John Burn-Murdoch has a disturbing chart to show you; look at the party lines showing the share of U.S. adults who have "a great deal of confidence in the scientific community." For Democrats, it's skyrocketed, and for Republicans, it's plummeted. Burn-Murdoch shows the tragedy in that Republicans were less likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19, and therefore tens of thousands of lives were lost due to people being anti-vaxxers. Our president has since proved that you can get the vaccine and all of the boosters and still contract COVID-19 twice. This editor contracted COVID after being vaccinated and getting boosted once.
But note the change in words: The chart says "confidence in the scientific community," while Burn-Murdoch says "anti-science." The pro-science party predicted that the Arctic ice caps would have melted decades ago, flooding coastal cities. The anti-science party believes there are two genders. The pro-science party called it a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus came from a lab leak and wanted you fired from your job if you didn't take the vaccine. The anti-science party didn't see how you could call for lockdowns and also OK huge Black Lives Matter protests because racism was "a public health concern."
A tragic story in two charts:
— John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) August 2, 2023
1) It never used to be the case, but there is now a big partisan gap for trust in science in the US. Republicans are now essentially the anti-science party, while Dems are stridently pro pic.twitter.com/L7VcxAL8we
Note the rhetorical dishonesty here
— PoIiMath (@politicalmath) August 2, 2023
A lack of confidence in "the scientific community" is "anti-science"
Because the most scientific thing you can do is surrender your logic and reason to the people who have lied to and misled the public these last 3 years https://t.co/UnWqOwy9A3
John, can men become pregnant?
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) August 2, 2023
" data reporter " 😂😂😂
— Chris (@Karma_Bull) August 2, 2023
Is this the misinformation they keep warning us about? There is a big difference between trust in SCIENCE! and trust in the scientific community. One is a process and the other is people who have been engaging in political activism under the SCIENCE! is settled mantra.
— Don Helpingstine (@dhelpingstine) August 2, 2023
Recommended
If you were to break out physics from climate and sociology, you’d see a very different chart. Combining them as equally valid “science” is the grift.
— Castem Ember (@CasteMember) August 2, 2023
The chart is a bit misleading, the question asked is not about science qua science, but trust in the scientific community. These are not the same thing.
— Nicolás Saldías (@NicSaldias) August 2, 2023
March 2020, scientists publish a paper in Nature Medicine denying the lab origin theory of COVID even though they themselves (it now emerges) believed it was likely true. In other words, they lied.
— Whyvert (@whyvert) August 2, 2023
Is it rational to trust these scientists? https://t.co/oVw4NvliYE
The paper "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" has been cited nearly 6000 times.
— Whyvert (@whyvert) August 2, 2023
It helped to silence any dissent on the possibility of lab leak.
And social media was right there to shut down any discussion of the racist lab-leak theory or side effects of the vaccine.
Academic culture is corrupt. Call it "anti-science" all you like; people are behind it and they are dishonest, not science. Science is an epistemological method.
— Charles X Proxy™ (@Charlemagne0814) August 2, 2023
It was not always that way. People who worked in scientific endeavors and in academic used to have good ethics and…
You mean the same “scientific community” that told us cloth masks would save Grandma?
— Kristen Mag (@kristenmag) August 2, 2023
Yeah, shocking we lost trust after that. Just shocking.🙄
What does it mean to trust in science?
— McCallum (@BK_McCallum) August 2, 2023
Science is simply a wonderful process. What has happened is that trust that the process is being applied faithfully has diminished. There is a difference. Humans are corruptible.
When Hillary Clinton accepted her party's nomination, she proudly declared, "I believe in science." What does that mean? You believe in the scientific method? Or you believe whatever someone in a lab coat says? "Believing" in science is just stupid.
***