Statistics about Science and Scientists

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Reaction score
0
They say 58.2% of statistics are made up on the spot (or is it 85.2%?) :p. An interesting recent Pew Research survey has been released.

Here

The study is unfortunately limited to the USA, even though America is one of the leading countries as far as scientific innovation goes.

Feel free to post other interesting studies related to science and scientists though.

Thought the following was interesting:
Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

528-62.gif


528-62.gif

And this:
Section 6: Scientists and Their Careers

528-72.gif

There are other interesting findings. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
 
A large majority (85%) of Americans says that the earth is warming, but they are more divided on the cause of climate change than are scientists. About half of the general public (49%) says the earth is getting warmer “mostly because of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels,” while 36% say warming is occurring “mostly because of natural changes in the atmosphere.” About one-in-ten (11%) say “there is no solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer.”

By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public. Public attitudes about whether global warming represents a serious problem have changed little in recent years

What do you have to say about this, Phronesis?
 
Scientists base there opinions on fact.... the general population base their opinion on what the media spew at them.
 
The earth is warming.
CO2 doubling may result in 1 - 1.5 degree celsius increase in global temperatures.
Other factors also play a role....like the sun, which you know have been a little more active than usual in the past century.
Very serious problem? Nah, not tax worthy... sorry.

Draw your own conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Phronesis anyone can be an armchair scientist, pulling off random bits of info from the web and quoting the occasional stat. But how qualified are you, really, to start criticising that which you are not qualified in?

Don't get me wrong, criticism is always welcome in the scientific community, provided that you're qualified and have the evidence to back up your claim that deviates from the norm.
 
Who are these "armchair scientists" and their "criticisms" you are referring to? Point out their criticisms if you don't mind in your own thread where you can go on your witch-hunt if you don't mind.
Do you have any qualifications whatsoever to know what is going in science and judge who these armchair scientists are you are referring to and who the real ones are without knowing their credentials?

Do you have any opinions related to the OP?
 
Last edited:
Who are these "armchair scientists" and their "criticisms" you are referring to?
I don't want to name and shame. Seeing that I received a warning for my first post in this thread which wasn't even insulting, I'm going to have to refrain from any further comment. There was even a smiley in it to show that it was meant tongue-in-cheek, and not in an offensive manner. Anyway whatever, I guess some people tend to become overly sensitive when RBP'ing.
Do you have any qualifications whatsoever to know what is going in science and judge who these armchair scientists are you are referring to and who the real ones are without knowing their credentials?
BSc Electrical Engineering
BSc Applied Mathematics (complete by end of next year)
And I'm under 30.

Anyway ciao, I'm out of here.
 
Last edited:
Phronesis - What is the point of the OP?
Is this thread just about interesting stats?
 
Last edited:
I don't want to name and shame. Seeing that I received a warning for my first post in this thread which wasn't even insulting, I'm going to have to refrain from any further comment. There was even a smiley in it to show that it was meant tongue-in-cheek, and not in an offensive manner. Anyway whatever, I guess some people tend to become overly sensitive when RBP'ing.
Is that a record? :p
1st post in thread infraction?
 
Phronesis - What is the point of the OP?
Is this thread just about interesting stats?
Pretty obvious don't you think?
1) Statistics about Science and Scientists
2) Feel free to post other interesting studies related to science and scientists though.
3) Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Instead of every second Tom, Dick and Harry posting stats about science and scientists, dump it all together in this thread and talk about it, like normal grown-up adults can.
 
Last edited:
Two more interesting stats:
528-52.gif

528-54.gif
Not too many Republicans or conservatives?

And another one:
528-56.gif
 
Found an interesting excerpt from an article:
Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense
Summary

In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept ‘nutty professor’ stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of ‘psychological neoteny’ whereby intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of ‘clever sillies’ whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of ‘Openness to experience’, ‘enlightened’ or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in addition ‘advertising’ their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong. Hence the phenomenon of ‘political correctness’ (PC); whereby false and foolish ideas have come to dominate, and moralistically be enforced upon, the ruling elites of whole nations.
Should be an interesting article to read.
 
Last edited:
Newton was a decidedly odd figure—brilliant beyond measure, but solitary, joyless, prickly to the point of paranoia, famously distracted (upon swinging his feet out of bed in the morning he would reportedly sometimes sit for hours, immobilized by the sudden rush of thoughts to his head), and capable of the most riveting strangeness. He built his own laboratory, the first at Cambridge, but then engaged in the most bizarre experiments. Once he inserted a bodkin—a long needle of the sort used for sewing leather—into his eye socket and rubbed it around “betwixt my eye and the bone as near to [the] backside of my eye as I could” just to see what would happen. What happened, miraculously, was nothing—at least nothing lasting. On another occasion, he stared at the Sun for as long as he could bear, to determine what effect it would have upon his vision. Again he escaped lasting damage, though he had to spend some days in a darkened room before his eyes forgave him

From A Short History of Nearly Everything.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X