And so on.
If there's a point in that survey, it's that scientific comprehension lacks internal consistency. The public doesn't have much of a model of how science works, and especially how scientific points are made and evaluated.
'Hate' was for rhetorical effect and not meant literally, obviously.
The real point is that people blame science and scientists for issues which aren't their direct responsibility, when they could more profitably be directing those criticisms at economic apologists and the markets.
Well one can hardly blame them, given the overwhelming evidence from scientists of the mess we're making of the climate/planet.
I quoted what the study said were the "key findings" - with the majority finding science "amazing » and the groups they identified having the range of views - none of them VERY negative - which I suggested.
"If there's a point in that survey, it's that scientific comprehension lacks internal consistency. The public doesn't have much of a model of how science works, and especially how scientific points are made and evaluated."
Well that's a reasonable point - but a rather different one.
" 'Hate' was for rhetorical effect and not meant literally, obviously."
Well really !:-) You deplore people's lack of understanding of how scientific points are made and evaluated - in a diary which makes little attempt to reflect such procedures, and then admit that your "main conclusion" was a mere rhetorical device, more suitable in a tabloid's distorted reporting of a scientific issue. And you have the nerve to criticise some authors of books on science ! :-)
"The real point is that people blame science and scientists for issues which aren't their direct responsibility, when they could more profitably be directing those criticisms at economic apologists and the markets."
Ah, so now, having abandoned the main conclusion - which was the motivation for the bulk of the diary - we now come to the "real point" - but yet again it is put in an absurdly general way. "People" - ALL of them ? Ah, but of course this is just another rhetorical device - you really mean some indeterminate proportion - based on your general experience. In fact I suspect that again the majority don't blame scientists, certainly not if you ask them: Do you blame scientists or politicians and corporations ? - for such unspecified "issues". I'm pretty confident that the majority would blame politicians and corporations for the kind of thing where "criticisms at economic apologists and the markets" would be more appropriate. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
