It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists, General Public Have Divergent Views On Science, Report Says

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Scientists, General Public Have Divergent Views On Science, Report Says

U.S. adults see various science-related topics much differently than do America's top scientists, with the two groups expressing widely divergent views on the safety of genetically modified foods, climate change, human evolution, the use of animals in research and vaccines, according to a new report published by Pew Research Center.

Here's a link to the actual report.

Some interesting numbers related to perception of evolution in this report. I thought one of the more interesting ones was the response to "Humans have evolved over time"; I'm completely unsurprised that 98% of scientists agree with that statement. However, I was happy to see that as many as 65% of US adults agree with that statement! I honestly expected it to be lower, down in the 50% range. Also of interest was the public's perception of the scientific consensus on evolution:


When it comes to ... evolution, a majority of adults see scientists as generally in agreement ... that humans have evolved over time (66%), though a sizeable minority see scientists as divided... Perceptions of where the scientific community stands on ... evolution tend to be associated with individual views on the issue.

So, in short, if you accept evolution, you're more likely to believe there's a scientific consensus on that evolution occurs. If you don't accept evolution, you think there's a controversy within the scientific community. One that doesn't actually exist, since 98% of scientists accept evolution.




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Science should be proved on its own merits, this "consensus" doesn't mean anything in determining if global warming is happening, evolution or whether the earth was flat and had a revolving sun around it many years ago.

All the matters in science is science.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Blame the religious right for the split. It is their propaganda distributed through right wing news outlets, like Fox News that causes this.

Worldwide Rankings for education
edit on 30-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Is "divergent views" just a nice way of saying the general populace are in fact really #ing dumb?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Blame the religious right for the split. It is their propaganda distributed through right wing news outlets, like Fox News that causes this.

Worldwide Rankings for education



So every Democrat is an atheist? I was not aware of this.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

That isn't what I am saying at all. For one, I didn't mention Republican or Democrat and for two I was attacking the media's propaganda, not the people watching it. The left wing media doesn't push anti-science like the right wing media does. It is up to the watcher to believe what they are watching. But, unfortunately, people generally watch the news that tells them what they want to hear. That doesn't mean that everyone does that though.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
how about blame scientists for being bigheaded and refusing to believe they could be wrong.

einsteins speed of light a constant: wrong link link2
gravity a constant:wrong link

scientists have seen macro mutations of a species but have never observed a pig giving birth to a horse or a fish crawling out the sea and turning into a dog ,also science states that the hairs standing up on the back off your neck is left over from stoneage times and we no longer need it ,,,

that is pure conjecture a lie a guess unless you have a fully alive stoneage man today how could you prove this??????????????



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

When science is proven wrong, science updates its positions. Sheldrake is a pseudo science quack by the way. It isn't surprising that you had to link to HIS evidence on youtube and not say an actual scientific paper.

As for the speed of light thing, science has already accepted that light isn't constant.
Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?
So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with those links.


scientists have seen macro mutations of a species but have never observed a pig giving birth to a horse or a fish crawling out the sea and turning into a dog ,also science states that the hairs standing up on the back off your neck is left over from stoneage times and we no longer need it ,,,


That's because evolution doesn't work like that... Yes, goosebumps are a holdover mutation from when humans had more hair.

ETA: You are clearly one of the people that article is talking about when discussing "divergent views". You should go restudy science THEN talk about what is and isn't real science.
edit on 30-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
how about blame scientists for being bigheaded and refusing to believe they could be wrong.

einsteins speed of light a constant: wrong link link2
gravity a constant:wrong link

scientists have seen macro mutations of a species but have never observed a pig giving birth to a horse or a fish crawling out the sea and turning into a dog ,also science states that the hairs standing up on the back off your neck is left over from stoneage times and we no longer need it ,,,

that is pure conjecture a lie a guess unless you have a fully alive stoneage man today how could you prove this??????????????



That is not how evolution works... To think along those lines as proof is what it meant by "Divergent Views".



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but gravity does fluctuate and the speed of light can be manipulated this is fact yet you try and deflame it ,and those links prove you get it oh so wrong and even when the untrained masses point out your flaws it takes you years to correct your mistakes and admit it .

infact doesnt link 2 prove sheldrake in this particular instance is speaking the truth and you cannot face up to your own deception to the general populace



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Absolutely agree! I wasn't trying to suggest that science is decided by consensus in any way, just found the Pew study interesting from the perspective of what the perception is regarding these issues, particularly evolution, in the public eye here in the US.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but gravity does fluctuate and the speed of light can be manipulated this is fact yet you try and deflame it ,and those links prove you get it oh so wrong and even when the untrained masses point out your flaws it takes you years to correct your mistakes and admit it .


I know that light can fluctuate. I admitted to it in the post and even said that science has admitted to it and accepted it. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? As for the gravity thing, no it can't. Gravity fluctuates around an object depending on its mass (ex: earth has more gravity than a person), but ALL gravity in the universe is affected by the same gravitational constant.

Does the Gravitational constant fluctuate?


Since Cavendish first measured Newton's Gravitational constant 200 years ago, "Big G" remains one of the most elusive constants in physics. The value of big G tells us how much gravitational force acts between two masses separated by a known distance. In Einstein's language of general relativity, it tells us the amount of space-time curvature due to a given mass. Together with Planck's constant and the speed of light it is considered to be one of the most fundamental constants in nature. Big G is a necessary ingredient in determining the mass of the earth, the moon, the sun and the other planets.

Several measurements in the past decade did not succeed in improving our knowledge of big G's value. To the contrary, the variation between different measurements forced the CODATA committee, which determines the internationally accepted standard values, to increase the uncertainty from 0.013% for the value quoted in 1987 to the twelve times larger uncertainty of 0.15% for the 1998 "official" value. This situation is an embarrassment to modern physics, considering that the intrinsic strength of electromagnetism, for instance, is known 2.5 million times more precisely and is steadily being improved. (The situation of G becomes more understandable if one considers the weakness of gravity: the total gravitational force twisting on the pendulum of a typical Cavendish torsion balance is only equivalent to the weight of a bacteria and that small force must be measured very precisely.)



The question of how/why do we know that G (and other constants) are indeed constant was udressed in Physics.SE: What is the proof that the universal constants (G, ℏ, …) are really constant in time and space? are really constant in time and space?

Regarding the claim that the data isn't made public. I couldn't find any evidence that labs are constantly remeasuring and updating G and I couldn't find that this data is hidden. The data is made public through journal articles. Also, the value is not updated constantly as the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a figure that was last updated at 2010.


Like I said, Sheldrake is a pseudo-science loon. You are wrong. Divergent views indeed lol.


infact doesnt link 2 prove sheldrake in this particular instance is speaking the truth and you cannot face up to your own deception to the general populace


No, link 2 doesn't prove squat that Sheldrake said.

TEDx, Pseudoscience and the Rupert Sheldrake controversy
edit on 30-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
When you think about it the human brain and the body disapproves evolution. Something that complex was obviously consciously created to perform the specific tasks that the human brain and body carrys out, things just don't evolve into that. That's like saying a house evolved from a tree, a house was consciously created for a specific purpose.
edit on 30-1-2015 by WatchingY0u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: WatchingY0u

No, none of that is true at all. For one, we know that house had an intelligent designer, because WE are the intelligent designer. We actually can trace the human brain's evolution back quite nicely. Though, YOUR problem is that you are looking at the finished product (well it isn't really finished since nothing stops evolving) and working your way back to the start. But the thing is, if you start at the beginning and work your way to the present; you will see that there are MANY different branches and trials that didn't pan out.

Your entire argument is the watchmaker fallacy and isn't a valid refutation of evolution.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
When you think about it the human brain and the body disapproves evolution. Something that complex was obviously consciously created to perform the specific tasks that the human brain and body carrys out, things just don't evolve into that. That's like saying a house evolved from a tree, a house was consciously created for a specific purpose.


But when you think about it you really don't know what you're talking about and you're just running at the mouth.

However it's a great example of the problem described in the OP....



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien


how about blame scientists for being bigheaded and refusing to believe they could be wrong.

Yes, and it's invariably other scientists that make the corrections, no?


scientists have seen macro mutations of a species but have never observed a pig giving birth to a horse or a fish crawling out the sea and turning into a dog

None of those things would be evidence of evolution. Are you sure you understand what the theory of evolution actually states?


,also science states that the hairs standing up on the back off your neck is left over from stoneage times and we no longer need it ,,, that is pure conjecture a lie a guess unless you have a fully alive stoneage man today how could you prove this??????????????

There's quite a bit of fascinating research out there on the mechano-sensory functions of our skin. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with it and the evidence supporting it instead of just being a naysayer?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
People who believe in evolution are the type of people who don't want to honor God for his wisdom, his power and his Supreme intelligent. So you go make up a bunch of words and call it facts. The ancients already knew the earth was round and the universe had planets and revolved around the sun, and these are the same people who still trying to figure out how they knew, but yet scientists thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. It's seems every time they find something out that is new to THEM, they modify their so-called knowledge. But evolution is such a big lie, they are in to deep to modify it, because the only modification would to be giving God his glory and that's something nature didn't put in you. God is the most intelligent and most powerful man ever to exist and the truth hurts you who oppose it.
edit on 30-1-2015 by WatchingY0u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

You obviously don't understand science. The speed of light is measured in a VACUUM. When Einstein derived c = mc2 - it was in a VACUUM.

This is the same type of crap Creationists use to say that the second law of thermodynamcis disproves evolution - the second law equations are derived in an ADIABATIC (CLOSED) SYSTEM.

Sheldrake is an idiot.

And you should go back to school and learn some real science.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
i think evolution is like the new bible they ram it down your throat like its a fact just like the christians,muslims or any fanatical tyrant and their beliefs.
and no i dont believe that scientists changed their views on the constants exactly ,only through years of internet posting by myself and other open minded individuals around the world to force you all to look again at what was obvious.
do you not believe a morphic field exists ?????????????????///
edit on 30-1-2015 by stuthealien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. That you don't' understand science and how it works is your fault. Internet chat rooms is not where you learn science. You learn science in the classroom, by experimentation and hard study. You, obviously, have never done that.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join