Slashdot Mirror
Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?
smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to a recently posted Slashdot article, Reuters UK has an article which poses the question: is the U.S. becoming hostile to science? From the article: 'Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation,' said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3. Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his state of the university address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by intelligent design which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. 'When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers,' he said." What is your take?
Yes. Any other stupid questions?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Supposedly Britian has a somewhat separated office of science within their government to make decisions that impact circumstances on environment, wildlife and global warming... much of these decisions take more than four years to measure for results, so they're obviously going to be ignored by any U.S. president whose voters believe otherwise. The British government appoints the person in charge of that much like we do the supreme court and federal reserve chairman, which is supposed to keep it relatively non-partisan.
I say we follow the British lead on matters like this. Of course it would have no effect on creationism/ abortion/ etc regulation, but its a start. As far as science in general, the United States is by far the leaders for scientific paper production, measured by citations. However, this number taken per capita or divided by the GDP of the country in question has always put the U.S. far behind in research, primarily to European countries. I'm not sure if this number has declined in the past few years having had a strong religious president.
Mostly, I think, the scientists just keep quiet and do their job of saving lives and advancing technology and let the naysayers bicker on the internet...
... Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. ...
http://www.venganza.org/
Yes, there is a large, vocal, and frighteningly powerful group in the USA ignoring science for ideological reasons. Is there anything to learn by having a discussion on Slashdot about this?
Shouldn't we be asking Slashdot something like, "How do we stop the insanity?"
Seems like that could be more productive.
Let's face it, there's always been an anti-intellectual streak in the US, and now, these Bible-thumping ignoramuses are strengthening it.
These are the people who want to bring back Old Testament style theocracy, and think that it jibes with the Constitution. Check out the Christian Reconstructionist article on Wikipedia. Ultramontanes of the highest order.
Although I live in DC, I don't worry about Islamist terrorists as much as these folks taking over. Islamist terrorists could cause nasty infrastructural and personal damage, but these people, given a chance, will do everything they can to ensure nothing that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible gets taught, women have no reproductive rights, gay people are executed for something they can't help being, etc., etc. They'll warp the laws to a viewpoint no one's held in 2,000 years - there's been progress since then, but they don't want it.
If they had their way, the only science that would go on would be to prove absurd things, like Moses really parted the Red Sea, instead of say, forensic ethnobotany to show how people ate.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
>
> As opposed to hundreds of millions non-americans fighting for reason..?
Group A: A fundamentalist theocracy of 237,500,000 people who reject the physics underlying radioactive decay, and who also reject the notion that DNA can, with suitable cleverness, be manipulated into new and useful forms.
Group B: A technologically-advanced splinter group consisting of 12,500,000 potential nuclear and biogenic weapons engineers.
When push comes to shove, Side A may have 20 times as many rifles, pointy sticks, and fists, but my money's still on Side B.
Note to the folks in Group A: If you think I'm only making fun of you, there's also...
Group C: A different fundamentalist theocracy whose population ranges from around 500,000,000 to 1,500,000,000 people, most of whom think the world would be a better place if everyone in both "Group A" and" Group B" were either assimilated or exterminated.
Just a friendly reminder to the "Group A" crowd. Most of us in "Group B" would be pretty happy to coexist with y'all in "Group A", but if y'all actually win your little war and manage to wipe us out (despite your renunciation of nuclear physics, geology, biology, and genetic engineering), you're going to find yourself in a pretty serious vortex of suck when "Group C" comes a-knockin' on your door.
Just sayin'.
Fortunately for science, though unfortunately for America, attacking science produces negative dynamic stabiity. You can't disrupt one part of science without disrupting *ALL* parts of science. The inevitable result is that, in the long term, the societies with the best science will wind up with the biggest and best bombs, too. (Unfortunately, in the short term, you might wind up dead due to the bad science...)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Well, the United States is not and has never been one thing or the other. It's a very heterogeneous country, with many strong and often conflicting trends.
Among these, yes, there's a long and robust history of anti-intellectual populist amateurism, a feeling that any man's opinion is just as good as a trained expert (maybe better), and that any one of us, just by sitting down and thinking hard about the matter, can give an authoritative opinion on any subject whatsoever.
Um, does this remind anyone of any community in particular? Say, an on-line discussion group? No? Well, let's move on...
As a direct consequence of this robust amateurism, Americans have always tended to distrust the voice of authority when it conflicts with their own "instincts" and "common sense." People who think the authority of religion is why folks reject evolution or global warming, et cetera, are utterly misunderstanding Americans. These things are rejected not because Joe Sixpack trusts authority A (the pastor) over authority B (the professor), but because he trusts his own instincts more than either.
Now, it turns out neither evolution nor global warming are plain as the nose on your face obvious. (After all, even clever scientists took centuries to clue in to them.) It takes a fair amount of education and sifting of subtle data to really understand the arguments for and against, and to accept that these theories are much better explanations for the facts than anything else.
Not surprisingly, for someone who lacks both data and education, it's going to seem hard to believe that (for example) a change of carbon dioxide content from 0.033% of the atmosphere to 0.034%, which raises the average temperature of the Earth by 2.0 degrees, or maybe only 1.5, is going to result in an onslaught of massive hurricanes, massive species extinction, desertification of big swathes of the Midwest, the cessation of ocean currents that will turn England into Greenland, buried in ice 8000 feet thick, and other miscellaneous global catastrophes. Joe Average, confronted with such a bald statement, can perhaps be forgiven for initially responding: what the hell are you smoking?
I wouldn't believe it myself, except I have studied the data and I do understand the physics.
Of course, experts are unanimous that these theories are correct. And if Americans were more in the habit of trusting experts, they would just take their word for it. "Oooookay, global warming of 1 degree causing massive climate change seems plain nuts to me, but Professor Foo here says it's so, and he's a smart guy with all the data, so I guess it must be so."
But many of us don't think like that. Hell, none of us thinks like that. How many here are willing to make a similar statement about (say) the President's judgment with respect to WMDs and the war in Iraq? "Well, it seems nuts to me, but he says it's so and he has all the data..." Ho ho. Plain fact is, we all think we're just as smart as the "smart guys" and are entitled to question their conclusions if they don't make obvious sense to us.
So, big chunks of the population remain skeptical of anything nonobvious in science. Fact of American life, mostly.
If I had to put my finger on any reason why this fact might be a smidge more prevalent than it ever was, I'd put it square on the pernicious spread of relativism over the last 40 years. We are trained for years, in school and sometime in the workplace (sensitivity training, anybody? TQM?) in the basic principles that (1) all viewpoints are equally valid, (2) truth is not an objective thing, but a subjective opinion that legitimately varies with your viewpoint, (3) explanations of events that reduce social friction and validate everyone's worth are to be preferred, even if you must doubt the evidence of your own eyes to accept them, and (4) there are often "higher truths" than the plain ordinary truth. That is, statements can
There are plenty of European/Western scientists, that most would consider some of the greatest scientists in the world, believed in a Christian view of God. The two are not mutually exclusive. It seems to me that people that believe as you do are as ignorant as you believe Christians are. That is pretty sad.
What's sad is how you completely misrepresented what the poster said.
He said "makes it hard" (not impossible) and that "Science isn't incompatible with spirituality, but it's totally in opposition to biblical literalism and other fundamentalist practices." which is in complete sync with your claim above about there being scientists who "believed in a Christian view of God".
The fact is there are very, very few prominent scientists who are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians (or any other religion, for that matter), which was his point.
Here is an article about a chemical engineer/scientist that happened to be a Christian. Do you think he would have been more accomplished if he took on an atheistic view of the world? If so, why?
Could you point out the part where he said "any Christian scientist would be more accomplished had he/she been an atheist", because I certainly didn't see that anywhere.
Science and dogma don't mix very well at all. Science and spirituality do mix quite well for some. *That's* what I got from Logic Bomb's post. Re-read it and see if you don't get the same.
you seem kind of confused. the controversy comes from the fact that science has disproved many claims and suppositions about the universe (including claims about the word of god himself) that have historically been peddled by religious doctrineers. for example: that demons cause sickness, that sin causes sickness, that the world is a few thousand years old, that the sun revolves around the earth, that this or that woman is a witch.
science has helped us understand the world without using ghost stories, even though there's a lot we don't know. it exposes zealous claims about "the word of god" for the frauds that they are.
as you said, "science" doesn't "disprove god." it disproves various PROPOSITIONS about the world that god-fearing people have historically repeated over the years. science is a METHOD for investigating reality in a sensible way, not a collection of claims. if you oppose it, you're an ostrich with your head in the sand. you can oppose some of the claims that a scientist might make, and then make a counterargument. that's great. but opposing rational inquiry itself is something else entirely.
the "strident atheist" is a straw man. you can't test, prove, or falsify claims made about an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity. so theology doesn't belong in a science classroom. the only "strident" thing that fundamentalists are opposing is the TRUTH itself, and the acknowledgment of certain facts about the world, which is why their current goal is to dumb down the science curriculum in school. you should have noticed by now that the provocateurs DON'T go around saying "Hey, everyone, science does NOT actually disprove the existence of a god. let's be careful when we talk about theology." which would be theologically sound, and possibly even appreciated by many people. but instead of saying that, they say "Evolution? I don't believe it. We gotta stop teaching it, or, at least, it's just a THEORY, and it's mostly wrong". the whole controversy is nothing but a repeat of the persecution of Galileo.
and in due time, everyone will be so familiar with the basic facts of biology that the campaign against teaching evolution will be nothing but a historical absurdity, just like with astronomy in the case of Galileo. you can only keep people in the dark so long.
the truth comes home to roost. and it ruffles a lot of feathers.
I hear that a large objection to Evolution is that it is "just a theory". Unforturnately, the people making that objection do not seem to know just what the scientific definition of Theory really is. In science, if you make a guess regarding something-or-other, the official terminology of "guess" is "Hypothesis". A hypothesis is always supposed to include ways of testing it, to determine its accuracy. So tests are made and evidence is gathered, and IF the hypothesis holds up as proven accurate, then it graduates to "Theory" status. Evolution is a Theory because we have an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence for it. Creationism, by comparison, is still only a mere Hypothesis. In all scientific truth, Isaac Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Gravitation are actually ALSO "only Theories" --but extremely well supported by evidence (and, nevertheless, superceded by the MORE ACCURATE Theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity, as it happens). The lack of supporting evidence for Creationism is its ultimate downfall, as far as the scientific community is concerned.
Here are two specific examples in which Evolution explains what Creationism cannot. First, consider Vitamin C. Lack of this in the diet causes the deficiency-disease known as "scurvy". All primates (monkeys, apes, humans) require Vitamin C in their diets. But various "lesser" animals, such as rats, can manufacture Vitamin C within their bodies, and so don't need any in their diet. The Evolutionary explanation is that as ancestors of the primates took to the trees and gradually became the primates, they found plentiful supplies of fruits rich in Vitamin C. Animals with defective genes (or missing genes) for making Vitamin C did not suffer scurvy and die; they survived and passed the inability to make Vitamin C onto their descendants. In terms of "biological energy", an organism that can save a little by using environmental availability instead of of internal manufacturing, has a slight evolutionary advantage -- as long as the environment maintains the availability of the nutrient, of course. In the tropics, where primates evolved, fruits with Vitamin C are available year-round. And so, over millions of years, primates became utterly dependent on Vitamin C in their diets -- and humans, of course, when described as evolved primates, continue the tradition. (Possibly to be FIXED, once Genetic Engineering gains wide acceptance, heh!) OK, NOW, The Creationism explanation, for why a loving God blessed us with the potential for scurvy instead of the dietary independence that rats have, is what, exactly?
Second example: Eyes have evolved in different ways among different branches of the animal kingdom. In the fish/amphibian/reptile/mammal line of evolution, the human eyeball has various superior traits to many precursor animals. Color vision, for example. Nevertheless, the human eye, like those of its precursors, share certain particular overall architectural features, which are: The back wall of the eyeball is covered with retinal cells. The nerves that transmit retinal signals are between the iris and the retina (the nerves are pretty transparent, but do reduce impinging light a little). At one place on the back of the eyball, all the nerve-strands bundle together to plunge through the eyeball, to connect to the brain. There are no retinal cells in this part of the eyeball, so every amphibian/reptile/mammal has a "blind spot" in the vision. You can prove it to yourself; just print this out and follow the instructions: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mindh...ter/hack16. pdf One of the other branches of the animal kingdom, the molluscs, includes clams, snails, slugs, cuttlefish, octopi, and squid. They branched off from the other evolutionary lines so far back that the development of the eyeball (most well-known in the octopus, which also has color vision) took a different route. In this architectural design, the nerve-signal cells are behind the retinal cells,