[gizmo]

> Eighty-four percent of the public thinks that science has had a positive impact on society

And the remaining 16% thinks we are not better off because of electricity, medicine and buildings & bridges that don't collapse?

People who think science is optional in any society have not realized our entire lifestyle has been made possible by science.

[Locke1689]

I honestly think that the only possible reason for this has to be either ignorance or religion. If you demonize one section of science far enough, you're probably self-indoctrinated to believe that all science is bad. Consider someone who believes that climate change is not happening and that the entire scientific community is in on this giant scam. Once you extend a conspiracy theory to such a large level, the only way you can rationalize your beliefs is to demonize the entire population of practicing scientists because they have to be "in on it." Of course, were you to then be asked if science has been a good thing, you'll answer in the negative, even though you would never survive without air conditioning, processed food, and your precious Range Rover.

[gizmo]

Maybe it's much simpler than that. When people hear the word scientist, they think "men in white lab coats". If that's what they think scientists are, then all the responses make some sort of sense.

The depressing thing is that people who believe in conspiracy theories are generally reasonably smart people, who have nuanced opinions on a lot of topics, and are often well educated. In order to believe in a conspiracy theory you have to have at least a passing understanding of whatever accepted truth it is you don't believe in. That puts those people leagues ahead of the ignorant-and-proud-of-it.

[Robin_Message]

I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.

[gizmo]

The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing.

The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.

[philwelch]

I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.

[Retric]

Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago.

PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.

[philwelch]

I'm not talking about western style poor, I'm talking about post-nuclear war style dead, or post-nanotech style grey goo that used to be people. That's why I said "existential threat" (i.e. threats to our existence), not "existential angst".

I don't disagree that science is a net win, but there's some chance that we will use science to extinct the human race or make the earth uninhabitable, in the long run.

[Retric]

Post-nuclear war there would still be more people than before science. We don't have grey goo so suggesting it's an issue is probably overblown.

PS: Killing off 99.5% of the world's population would be really hard, and there would still be more people alive than before science.