Americans’ Views of Cues to the Relative Credibility of Disputing Groups of Scientists

Abstract

Lay choices of which group of disagreeing scientists is correct can affect their attitudes and behaviors, making their self-reports on cues to disputants’ relative credibility a helpful complement to observational or experimental probes of cues actually used. A 2015 survey of Americans asked them to rate 22 cues—interests, shared values, credentials, performance, demographics, vote-counting, research quality—on their reliability regarding the competence of (groups of) scientists, availability in information sources, utility for the average American, and personal use, using three topics to illustrate disputes (dark matter, dietary salt, nanotechnology). Rating-implied or explicit rankings differed somewhat, but were highest for experience in the field, research quality (e.g., replication), and credentials (e.g., advanced degree in a closely related field). Regression analyses revealed main factors in these ratings were scientific positivism and understanding of scientific reasoning, with few significant associations for mistrust of scientists, interest in scientific disputes, dispute topics, and demographics.