Public Opinion — Chapter XXV The Entering Wedge

1. 1. Traditional methods of building public opinion rely on drama and stereotypes, but expert analysis breaks these down, making it uninteresting to the public.
2. 2. The Great Society, built by engineers using exact measurements, cannot be governed by men who think deductively about rights and wrongs.
3. 3. Executives and leaders increasingly rely on experts like statisticians and engineers to digest information and present it in a usable form.
4. 4. Social scientists are less trusted than physical scientists because their theories cannot be tested in a laboratory and their errors have high consequences.
5. 5. Social scientists face a dilemma: staying in the library gives them leisure but poor data, while engaging in action requires a long apprenticeship and limits objectivity.
6. 6. Social scientists lack inner certainty about their work, which prevents them from insisting on intellectual freedom or being doctrinaire.
7. 7. Social scientists will gain dignity when they develop a method that produces conclusions that cannot be ignored, similar to physical scientists.
8. 8. Currently, social scientists rely on incomplete and biased data, like reports and legal briefs, which they must piece together through inference.
9. 9. The expert who prepares facts for decision-makers has a better strategic position than the academic who generalizes after the fact.
10. 10. The practical engagement of science and action benefits both: action gains clarity, and beliefs are tested in reality.
11. 11. The large number of comparable experiences across states, cities, and industries offers a basis for experimental method in social science.
12. 12. Various organizations, including research bureaus, legislative libraries, and voluntary groups, are driving the wedge of expertness between the citizen and the vast environment.