Junk Science Week — Terence Corcoran: When science turns political, trust declines
The following is not intended as a put-down of polling, which has its valid processes and uses. The summary definition of polling, however, does somewhat correspond to FP Comment's standard definition of junk science. Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated (or underplayed) and 'the science' adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda. That definition encompasses a wide range of activities among scientists, NGOs, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who manipulate science for political, environmental, economic and social purposes. We can now add Artificial Intelligence to the list.
The large proportion of science that flows through to the populations of Canada and all countries can, unfortunately, fall into our definition. The array of ideological forces using science to generate public support for social and political causes — or to defeat the same causes — is sowing increasing confusion and distrust.
In recent years, poll after poll after poll has produced evidence that public confidence in science has been declining. Back in 2020, University of Alberta professor Tim Caulfield noted that fomenting distrust 'has become the go-to strategy for selling health products, generating clicks and getting elected.' The doubts grew as the COVID-19 pandemic raged and as Donald Trump and others on both sides of the political fence engaged in pitched battles over vaccines.
The pandemic is said to be a major factor behind the decline of trust in science, especially in the United States where vaccine polarization accelerated with Trump's appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr. as America's Secretary of Health, which fuelled more doubt (or so the polls showed), especially on the religious right.
Opinions may be shifting, however. Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' report released last month has been roundly trashed across the political spectrum for its lack of science and false scientific statements. The Genetic Literacy Project called the report a 'full-scale assault on science.'
In a new paper — The Strange New Politics of Science — two researchers at the American Enterprise Institute argue that while 76 per cent of Americans still trust science, the number is 11 points below pre-pandemic levels. The authors rightly argue that 'the stark polarization of American politics around trust in science not only threatens the legitimacy of particular expert institutions, but also has potentially destabilizing consequences for society as a whole.'
A 2024 University of Waterloo survey report, Trust in Canada, suggested Canadians still hold science in high regard. Despite the pandemic episodes, 'scientists (along with doctors and researchers) remain one of the most trusted groups in Canada.' In one pre-pandemic poll, 90 per cent of respondents said they 'trusted' and 'trusted very much' science-related sources. They were followed by science-based personalities (76 per cent), journalists (56 per cent), government (46 per cent), comedians (31 per cent), religious leaders (25 per cent), bloggers and influencers (19 per cent), and celebrities (10 per cent). At least journalists ranked higher than comedians.
A 2023 Confidence in Leaders survey from Environics found that even during the pandemic, 75 per cent of surveyed citizens still had 'a lot or some confidence' in science, far behind NGOs (52), journalists (50), business leaders (42) and politicians (33). Such polling results highlight the indisputable fact that trust in science may have weakened to some degree in recent years, but the cause may be more a function of other messengers and institutions rather than scientists.
Which takes us to the heart of junk science. The junk is not necessarily in the science, but in the various ideological streams through which the science flows. Make no mistake, scientists can have political and ideological agendas, but in open debate the junk can be filtered out.
Through this week's 27th annual Junk Science Week, various science issues are explored, beginning with Peter Shawn Taylor's exploration of the questionable science behind the annual bee apocalypse. While a Google AI search question (Are bee populations declining?) will produce various versions of yes, the actual answer is no.
Which is not surprising. A recent headline on a science blog said: 'Flood of 'junk': How AI is changing scientific publishing.' Another claimed that 'AI-fabricated 'junk science' floods Google scholar.'
And then there is this story from Nature magazine that merged AI with the artful science of polling: 'Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split. The poll of 5,000 researchers finds contrasting views on when it's acceptable to involve AI and what needs to be disclosed.'
Terence Corcoran: A 'guide' to the Trump-Canada steel tariff war
Terence Corcoran: Trump bites U.S. economy to get at Apple
Contrasting views in science! Situation normal.
• Email: tcorcoran@postmedia.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Judges Keep Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Arrests, in Setback for Trump Agenda
The Trump administration's agenda suffered another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision that temporarily halts federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's finding that the raids appeared to exclusively rely on a person's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. The administration's immigration raids have stirred protests and fear for many Latinos across the city, its suburbs and agricultural regions. The panel's decision merely allows a temporary restraining order that had been imposed by the lower court to remain in place. It curtails, for now, the far-reaching operations that began in June as the case proceeds through the courts. Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she weighs a longer-lasting order known as a preliminary injunction. In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke and where they lived or worked. Civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law.
