Why Americans Don't Trust Science Anymore

Those of us hoping science will lead to technological and social progress have a bit to worry about - in a new Huffington Post/Yougov poll trust in science is way lower than John would have expected.

Do the results of this poll make sense? Let me know in the comments!

And don't forget guys, if you like this video please Like, Favorite, and Share it with your friends to show your support - It really helps us out! See you next time!

****************************************­*************
ON TWITTER: @jiadarola

Every week John Iadarola recaps some of the most interesting news stories covering politics, world events, entertainment, tech, and more!

****************************************­****************************************
TAGS: "trust in science" "trust in scientists" "science poll" "trust scientists" "science news" "huffpost yougov" "Why Americans Don't Trust Science Anymore" "yougov" "science journalism poll" "religion" "climate change" "climate denial" "scientist" "john iadarola" "the young turks" "tytu" "tytuniversity"

[vincentx]

They don't trust science, but they trust their Smart Phones.

[blacklite]

The problem here is the question. Personally, I don't "trust." I'm skeptical unless I know the full information. A good Scientist doesn't trust either by rule. Take everything with a grain of salt. If its published in a scientific journal, I will trust that the result are accurate, but the problem is vast majority of people don't get the raw data, they will get a summerized spin depending on the distributors agenda. I don't know if the people that took the poll think like me though.

[TAB]

I will trust science based facts before I will trust religious bible based teachings. Facts are facts, tested and proven. The bible is a book of stories rewritten many times over the centuries that cannot be relied on as fact. 

[alphacause]

So in essence, the people who claim to not have much trust in science only state that because of the corrupting influence of corporate money in science. Science, in it of itself, when not tainted with corporate funding, is far more trustworthy than most other methods of acquiring knowledge. With that said, just as WOLFPAC is working to get corporate money out of politics, maybe there should be a push to get corporate funding out of certain scientific endeavors. However, the alternative to corporate funding is increased public funding, but that requires increases in taxes. I doubt the public is willing to be subject to such an increase.

[tecnoblix]

You have become one of my favorite reporters. I love the topics you cover and we seem to think in similar ways. I'm comforted at having someone with "a microphone" out there expressing my viewpoints. It makes me feel less like a nerd standing against the wall.

[ocerg]

I think an awful lot of this has to do with how Americans consume science. They avoid it at all costs during school, to be sure, but as adults it is delivered to them by the media. Most popular science articles tossed around in the media are absurd, often containing unsubstantiated claims and conflict with each other (coffee causes cancer, coffee cures cancer, coffee is bad for you, coffee is good for you, coffee cures warts). In the end, most work-a-day Americans hear all of this on the periphery of their lives and shrug, thinking it's mostly sensational bullshit.

Oh, and then there's the huge percentage of people who still cling to superstitions and are told by their churches and politicians to distrust science. But that's another story.

[spicymickfool]

I received degrees in math and physics before I knew how basic statistics is used to determine how effective medical interventions are. The relevant mathematics is high school level, Hypothesis Testing, yet even with some graduate studies under my belt, I was unfamiliar. Statistics is arguably more important than calculus, yet even the best math students might not encounter statistics before graduation. Part of the issue Innumeracy which doesn't seem to get enough attention.

[petitio_principii]

It's not just lack of trust in "science", but the fact that it will most of the time go through science journalism and bad journalism, some of which can present bogus stuff as "science", and/or undermine real science.

[lazybum]

My biggest area of doubt is in all the health studies I hear about and Part of what makes it hard for me to trust some studies etc is hearing a week later that another study or experiment had conflicting results. 

[choedzin]

As I understand it, a sufficient number of duplicated, peer-reviewed studies presents the best explanation to date of observed phenomena - until other observations or better explanations come along. Science does not deal in certainties, that's the province of ideological or religious belief, but in probabilities, which are always open to change.

[akava]

John your background almost made me pass out bro, it is fucken crazy bro, it is very hypnotizing

[TheJaslaf]

When I took this poll for YouGov, the first thing that came into my mind was the numerous studies that I have seen reported on TYT, BBC, and The Guardian.  In just about every case, I have found that their conclusions were already achieved prior to the end of the experiments.  Such sloppy academia has made me distrust it.  My views remain with liberals except with what John stated that I know this world will get better.  That is propaganda from the Age of Enlightment.  That every new day is going to better.  The truth is...we are still the same assholes that we have always been.  Yes, we can perfect the way that we act in small ways, but as a whole we are the same.

[RBdreams]

Good analysis. Not only look at who funded the research, but how it was done. And was it duplicated and tested by other research scientists?

[AliagaAyin]

thats actually some good numbers, most of the people who said they trust a little have the right aproach to science, you shall never believe something right away, doubt first, doesnt mean they dont accept science, it means they demand hard evidence.

[SickaMorStyle]

gotta love conformity.... change your thoughts or behaviors just to fit in and go with the people around you. Social influences can even make people agree or act like the majorities opinion in a group or even act a way in just to be perceived as "normal" by a group.

And I think of this quote:

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

― Mark Twain

[youngn]

I'm not worried because it's only Murica.  My wife is Dutch, and has duel citizenship.  If things were to get bad too bad here, there's a possibility I could go to the Netherlands.

[marksmith]

That's why the lack of duplication is big concern- something like 22 of 34 landmark bioscience studies were non-duplicatible. The money- a lot come from government giving a big bias. Also massive ego and the whole corrupt system of pal/peer review.  You don't have to trust scientists. Improve the practice of science and trust of an individual isn't needed. 

[lyndollxoxox]

I agree with a lot of these comments. I don't have 'faith' in science. Science just 'is'. Waiting to be explored and pondered. Would be helpful if we had actual scientists in the government. Hell, even in the current government (in Australia) we don't have a science minister. I would say I don't wan't to live on this planet anymore, but without science, another option isn't even viable. 

[chadedwards]

I would like to learn where they did the macro poling. I think that in itself could be causation. Maybe.

[islandletters]

One issue not mentioned here is news reporting on science. The current model is simply wrong. Science is nuanced, studies don't proof anything (problem of falsification), correlation is not causation, boring results can be more important than sensational ones, etc. No idea how to do it better though besides the obvious: mandatory courses on science literacy and critical thinking for anyone reporting on this kind of stuff.