Trust me, I'm a scientist (and not an advertising exec or journalist)

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,075

It's true after all, scientists are the most trusted group, and advertising executives are down there with Government ministers and politicians. Average members of the public don't do too badly either, well above journalists. Pity Youtubers weren't ranked. So when it comes to considering the merits of cameras and lenses, you know whom to trust more!

ScientistsMostTrusted.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,991
1,343
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Amusing. The article perfectly, if unintentionally, illustrates one reason for low trust in journalists. It's completely wrong.

It is, of course, impossible for a public opinion survey to determine who is "trustworthy." That can only be determined by an objective review of behaviors. The survey actually measures whom the public trusts. Which is possible through a public opinion survey. The fact that the writers don't understand the difference between the two might help explain why journalists do so poorly.

Scientists may be the most trusted group of professionals, but as to whether or not they are truly worthy of that trust would need to be determined by a careful examination of their work product. One reason scientists may be well-trusted is that their assertions are often hard to verify and in some cases the accuracy of what they claim may not be known until generations later.
 

haggie

EOS 80D
May 11, 2016
150
47
For several decades, many and many scientists from several areas of expertise have been telling us that smoking was no problem for your health. And at those points in time they all had the research and names to back their claims.

The big law suits all over the world, but in particular the US, have shown ample evidence that many, many scientists were quite willing to bend and distort the truth. They did so in the same way over and over again: publish the manipulated results of 'research' and spread that, together with their own good name to get these false claims accepted by unsuspecting people.
The incentive forthese scientists was also always the same: the Tobacco industry donated richly for their research, either to them in person or to their universities.

In fact these scientists were quite willing to sell their soul to the highest bidder.

I see no proof, or even reason, why that would have changed for the better in recent years.

Just saying ............. :)
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,075
For several decades, many and many scientists from several areas of expertise have been telling us that smoking was no problem for your health. And at those points in time they all had the research and names to back their claims.

The big law suits all over the world, but in particular the US, have shown ample evidence that many, many scientists were quite willing to bend and distort the truth. They did so in the same way over and over again: publish the manipulated results of 'research' and spread that, together with their own good name to get these false claims accepted by unsuspecting people.
The incentive forthese scientists was also always the same: the Tobacco industry donated richly for their research, either to them in person or to their universities.

In fact these scientists were quite willing to sell their soul to the highest bidder.

I see no proof, or even reason, why that would have changed for the better in recent years.

Just saying ............. :)
11% don't think scientists are trustworthy, and this is flushing you out! Are you one of the sceptics about climate change as well?
UK scientists led the way for showing the harm smoking does to your health. Just google Doll and Peto you will find their fundamental work and how they won the battle. Without them, we'd still be suffering like in the 1950s.
So, what's your evidence for many, many scientists saying that smoking was no problem for your health?
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,075
Amusing. The article perfectly, if unintentionally, illustrates one reason for low trust in journalists. It's completely wrong.

It is, of course, impossible for a public opinion survey to determine who is "trustworthy." That can only be determined by an objective review of behaviors. The survey actually measures whom the public trusts. Which is possible through a public opinion survey. The fact that the writers don't understand the difference between the two might help explain why journalists do so poorly.

Scientists may be the most trusted group of professionals, but as to whether or not they are truly worthy of that trust would need to be determined by a careful examination of their work product. One reason scientists may be well-trusted is that their assertions are often hard to verify and in some cases the accuracy of what they claim may not be known until generations later.
It's not really an article, it's simply the results of an opinion poll, based on a score outlined on the left. It would only be wrong if they added up the scores incorrectly. Whether those opinions are based on rational evidence is another matter. Those scores are what those people believe, rightly or wrongly.
 

haggie

EOS 80D
May 11, 2016
150
47
11% don't think scientists are trustworthy, and this is flushing you out! Are you one of the sceptics about climate change as well?
UK scientists led the way for showing the harm smoking does to your health. Just google Doll and Peto you will find their fundamental work and how they won the battle. Without them, we'd still be suffering like in the 1950s.
So, what's your evidence for many, many scientists saying that smoking was no problem for your health?
What an emotion in that reply, AlanF.
And apparently triggered by what you THINK I might men instead of what I actually wrote and therefore what I mean.

I did not write that all scientists sold out to the Tobacco industry.
Yet you seem to feel you must put the label of climate sceptic on me. Very mature!

I did not write anything about UK scientists. Yet you apparently know that I meant them. Very scientific of you!

But if you are really intersted in the influence manipulated research had on getting more peopleto smoke, just google the law suits in the US, the e-mails that emerged there and then your question So, what's your evidence for many, many scientists saying that smoking was no problem for your health?"" is answered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso and ohm

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,347
741
But if you are really intersted in the influence manipulated research had on getting more peopleto smoke, just google the law suits in the US, the e-mails that emerged there and then your question So, what's your evidence for many, many scientists saying that smoking was no problem for your health?"" is answered.
Can you show at least one such email written by a scientist and not trustworthy to its recipient?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,075
What an emotion in that reply, AlanF.
And apparently triggered by what you THINK I might men instead of what I actually wrote and therefore what I mean.

I did not write that all scientists sold out to the Tobacco industry.
Yet you seem to feel you must put the label of climate sceptic on me. Very mature!

I did not write anything about UK scientists. Yet you apparently know that I meant them. Very scientific of you!

But if you are really intersted in the influence manipulated research had on getting more peopleto smoke, just google the law suits in the US, the e-mails that emerged there and then your question So, what's your evidence for many, many scientists saying that smoking was no problem for your health?"" is answered.
I gave you the actual names of the two key scientists who exposed the dangers of smoking and just a google to see their contributions rather than paste in links to them - it wasn't a random google. The challenge to you is to give us the names of some of those "many, many" scientists who were opposed and not just brush us off telling us to do a random google.
 

sdz

EOS RP
Sep 13, 2016
236
137
Pittsburgh, PA
That a person or group is trusted does not imply that they are objectively trustworthy. Grifters earn a living because this distinction is true.

That said, how could the common person evaluate the trustworthiness of a scientist or a scientific community? The common person would need to have uncommon skills in order to evaluate the work of, say, Gell-Mann. We know they lack these uncommon skills because they are common folk. Because of this, trust in the work of scientists or a scientist by the many is more a matter of faith than a rational judgment of the facts. The common person trusts the scientists because they cannot help but to do so.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,075
That a person or group is trusted does not imply that they are objectively trustworthy. Grifters earn a living because this distinction is true.

That said, how could the common person evaluate the trustworthiness of a scientist or a scientific community? The common person would need to have uncommon skills in order to evaluate the work of, say, Gell-Mann. We know they lack these uncommon skills because they are common folk. Because of this, trust in the work of scientists or a scientist by the many is more a matter of faith than a rational judgment of the facts. The common person trusts the scientists because they cannot help but to do so.
It was only an opinion poll. People base their opinions most commonly on their experience in life and also, sometimes unfortunately, some inborn attitudes. If over the years you find on the whole that scientists and engineers make improvements to your life and tend to be telling the truth and that doctors cure you, you will tend to trust them. And, if your own experience is that many politicians lie and journalists get it wrong too often, then you tend to distrust them. Unfortunately, there are doctors like Wakefield who are discredited and like Mengele who do terrible things. And there are scientists who do lie. However, scientists do seek to root them out - you can see regular cases on Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/ it makes grim reading.
To paraphrase a well-known saying: You can trust some of the people all of the time; all of the people some of the time; but you can't trust all of the people all of the time. It's the amount of "some" that varies.
 

haggie

EOS 80D
May 11, 2016
150
47
Can you show at least one such email written by a scientist and not trustworthy to its recipient?
What a general remark about scentists can trigger....................

It is even worse. It is not that there have been scientists that wrote things that are not trustworthy.

In fact,the claims of thescientists I referred toand the results from their 'research' looked very trustworthy.
The thing was that the research and the conclusions that smoking was not (that)bad at all was not reliable at all. Only many years later, when whistleblowers made this public, the influence of scientists and researchers became clear.

I never meant this all with my remark about scientists. But after the accusation of a being a climate sceptic (I am not, on the contrary) I must alaborate a bit on what I wrote.

There are 2 'areas' where the several examples of manipulaton of claimsand research by scientists and researchers was proven.
One was where research or the conclusions were manipulated to support the claim from the Tobacco industry that there was no proof that smoking poses a health risk.
The other area was where scientists worked on ways to (1st) get people smoking and (2nd) to add substances to the cigarettes that addiction happens in an extremely short timespan. There even were instances where this was done in Multi-disciplinary teams. This was all done secretive: PR departments spinned this in several ways, not in the least internal the own organisations.

I just found the references to several of these cases (from the last two large law suits in the US).
But if anyone is really interested (and you should if you yourself smoke and/or have a loved-one that smokes), just dig into the evidence that emerged during the last 3 big law suits in the US and learn about how the Tobacco industry has been manipulating people on an unbelievable scale ............. with the help of scientists. No question about that!

But I know that many smokers prefer not to know this and stick to their idea that it is all their own autonomous choice.
And then it is so much easier to attack the Messenger. To them I say, ignore these feacts and believe what you want.
 

haggie

EOS 80D
May 11, 2016
150
47
I gave you the actual names of the two key scientists who exposed the dangers of smoking and just a google to see their contributions rather than paste in links to them - it wasn't a random google. The challenge to you is to give us the names of some of those "many, many" scientists who were opposed and not just brush us off telling us to do a random google.
Yes you gave actual names of scientists who exposed the dangers of smoking.

It just is not relevant to what I wrote, because the two can occur alongsice eachother. And they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohm

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,745
3,075
But after the accusation of a being a climate sceptic (I am not, on the contrary)
You were not accused of being a climate sceptic. But, after your broadside against many, many scientists selling their souls, I asked you if you were a climate sceptic, with a ? at the end of the question. You have now answered that question.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,347
741
It is even worse. It is not that there have been scientists that wrote things that are not trustworthy.

In fact,the claims of thescientists I referred toand the results from their 'research' looked very trustworthy.
The thing was that the research and the conclusions that smoking was not (that)bad at all was not reliable at all. Only many years later, when whistleblowers made this public, the influence of scientists and researchers became clear.

I never meant this all with my remark about scientists. But after the accusation of a being a climate sceptic (I am not, on the contrary) I must alaborate a bit on what I wrote.

There are 2 'areas' where the several examples of manipulaton of claimsand research by scientists and researchers was proven.
One was where research or the conclusions were manipulated to support the claim from the Tobacco industry that there was no proof that smoking poses a health risk.
The other area was where scientists worked on ways to (1st) get people smoking and (2nd) to add substances to the cigarettes that addiction happens in an extremely short timespan. There even were instances where this was done in Multi-disciplinary teams. This was all done secretive: PR departments spinned this in several ways, not in the least internal the own organisations.

I just found the references to several of these cases (from the last two large law suits in the US).
But if anyone is really interested (and you should if you yourself smoke and/or have a loved-one that smokes), just dig into the evidence that emerged during the last 3 big law suits in the US and learn about how the Tobacco industry has been manipulating people on an unbelievable scale ............. with the help of scientists. No question about that!
I'm personally interested in people stopped spreading FUD about scientists.

If you have already found the references that support you position, why don't you cite them here, so that we could see what they are worth?

Because when I'm doing the search, the results don't support your agenda. Surely Google in collaboration with those evil scientists is trying to hide the truth from me!
 

haggie

EOS 80D
May 11, 2016
150
47
I guess he’s saying we have to trust him... :censored:
I must have really hit an open nerve here when even neuro steps in to support bashing me.

And to Kit:
If you really mean "I'm personally interested in people stopped spreading FUD about scientists", then keep an open mind.
The mere fact that someone is a scientist (or claims to be one) does not make him a saint.
Sometimes even scientists have other motives than an academic discussion. Or is that so hard to grasp?