Pew Says Trust In Scientists Up. How Depressing

Pew Says Trust In Scientists Up. How Depressing

Pew says “Americans’ confidence that scientists act in the public interest is up since 2016”.

This surprises, because we have been tracking how science is becoming woker and woker, the rate increasing noticeably of late. Some areas are almost thoroughly pozzed.

For instance? This Guardian story: “Testosterone boosts women’s athletic performance, study shows.

Gist is that many man are either pretending to be women, or are delusional enough to believe they are women (while knowing they are not), but who want to compete in sports “as” women.

This is insane, as we all know. Scientists should know this, too. But they’re either too scared to say it or their minds are so corrupted by ideology they join in the delusion. The scared ones know that men shouldn’t be competing against women, but they also know saying this is professional suicide, so they seek other ways to state the obvious.

Hence measuring testosterone. Measurements are scientific. People with testosterone above a certain level are scientifically barred from competing against women. But since some women have high-T, the cut is imperfect.

The easiest measure, looking at a person’s sex, is ignored. Science therefore ignores its best evidence because of ideology. Thus, Science is pozzed.

This is why the high rate of trust, and its increase, in scientists is confusing.

The answer might lie in the sample Pew gathered. The same people reported a ten-point increase in the trust in the news media since 2016! The overall number hovers below 50%, but that there should be any increase in a country that is fracturing is bizarre.

Perhaps splitting is causing the increasing trust. The ideologues tune in only to CNN and MSNBC, whereas the smaller number of Realists eschew traditional sources, embracing newer outlets. Both sides increasingly hear what they want to hear, hence trust increases.

Same thing with science? Partly. Some folks come to this site, for instance, to hear the Reality-based view of science, whereas the ideologues head over to the Guardian to learn what budding scientist Greta Thunberg just said.

Doesn’t seem like the effect would be enough, though. But Pew admits “Americans are divided along party lines in terms of how they view the value and objectivity of scientists and their ability to act in the public interest.”

Also “More Democrats (43%) than Republicans (27%) have ‘a great deal” of confidence in scientists”. The D-R divide is crude, as we all know. However, substantially more progressives are Ds than Rs, while universities, the home of most scientists, are almost entirely progressive.

That’s why “Most Democrats (73%) believe scientists should take an active role in scientific policy debates. By contrast, a majority of Republicans (56%) say scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of such policy debates.”

Scientists have no special gift for understanding the importance of science to mankind. The how and the why are not the same. Scientists can say how things work, but why they do and what the why means we must leave to others.

People know of this divide, at least in areas not as much under the political microscope.

Americans tend to trust science practitioners, who directly provide treatments and recommendations to the public, more than researchers working in the same areas. For example, 47% say dietitians provide fair and accurate information about their recommendations all or most of the time, compared with 24% for nutrition scientists discussing their research.

Whether the advice of dietitians is sound, people understand that it should work in practice. Where we all have seen enough “research shows” headlines to grasp that researchers’ theories are often full of it.

Two more things: (1) “Among Democrats, an overwhelming majority of those with high science knowledge (86%) think the scientific method generally produces accurate conclusions”, and (2) “64% of Republicans with high science knowledge say scientists are just as likely to be biased as other people”. Interesting, Pew didn’t report the opposites (we don’t know what D’s think about bias). Anyway, these results fit with what was said above.

Now it is true that more Ds than Rs scored higher on Pew’s mini science quiz, a result in line with others that people use to claim progs are smarter than Realists.

There is some truth in that contention. But since some very smart people believe, or say they believe, obviously false things, like men are women, it proves its takes great intelligence to be really stupid.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. Sheri

    Good news—many people think polls are stupid and lie to the pollsters to make them look like fools. The number is growing and lying to the Pew pollster is not discouraged. Helping propaganda is, after all, immoral. Making the propagandists look stupid and incompetent—that is 100% moral and proper. Shining the light on the truth is what it’s called. It’s also a recognition that the pollsters will simply fabricate numbers if they don’t get the answers they want. I want a second, third and fourth poll taken by independent pollsters, using the same pool of people polled. First, use the same questions, then reword the questions. You know, SCIENCE, or as much as one can get with a stupid poll.

    (Teens are the champions at lying to surveys and pollsters. They have an innate distrust of people who are in charge. Sadly, they grow out of it.)

  2. Frederich

    ” it proves its takes great intelligence to be really stupid”….Perfect

  3. There are some honest scientists, unafraid to take on the PC-Prog consensus with open-minded exploration, research, and analysis and truth.

    A great example is the Science Uprising. They’re taking on the Materialist anti-human public relations machine.

    Here’s a great example of their on-going campaign:

    “James Tour On The Riddle Of Life’s Beginnings (Science Uprising EP5)”

    “Can life spontaneously generate itself from chemicals? Or are detailed instructions required? This episode of Science Uprising investigates the origin of life and claims by scientific materialists like Stephen Hawking that life spontaneously arose from chemicals without any guidance or intelligent design. Be sure to visit to find more videos and explore related articles and books.”

  4. Gail Finke

    Is this the same study that shows religious observance way down? If these were the same people, that seems possible.

  5. Nate

    Modern ‘science’ lovers have forgotten Michael Crichton’s excellent warnings in Jurassic Park. In fact, I’d go as far to say that he’s pretty much been unpersoned in the Progressive view of Science.

    “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

  6. aidan maconachy

    “This is insane, as we all know. Scientists should know this, too. But they’re either too scared to say it or their minds are so corrupted by ideology they join in the delusion. ”

    When science intersects with progressive ideology it too frequently ceases to be “science” and comes off as pseudo-science or simply a trend-enabling authority of sorts. Given the primacy of group-think these days I can’t really imagine too many lib-leaning scientists daring to digress… so “too scared” is the most likely. Although I’m sure there are those willing to compromise credibility for the rewards on offer.

  7. swordfishtrombone

    @ Kent Clisbe,

    “There are some honest scientists, …”

    Curious that we manage to have a million people in airliners at any one moment, how we’re able to send space probes to comets, lower the Curiosity rover to the surface of Mars from a robotic flying crane, develop vaccines, map the human genome, detect neutrinos, and understand the history of the universe back to a fraction of a millisecond after the start of the big bang, yet only some scientists are honest?

  8. Swordfish,

    First, your response has nothing to do with my comment. None of the achievements you note were discussed, or mentioned, in either my comment, or the post.

    Second, your list of achievements are mostly feats of ENGINEERING expertise: flying crane on Mars, vaccine, genome, space probes.

    Engineering has yet to be destroyed by PC-Progs. But just wait…

    If you focus on my subject of my comment, or Briggs’ post, you’ll understand the politicization of science, and the subsequent elevation of Scientism to a religion by PC-Progs.

    Real, actual science is villified. PC Science is worshiped.

    Here’s a great example of science politicization, PC-Prog gone wild:

  9. Nate


    The good news, sort of, with engineering is that nature does not bow to untruth, and so we’ll just be thrown back to the dark ages…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *