This has not been my experience. Yes, there are scientists that oversell their findings, but that’s not unique to social scientists. And most of social scientists’ studies are based on actual data that they collected, like the hard sciences.
It is also not my experience that scientists are deliberately controversial. If anything, we are notorious for putting so many qualifiers on our findings that the general public has trouble interpreting our confidence in our findings. We tend to undersell and be conservative, and almost never use the word “prove”. There are almost always hypothetical data that could change our minds about something. It’s common that, if a study is getting national press, the scientists get really annoyed that the journalist overstates their conclusions. We are trained to put major caveats on everything.
The scientists who are willing to ignore the truth are the small minority, and their motivation is usually something like: being entrenched in a particular hypothesis, ego, wanting to look successful, or personal career and/or financial gain. Real controversy (other than niche scientific fueds), especially political, usually does the opposite of attracting funding.
Where someone lives is not always a choice. My H and I grew up
In small towns in the Midwest and by the late 70’s/ early ‘80’s there were very few employment opportunities for college graduates there unless you were a teacher or healthcare professional. What a lot of folks don’t realize is that with the outsourcing of the good union factory jobs at that time, the associated white collar jobs disappeared, too. The factories employed engineers ( both my dad and FIL), sales and marketing staff, Human Resources, finance and accounting professionals, etc.
Something similar happened when the chemical factories in WV were displaced to other countries in the 2000s - those factories provided a lot of jobs for locals, engineers, and other staff. And you are right, one of the downstream consequences of industry leaving small towns is that people moved to cities, where they could silo themselves based on whatever criteria they chose. In a small town, everybody knows the preacher, teacher, shop owner, electrician, handyman…and with only a few churches and restaurants and one high school, everybody rubbed elbows regularly so there wasn’t much concept of ‘not knowing how to talk to’ somebody who was in a different income or education category.
I agree that it’s a small minority who ignore the truth, but there’s often a rush to publish breakthrough results, which can’t then be replicated. I don’t think you can say that they do the opposite of attracting funding.
Just look at Marc Tessier-Lavigne at Stanford or the kerfuffle last year over the reported Chinese discovery of a room temperature superconductor.
But I do think that p-hacking has created even greater problems in social and behavioral science:
This conversation about the AP test scores being recalibrated is big news! I’m spinning it off into it’s own thread so we can get more eyes on this and continue the conversation!
Yep. In fact, I started a thread about this morally bankrupt lying thief because I loathe scientists who abuse their positions like he did. He gives a bad name to everyone else who is honest.
I also followed up with some info on a thread reporting his ouster.
Many scientists are quick to call out the bad actors amongst us and are grateful when people are caught in academic misconduct. My own close colleague/collaborator was a whistleblower to the FBI, DOD, and NIH for one of our high-falutin’ coworkers (and team) who was committing major misconduct and fraud. Ultimately HHS took over the investigation, but the person was able to make a relatively quiet exit to industry. We both ended up looking for new jobs largely because of the fallout, and accepted jobs at a different institution before the offender left. We simply couldn’t continue in that environment anymore.
I admit this is off-topic and I may be a little defensive about this because the scientists I know are overwhelmingly honest people who try to do the right thing. Their work is important to them because they are trying to do something helpful for humanity. And some of us take great risks in reporting bad actors amongst us.
I could have long discussions (not here) about the harm that has been caused by the pursuit of what we call “glam” science in high-impact journals. That’s a common thread amongst the bad actors. And it kind of circles back to academic elitism, but it’s elitism within academics.
@Twoin18 Is it the scientists who spin the big results or is it the media reporting on the findings and oversell? Where are you seeing that scientists frame their research in politically controversial ways? Is this in reputable, peer-reviewed science journals or elsewhere?
Of course, big breakthroughs are exciting for scientists, especially those that want recognition. Certain journals push that kind of work. Reputable scientists understand that work needs replication to be become accepted fact.
I think the majority of scientists are seeking the truth or understanding their research area. The fact that a few are pushing an agenda doesn’t mean that established scientific facts can be refuted without cause just because some don’t like the implications of those findings.
There are quite a few controversial issues where political views seem to dictate how research is framed and whether research that might come to a different conclusion is ignored or rejected. Those are the things that come to public notice, because politicians have to deal with their consequences when they impact laws and everyday life. They aren’t just academic debates in obscure journals.
And yes, the media oversimplify and get things wrong, but they also like to defer to scientists as the “experts” (regardless of whether those commentators are truly at the forefront of research in a particular specialty). I didn’t claim it’s a large number of scientists, the vast majority toil in obscurity and never end up in the press or on TV. Those who write popular books can cause the greatest problems (which is why it’s interesting to see high profile academics like Dan Ariely run into problems with papers having to be retracted).
Climate change and trans issues are two areas that are intensely politicized and the current US administration is taking a very different view of these issues from the previous one. It might just be seen as a political back and forth here. But in the UK, the doctors association has rejected the government-commissioned scientific review on treatment of minors with gender dysphoria (the Cass review).
Studies of intelligence are similarly controversial and politicized (eg The Bell Curve) and many questions there are considered unacceptable to explore. Larry Summers was ostracized for even suggesting that there might be innate differences between men and women.
Question: If it’s helpful for people to spend time with those less fortunate, is it equally important for people to spend time with those more fortunate? And how should that be accomplished? You know, outside of being exposed to the more fortunate folks while the more fortunate ones are getting the exposure that helps them intheir lives.
If something is controversial and/or politicized amongst the general public, that doesn’t mean it’s controversial within the scientific community.
For example, there is no debate amongst biologists about whether or not evolution is “real”. There is no debate about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines as a whole. Germ theory!? Those things aren’t controversial for us.
Sometimes things that are framed in the media as being a huge scientific debate / controversy are much less so in reality. Sure, there’s a teeny tiny minority of earth scientists that don’t “believe” in climate change. Those lone voices are given wildly disproportionate attention in the news.
The medical community is still figuring out best practices for caring for trans people. But the current standard of care is not nearly as controversial amongst doctors and researchers as it’s made out to be in the media.
I’d argue that it’s mostly non-scientists who “politicize” science, sometimes to the point that the debates are not even close to reflective of the true scientific consensus or debate (e.g., teaching creation in schools).
You are being generous! There are colleges (at least one I personally know of, it’s religious), that don’t teach evolution as a scientific ‘fact.’ Instead they leave it up to the students to decide for themselves whether evolution or creationism is ‘fact.’
Of course, but where this started was “why the disdain for academic elites (and lack of belief in science) amongst regular people”? Those regular people aren’t reading scientific journals, they are hearing about it from the media…
I’d say it’s important for those less fortunate to spend time with those who are more fortunate, but I don’t know if it’s equally important.
Being around those who are more fortunate allows people to see options of what is available in the world and to realize that they are (or can be) realistic options for their own futures and not just something that’s only true in the media or for a lucky few. It also shows them some of the unspoken “rules” that exist among the upper-middle and upper classes that are rarely made explicit for people of other backgrounds (and how those “rules” can impact things like who gets hired or promoted or recommended for special opportunities, etc.). It can also show them inequalities that they may not have realized they were experiencing and that they should be demanding/expecting better (whether that’s customer service, school facilities, etc.).
The reason I don’t think it’s equally important for the less fortunate to be with those more fortunate is because those more fortunate are more likely to have power and influence to more easily make systemic changes based on what they see and greater ability to make personal changes (i.e. they can choose to participate in low/no cost activities whereas those less fortunate may not be able to participate in high cost activities).
YIMBY-ism: Yes in My Backyard as a contrast to NIMBY-ism (Not in My Backyard). Developers want to build an apartment complex down the block from $$$ homes? Yes. The city wants to allow accessory dwelling units to be built on existing properties that can be rented out to real residents (i.e. not AirBNB)? Yes. The school system wants to put special programs at schools that aren’t in the wealthiest neighborhoods and makes them available to all the students at the school and not just a select group that is bused in and segregated from the rest of the school? Yes.
It’s also a matter of being intentional, and due to the difference in resources, it’s intentionality on the part of the more fortunate. Participate in rec leagues where there is little to no cost or where scholarships are regularly available for whoever needs them (and where the scholarships are publicized, not a hush-hush affair) rather than in $$$ sports leagues. Attend public schools and lobby for school boundary lines that represent an economically diverse area. Speaking of, school-specific fundraising should either be eliminated (or rather, goes to a district-wide pot), or schools that are in high-$$$ locations should have a matching amount that goes to a school in a low-$ location. Seek out churches/synagogues/mosques/community organizations that are socioeconomically diverse. And the ideal is that everywhere a person goes is a socioeconomic mix, but if that’s not possible, the onus is on the more fortunate family to travel to the less fortunate family/area because they have the resources (time, money, transportation) to more easily do so.
But, with all of this mixing, be prepared for major problems. In our sports leagues, differences were primarily about money. Sports families are usually oriented towards discipline, focus, hard work, etc, so the prevailing culture was ‘sports culture’. As long as coaches had the awareness to choose cheaper uniforms, make team meals at less expensive places, etc, it was fine.
The demographic area around our church changed over the past 10 years, and also our recovery ministry grew from tens to 200+. As those families entered our church, the culture gap was huge. We have lost most of our youth group and many families as a result, but are finally turning a corner after serious hard work with managing behavior. We went from ‘normal’ teen behavior to kids who keep up a steady stream of under-the-breath profanity, teens who can’t keep their hands to themselves, kids and teens who lay on the floor and refuse to participate, etc. We’ve done training on the behavioral effects of trauma and we’ve had to restructure activities, spaces, and curriculum. Paid staff are trained in filling out CPS reports. Our kids are used to interacting with different types of people, but our high schoolers don’t talk about college dreams because it’s totally unrelatable to a sizable chunk of the class. It’s quite a culture shock to everybody when one kid’s ‘bad thing of the week’ is a bad test grade and another’s is a family member OD’ing. I think that ultimately this work will be good for the community, but there is a real cost sometimes. At a recent planning meeting, we were told that leadership met with area schools about how they integrate these different groups and their answer was ‘We don’t know how and were hoping that you could figure it out’. The realization was that our efforts to help traumatized kids by integrating them without a lot of prep for the group leaders likely led to trauma for others in the group.