The headline goes something like this: "Wide gap between scientists and public on scientific issues."
Here's why this should be no surprise, and why the focus is on scientists rather than other kinds of experts.
Anyone who develops expertise in an area distances themselves from the average person's level of understanding in that area. Whether a carpenter or chemist, physicist or physical therapist, farmer or pharmacist, the expert develops a depth of knowledge on their topic that Joe Public will never attain. When detailed discussions ensue, Joe Public is quickly out of his depth; he cannot sustain an intelligent conversation at the expert's depth.
And so the headline should be no surprise, because there is a wide gap between public understanding and experts' understanding on almost any topic.
The problem is, no one doubts a carpenter or a farmer. Pharmacists are trusted implicitly, as are most personal physicians.
But something happens when an astrophysicist explains how old the Earth and the universe are, or a paleontologist explains how life forms have changed over time. These topics are suddenly not so close to Joe Public. They're not something the average person can relate to. The deep, technical details that the expert deals with daily are foreign to Joe Public, and so a distrust or skepticism develops. He doubts the experts. He doesn't doubt the scientists who make flight possible, and new medicines, and the internet, and electricity -- he is happy to use those without a second thought. But for some reason he doubts the experts on other scientific topics.
I think scientists are the target of public skepticism because many science topics are unfamiliar, hard to relate to, and abstract to the average person. The issues may have implications for public policy, and may contradict the world model Joe Public has set up for himself. But if we were to formulate a survey like the ones that create the headline, but instead survey people's understanding and trust of farmers or computer engineers or architects or accountants at deep enough technical levels, I think we may find the same kinds of gaps in understanding and trust.
This is an excellent point, but to be fair to a lot of the public, a lot of the problem also comes from the abuse by some scientists of their position and knowledge. They misuse scientific ideas to support political ideologies that they personally support or to enrich themselves financially or popularly (i.e. Michael Mann and climate change) or to attack people's cherished religious beliefs (paging Richard Dawkins...).
ReplyDeleteSo, "science" is also somewhat culpable because of the few that fail to present science simply as observed facts, which can be explained and understood, but who, instead, belittle those that know less than them. Sadly, those are also the most outspoken and media-savvy. They give all science a bad name.
Just my two cents.
I agree that misuse of science and religion are problems, but that's not the point of the post. The point is, there is a knowledge gap between the general public and ANY expert, and that is the primary source of mistrust and misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
Delete