Science journals' political meddling erodes trust in science, doesn't change political views: study

Science is supposed to be based on objective facts, not opinions. Typically, these facts are introduced to the public via peer-reviewed scientific journals. In recent years, however, once highly respected journals have deviated from this time-honored norm, opining on political campaigns and controversies that have little, if anything, to do with science.

The diversion of science journals into the political arena has not only harmed these publications' own credibility, it has also further eroded the public's trust in the larger scientific community, according to a new study published in Nature Human Behavior by economist Floyd Zhang. The study focuses its criticisms on Nature, one of the world's leading journals and the flagship publication of the portfolio that includes Nature Human Behavior.

A month before the 2020 presidential election took place, Nature published a controversial editorial openly supporting then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Blasting then-President Donald Trump's "disastrous response to the COVID-19 pandemic," the editorial also criticized the former president's supposed isolationist and nationalistic tendencies. The prospect of Trump's reelection, warned Nature, was unthinkable.

Such high-profile political endorsements by major scientific journals, notes Zhang, raise numerous concerns, including "backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise." Nature's decision to endorse Biden caused "large reductions" in stated trust in the journal, particularly among Trump supporters, according to Zhang's study. This distrust had a cascade effect, lowering the demand for and trust in COVID-related information provided by Nature. Zhang found, moreover, that the endorsement also served to reduce Trump supporters' trust in the broader scientific community.

Zhang's findings are the latest in a growing body of evidence of declining public confidence in scientists, due in significant part to efforts to leverage scientific credentials and prestige in support of scientific publishers' political and public policy preferences. Pew Research Center, for example, reported in February 2022...

My trust has been destroyed by action. It’s one thing to publish a study in a journal. That’s only one of many steps in the scientific process. Peers get to review and try to replicate studies at that point. Action, on the other hand, is what you do with what is published.

Let’s generalize for a moment away from science. When you truly believe something you act upon it. That applies to a range of most things in life, even politics. This is how our belief systems is formed. Beliefs become action. Sometimes action betrays words. You can then disregard a person’s words when their actions do not fit.

The a lot of the medical community lost their credibility and my trust due to their actions surrounding COVID. Unfortunately, I have to see a lot of doctors, and of different types. While that is a small sample overall, I did see a range of behaviors that matched what the CDC and other government agencies recommended and/or mandated despite sound contradictory research. I also saw some ignore government recommendations and they told me the reasons why. Those are my good doctors and the others, well, they aren’t my doctors anymore.

One other thing, journalists rarely have the intelligence or the education to report on research. Don’t trust a damn thing written in the press. Go directly to the research. Then you have the task of sorting through the BS. It’s not all that hard to do. A basic understanding of science and some logic generally helps.

The a lot of the medical community lost their credibility and my trust due to their actions surrounding COVID...I did see a range of behaviors that matched what the CDC and other government agencies recommended and/or mandated despite sound contradictory research.

For me, the big question is, WHY?

As I wrote elsewhere, there is a popular theoretical question - "would you have killed Hitler in the 30s if you knew what was to come?" Many people answer "yes."

True, we haven't perfected time travel. But then 2020 came along.

I believe many on the left - AND losers like a Liz Cheney, Willard, et al - feel the same way about Trump. You can't go a week without SOMEONE calling Trump Hitler.

Lacking a time machine, the 2020-equivalent question was "would you steal the election by whatever means, to remove Trump from office? Because, ya know, he's Hitler."

We saw their "yes."

I bet most Bidet supporters sure as heck see lots of problems and believe that the election had lotsa fraud. And it didn't take too much; in the end, Bidet's margin of victory was about 40k votes (the aggregate winning vote totals in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona, i.e. The tipping States).

But these left (and right) statists fancied themselves the Resistance circa 2020 (as if...). That arrogance, combined with Orange Man Bad, these Guardians of Civilization grip onto whatever half-baked rationale for the "legitimacy" of the results, to keep the inquiry into irregularities stopped.

Then, they crank up the volume to 11 on the shots, OSHA mandates, vilifying parents, and now the whole trans thing, because if Trump is Hitler then anyone who likes him is ALSO a Nazi and, after all, they're the Resistance.

Make no doubt about it...2020 was a de facto going back in time to kill Hitler for these folks. The follow-through, including the Manhattan DA circus, is a continuation of these nutjobs' fantasy.'

Clarence Thomas got it right, when he wrote about the protests (threats?) from the Roe leak: "We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like."

This new dogma - "anything goes if we are morally justified" is an extension of this article:

.... What (liberals) really want is liberal Sharia law, a secular theocracy. The minimum wage, gender equality, nationalized health care, and global warming—whatever their practical virtues—are not just expedient policy prescriptions. They are essential aspects of the liberal fatwa. Feminism, deconstruction, and gender theory are not just academic abstractions up for discussion among liberal academics: They are articles of their religious creed. Question them and you are not just wrong—you are a heretic.

...for them, politics is the means to secular salvation...political failure is not just a setback on the road

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.