I'm sure Exxon/Mobil and Greenpeace don't care about trustworthiness of particular scientists, but just look for results worth spinning.
Trust me, I'm a scientist (and not an advertising exec or journalist)
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
Which is just another way of saying what was said above that led to AlanF's comment to which I was responding in the comment you quoted.
"Research scientists working in grant-financed environments are motivated by giving the grantor what they want, whether that is the unbiased truth or a preconceived conclusion, in order to continue the flow of dollars to their research institution."
You did write in your post you are quoting that those in organizations like Exxon/Mobil are really engineers, not scientists.
Hello?
I am saying that no matter how "trustworthy" scientists are, there will always be results for advertising executives and politicians to misinterpret for spinning.
How is that "just another way of saying"...?
If a Scientist quotes a study that interviewed random people about "trustworthiness", knowing that those people interviewed were just random people on the internet and then makes the statement:
"So when it comes to considering the merits of cameras and lenses, you know whom to trust more! "
Doing so knowing that the research and backup for this statement is flawed, then debating the integrity and trustworthiness of the scientific community.
Is there no irony here?
"So when it comes to considering the merits of cameras and lenses, you know whom to trust more! "
Doing so knowing that the research and backup for this statement is flawed, then debating the integrity and trustworthiness of the scientific community.
Is there no irony here?
I took it as a joke played with the equivocacy of "you know whom to trust more" (descriptive vs. normative sense).
YMMV, of course.
As Kit wrote just above it's meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, a joke with a hint of truth behind it. I very rarely use emojis to signal jokes as this side of the pond we are more used to picking up these nuances whereas others elsewhere like spelling them out. I will occasionally use an emoji if makes it clear I am not being rude to someone.
Well only 23% trust Pollsters, what does that say about the credibility of their Poll.
94 percent of all statistics are made up out of thin air.
As I have written at least twice before, it is only an opinion poll, and opinions are opinions not facts. It so happens that the poll was conducted by Ipsos-Mori, which is one of the best opinion pollsters. Only 37% trust ordinary men or women, so if you are an ordinary person, what does that say about your credibility?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Benjamin Disraeli.
I was going to say "I thought that was Mark Twain" but then I decided to check. This is what Wikipedia has to say:
"The phrase was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]"
So it appears that Disraeli never said it. Mark Twain did, but he didn't originate it.
Wikipedia didn't even get rated in the opinion poll so why should we believe it?
A damned fine point. However...you didn't get rated in the opinion poll either, so I'm just going to ignore it.
Ignore at your peril! Here is a mathematicians research on the origin of the phrase https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm
Instead of lies, damn lies and statistics, how about: Youtube, journalist camera reviews, and advertising?
It depends, if you are asking me for medical advice hopefully you are not one of the 37%.
Medical doctors have come in for particular abuse in this thread so it's fortunate that Ipsos-Mori didn't run their opinion poll here.
Let me guess... it says that the Poll results are much more credible if endorsed by a Scientist?
No I did not. I said that when Exxon/Mobil and the like hire outside "expert" climate scientists to report on things that have nothing to do with product development they expect to get the result for which they have paid.