A  serious black and white issue?

We have asked the following  question of over 500 people, chosen at random. "Do scientist lie and manipulate the data they report in their publications?"
85% of  those  asked this simple, but all important, question have answered

"yes."

 "It's just common sense"  they say  "Everyone lies, its just commonsense."  They might add. "Scientist are not any different  than anyone else." They do it to be first, to get funding, to --etc. etc.. all common sense reasons.

?

Don't believe it?   Ask the same question your self.     Then just listen don't argue.    Just listen.   The Grand Majority are trying to tell us something! Even 50% would be too great a number in this single simple issue!     Who cares?      Is this important?    Read on and debate the point? That is science isn't it?

Ask Galileo. He knows and he is still out there every day every hour teaching each and everyone of us who care about science       about science..

So What are suppose to do about this  trust issue
First;
  we need to recognizing that the trust issue is a  major problem and that our current methods are not solving it . There is strong professional  evidence that all of the  methods used so far are failing us.
 

Second;  
Consider teaching about science without science to the Grand Majority.

Third; We all should consider  starting  the development of  stronger more practical methods, of emphasizing  to the grand majority how  honesty and trust issue are carried out and why and how successful they are.

We should look into how we are doing what we are doing So we can  do better in what we are doing. and that is teaching science to the Grand Majority?  

Who are the grand majority? Why are they so important?
First;
The grand and great majority  are not as interested in science as we are. They in the larger world of doing the all the things that have to be done day after day, week after week, year after year. etc. after etc..
Second; The grand majority (a guess of about 6 billion people) are the  all powerful because of their the  greater  numbers.
Third; The grand majority still  don't trust science (again see the links above again for the data).
Forth; and most important They pay most of the cost [
$] of science which ultimately determines its state of health and our fate.
  
Each of us in Science, especially those teaching  science, demonstrating it, and as parents teaching it to our children tend to believe that we have done all we can do to teach our children and the average folk to have trust in Science. To do this many of us  have used some  version  of the scientific method to help in this task. Coupled with  also show our students and visitors more of the wonders of science.

Alarmingly most of us don't know  the magnitude nor seriousness of this lack of  trust  or even the true nature of the problem. Yes there is always  some discussion about it and we try to fix it by showing our students  more and more of the wonders science.  Yes this is good.

 How good is good?  Look again at the links above. Is it time for each of us in science --teaching or doing it Ė recognize the problem and  try new ways of solving the it?

So?
How are we to convince the general public that the work of basic science can be trusted and why?  look again in the  preceding links for more insight into the problem.

 Letís start with how we presently describe to students how science needs to verify results. This certainly should help build trust in the work of science and is an important component  in teaching them with the scientific method.

 Depending how itís done may be the key to a solution to the trust problem?  Consider how we do it. Don't we over use words like  "phenomena", "hypotheses", "empirical", "formulation", "etc." - words seldom found in every day conversation. They often serve to make the scientific process sound very complicated and hold people at bay rather than draw them in

Possible alternatives? We could ask our teaching institutions to use common sense  examples and non scientific terms to describe how scientists maintain honesty among themselves in their work by the self correcting process that the scientific method imposes .i.e.. Is science like a symphony orchestra when a musician  plays  sour notes. That player is booted out with good riddance. A scientist who lies about  his data is quickly found and banished from his profession. Maybe a poor try but you get my point.

Most important! We need to address this  trust  issue with increasing  frequency because of the seriousness of the issue. Perhaps using standard "commercial"  methods of communication can give us a better chance for enlightening folks to trust and the value science and perhaps even use its methods in their everyday lives.

 There is a lot of  fertile untouched ground here for each of us to developing  a  variety of  commonsense  examples to demonstrate the framework within which science works that filters the true and untrue results.

To do this One does not need to have a firm grasp of string theory etc. to do this job  but one has to have a firm and common sense grasp of why scientists cannot lie about their data. We can use these  examples to build a stronger case for trust between most folks and  science. As we find these examples we should develop and share them.