlated, with more belief in evolution as church is frequented less often.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx

[Anonymous No.1670673]

>>1670601
sir you are a gentlemen and a scholar

[Anonymous No.1670676]

Solving intellectual problems, not having a financially rewarding career, is the clear reason scientists enter their careers.

A separate study found engineers had more levels of monetary drive to enter their careers. The study also found very high levels (100%) of homosexuality.

[Anonymous No.1670695]

Compared to the public, scientists support nuclear energy, animal testing, and vaccinations at much higher levels.

[Anonymous No.1670689]

Compared to the public, scientists support nuclear energy, animal testing, and vaccinations at much higher levels than the public.

[Anonymous No.1670709]

(A separate study, link below)

As religiosity drops and education rises, belief in evolution rises sharply.

The trend is linked more closely to political ideology, as a non-fundamentalist liberal with a high school education is just as likely as a non-fundamentalist conservative with a graduate degree (MS/PhD/MD/JD/MBA/etc) to accept evolution.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/01/american_political_conservatis.php

[Anonymous No.1670715]

Scientists are more concerned with solving complex intellectual problems than helping the general public with their science.

This is especially true of physicists.

[Anonymous No.1670720]

The Federal government is the largest source of grant money/funding for scientists.

[Anonymous No.1670726]

A poll of scientific literacy in the general public. The results show that only 46% of the public can identify the electron being smaller than the atom while 91% can identify acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin) as a means of preventing a myocardial infarction.

[Anonymous No.1670733]

>>1670726
>>1670695

To note, 35% of the public reject stem cell research, while only 52% were able to correctly identify what a stem cell does.

[Anonymous No.1670745]

(A separate study, link below)

The US ranks only above Turkey with public acceptance of evolution.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/706

[Anonymous No.1670752]

>>1670733

Well, perhaps they are still aware of the source of stem cells (which is enough to make a moral judgement), just not what they actually do.

[Anonymous No.1670750]

Having an education pretty much precludes one from being a social conservative or identifying with anything that's come out of the Republican Party for the last 20 years or so.

[Anonymous No.1670757]

>Only 6% identify themselves as Republican.
Because probably only 6% can manage to make a living in the free market.

[Anonymous No.1670765]

>>1670745

A closer look at the data involving public acceptance of evolution.

In the US, ~15% say evolution is "definitely true" while ~20 say it is "probably true". This totals ~35% of the population supporting evolution. ~22% are ambivalent or do not know.

The interesting data show that only ~8% saw evolution is "probably false" while ~32% say it is "definitely false". This shows the successful campaign of religious fundamentalists in the US involving rejecting science.

[Anonymous No.1670767]

>>1670695
>>1670643
>>1670622
>>1670607
>>1670593
>>1670578

This is proof that scientists are out of touch with real American people and our elected officials need to pay much less attention to them than to religious leaders, who more strongly represent the nation's values.

[Anonymous No.1670770]

>>1670757

Wanton, immature or otherwise trolling comments do little to polish your intellect.

While your input is wanted, puerile input is discouraged.

[Anonymous No.1670774]

>>1670767

Please see

>>1670770

Thank you for showing some interest in this thread. It is asked of you to act as you are educated.

[Anonymous No.1670790]

(A separate study, link in the image)

Support for human-made climate change rises sharply with expertise in the area. The study also found that a correlation between support of climate change and number of publications accepted. (As support drops, so does publications).

[Anonymous No.1670805]

Party affiliation, political ideology, area of employment and scientific specialty.

Only in industry does the number of scientists identifying themselves as Republicans break double digits (10%).

Of all scientists, chemists are the most likely to be Republicans (9%) while geoscientists were the least likely (4%).

[Anonymous No.1670814]

I have to wonder if this "study" includes includes social scientists because if it does then it is biased against those capable of rational thought. Since this "study" was probably compiled by a sociologist who for some reason think their trade is science I have no doubt they included their own profession in the result erroneously. That throws the validity out because the study is fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous No.1670823]

>>1670774
forgive me for my forwardness, but I suggest you seriously reconsider your manner and grammatical style when speaking on an informal image board. One cannot help but think you are 12 and lack knowledge of the forum in which we are.

[Anonymous No.1670824]

Age and scientific knowledge.

While younger people tend to be more scientifically literate, the 18-29 age group scored lower than the next age cohort in every category except two.

This shows the rise in scientific literacy in the latest generation.

[Anonymous No.1670835]

>>1670814

This study only includes scientists from the following areas:

Biological/Medical
Chemistry
Physics
Geosciences

[Anonymous No.1670840]

>>1670823

Your comment, while encouraged, is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.1670841]

>>1670726
yeah go America woo

I love our education system

[Anonymous No.1670851]

>>1670824

This comment should read "the rise in scientific illiteracy..."

[Anonymous No.1670857]

>>1670840
Stop it or I'll use "you're" as "your" possessive for a month

[Anonymous No.1670870]

>>1670745
Dawkins is a twit! Punctuated equilibrium FTW!!!

[Anonymous No.1670876]

Archive this shit.

[Anonymous No.1670878]

The public sees a conflict between science and religion

[Anonymous No.1670877]

>>1670870
watch your language, you might offend
>>1670770

[Anonymous No.1670883]

>>1670877

His comment in tangential, but is not an attempt to foment trolling.

[Anonymous No.1670888]

>>1670877

His comment is tangential, but does little to foment trolling.

[Anonymous No.1670890]

>>1670883
your just being silly now, stop using big words or theirs going to be trouble .

[Anonymous No.1670893]

>>1670877
I wasn't trolling. Dawkin's is a twit and gradualism is a bunch of bullshit that is not supported by the fossil record. Strained species that have been culled to only a few breeding pairs during a catastrophic event have way more inbreeding, and thus way more mutations and chances for beneficial mutations.

[Anonymous No.1670898]

Republicans, while being more likely to reject evolution and climate change, view science in a more positive light than Democrats.

As income and education rise, the support for science does as well.

[Anonymous No.1670905]

>>1670888
do you even know what a tangent is without checking Wikipedia first? If you want a gentlemans thread go to /b/

[Anonymous No.1670906]

>>1670893

The fossil record, while not supporting gradualism, does not support P.E. as much as you think.

The problem is that the fossil record is desultory not because of genetics, but because of the conditions for fossilization.

I would discourage that argument; there are much more convincing ones.

[Anonymous No.1670919]

>>1670905

I do not need online assistance for basic mathematical concepts.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for responding to me, though.

[Anonymous No.1670924]

>>1670919
shut you're god damn mouth

[Anonymous No.1670940]

Scientists in large numbers disapprove of how the media reports and depicts science.

[Anonymous No.1670944]

>>1670898
Fucking black people.

>>1670940
Pic related

[Anonymous No.1670946]

76% of scientists think the public's inability to discern science from pseudoscience is a serious problem.

85% say public ignorance of science is a serious problem.

[Anonymous No.1670952]

>>1670946

Apologies. 76% fault the media for not disambiguating real science from pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.1670955]

>>1670906
The fuck it doesn't!!! The fossil record show major changes in life directly after mass extinctions and only after mass extinctions. Why did lizards learn to fly? Because that niche was left open after the great insect extinction of the Permian! Fuck biologists who think they know shit about rocks. Very few layers of strata can be attributed to mass extinction events, but that is where they are all found and the layers are not that terribly thick compared to others.

[Anonymous No.1670960]

The public is less likely to find it appropriate for scientists to have political input.

The public also views scientists' political views incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.1670978]

>>1670955

>Why did lizards learn to fly?

Your wording is less than optimal. Modern "lizards" (squamates) did not "learn" to fly.

"Dinosaurs", which are not in the same order, evolved the ability to fly over time.

P.E. has validity to it, mostly after mass extinctions due to niche filling. But gradualism, when competition is high, is a better explanation than P.E.

I am studying evolutionary biology at the graduate level and will discuss this with you further, if you would like to.

[Anonymous No.1670988]

Scientists find the government more efficient than the public, military intervention less optimal, and equal rights not pursued enough in social issues.

[Anonymous No.1670999]

Does anyone else find it alarming that nearly 60% of people think that lasers are focused sound?

[Anonymous No.1671003]

Counter to intuition, younger scientists are more likely to believe in god than their older colleagues.

[Anonymous No.1671002]

>>1670978
>studying evolutionary biology

which is why you will never understand either rocks, or the fossil record adequately.

[Anonymous No.1671006]

>>1671002

Ad-hominem fallacies reflect poorly on you.

[Anonymous No.1671007]

>>1670999
phew phew phew

[Anonymous No.1671018]

>>1671006
poor scientific understanding of PE reflects poorly on you

[Anonymous No.1671019]

>>1670999

I find it alarming; scientific illiteracy is rising and is even lauded.

To quote Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. "

I find the second one to be more poignant.

[Anonymous No.1671028]

>>1671018

I would beg to differ on my knowledge of P.E.

If you have nothing better to do than shit on things, I request that you would simply leave.

[Anonymous No.1671036]

Support of climate change in linked tightly to politics.

[Anonymous No.1671038]

>>1671019
listen to the man with the trips he knows

[Anonymous No.1671045]

Support of climate change is linked tightly to politics.

[Anonymous No.1671053]

(A separate study, link here >>1670664)

The top reasons people reject evolution in the US are:

"I believe in Jesus Christ"

"I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth"

"Due to my religion and faith"

Note that this was an open-ended question.

[Anonymous No.1671063]

>We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology.

How else are universities and researchers going to make their money?

[Anonymous No.1671078]

>>1671028
look if you can't get passionate about the subject you have devoted your adult life to researching then you don't belong in it.

[Anonymous No.1671079]

Parental status, sex, age, or political party have no influence on the opinion of "should children be vaccinated".

As education rose, a more libertarian mindset took place in the general public.

This contradicted what scientists promulgated, who also tended to be more liberal.

[Anonymous No.1671099]

>>1671078

I specialize in population genetics and evolutionary ecology. I am rather passionate about those subjects.

Asking me to be passionate about every minute detail in my field is absurd, and runs counter to what Charles Darwin thought:

“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.”

[Anonymous No.1671102]

>>1671099
Well a man with a heart of stone can get very passionate about rocks.

[Anonymous No.1671109]

>>1671102

Very clever. That was good.

[Anonymous No.1671126]

Well, that about wraps up the study. The remaining data are boring, mainly about jobs, the economy, etc.

The link for the study is reiterated below:

http://people-press.org/report/528/

[Anonymous No.1671120]

Well, that about wraps up the study. The remaining data are boring, mainly about jobs, the economy, etc.

The link for the study is reiterate below:

http://people-press.org/report/528/

[Anonymous No.1671162]

>>1670607
So, in other words, only 17% of scientists are atheists?

How's it taste, godless?

[Anonymous No.1671181]

>>1671162

Of the 48% that answered "no affiliation", 17% of those actively professed atheism.