Slashdot Mirror
When Celebrities Speak on Science
Timberwolf0122 writes to mention that the website Sense About Science is encouraging stars not to comment on scientific issues without at least checking their facts. A somewhat amusing article on the BBC matches up a few comments made by celebrities with the factual reaction from experts in the field of study tackled by their blunder.
Even TV programs that try to get good technical advisers, like NUMB3RS, frequently get basic science and technology wrong. I don't know anyone who can crack a disk encryption scheme in a few seconds anytime they want.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
If I had only 1 piece of duct tape, I would seal the politician mouths first. The celebrities are never taken that seriously for scientific comments.
Anyhow about the science curriculum in US schools, they are actually not that bad. Is the students that don't care. Separate issue.
Well it is a situation about any area when a person talks beyond their areas of experties. People who make a blind coment about music who never studied music just proliferate "bad" music or keeping people from exploring others. People who do not understand litature when they talk about litature they end up making the story seem what it is not.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Unfortunately as far as celebrities go, I don't think it's realistic to expect them not to mouth off on any given subject that comes up - it's what they do. What I would like to see is an improvement in the quality of science reporting by the mainstream media - I don't expect Melinda Messenger to know what day it is, but I expect the science reporters of the main TV/radio/newspaper organizations to make a lot fewer scientific faux pas than they do.
Oh no... it's the future.
Over 50% of Americans don't "believe in" evolution. They also don't believe carbon dating, fossils, or second-hand-smoke health threats. Most also don't "believe in" global warming. Many politicians, including GW, use our self-imposed ignorance of scientific facts to their own advantage.
The downfall of our own democracy may one day happen due to our own ignorance. I think to combat the threat, we should be encouraging celebrities to speak out about science, to help spread knowledge of what is real, and to combat the growing threat of people who do not know the difference. Celebrities are more influential than experts.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
That isn't to say, of course, that so-called 'greenhouse gasses' (like - wait for it - water!) shouldn't be reduced along with other pollution. Humans are nasty dirty critters that seem to enjoy contaminating the environment, and that's not good for anyone.
Love sees no species.
It's amazing how many people confuse popularity for authoritative, scientific thought. This conceit goes so far that many celebrities believe themselves. As we've already noted, people like Tom Cruise, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda do this all too regularly. Why in the world would some actor know more about AIDS or cancer (even testifying in front of Congress, for frak's sake) than the average Joe or a medical professional?
Actors should be reminded that, just because they've played a doctor, doesn't make them one.
Other popular people should be pelted with rotten produce and harsh words by the anti-clique popular people whose feet are well grounded as to who they are and what they really know, like Dennis Miller (most of the time).
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
The problem is not celebrities making comments without checking the facts. The problem is news producers giving them air play without checking the facts.
As a proud Roman Catholic, I have this advice: If you want your kids to learn the theory of evolution, send them to a Catholic school.
OUTFOXED. If you haven't seen it, do. You might not agree 100% and the bias may not invalidate *everything* they have to say, but its an interesting foray into the world and power of one of America's most influential (non-governmental) organizations.
Quack, quack.
The reason it can work for Catholics is because Catholics should not be biblical literalists. Certainly, the Catholic Church does not espouse this form of belief. In fact, the Catholic Church has at its foundation three bases of belief: 1) the Bible, 2) the works/teachings of the Patristics 3) the Magisterium. For Catholics, the NT documents the fulfillment of the OT prophecies by Jesus. However, the notion of a Church existing within history requires human thought/activity. Human thought relies on rational thought. Of course, when there has been no documented evidence for something, as in science, a reigning theory will become the accepted knowledge base until something superior comes along. The Catholic Church, though flogged repeatedly for the dismissals of Galileo and Copernicus (a Catholic priest no less!)the Church is quite advanced in terms of its scientific investigations and owns/operates some of the most advanced facilities in the world (most famous is the Vatican Observatory). The grandfather of genetics was a Catholic monk, the first major proponent of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest etc. There is no cognitive dissonance when one understands the difference between dogma, doctrines, teachings and theories. Dogmas are those things held to be wholly true, akin to a mathematical law. A doctrine is something that is firmly held but can be changed. Teachings are usually more individualistic, notions that a Catholic is not bound to believe (as opposed to dogmas and doctrines) and theories are just that, theories.
Any dogma that is held, is 100% unverifiable by science. In this way, there can never be any cognitive dissonance. Doctrines can cause some problems so when science adequately proves its position (heliocentric theory, big bang, evolution etc) then the Catholic Church will adjust its doctrines and teachings. The problem is that too many Catholics are lackadaisical in their faith and further perpetuate ignorance to those who are not Catholic and so on and so on.
Because the Catholic Church was the center of thought for so many years in the Western World, it took long strides in turning those with power to new ideas that would ultimately lessen the control they had. Any control they did possess was an abuse of power, corruption and all that, and of course not ever pope, cardinal and bishop fell victim to it, but those that did really left a dark stain on the Church's reputation. However, those who make an effort to know, will come quickly to the conclusion that the Church works with the scientific community, not against it. Many of the leading universities of the world are either Catholic and/or have Catholic faculty members who are experts in their field (Jesuits for instance are often professors or science first then of theology. Jesuits are often pushed to hold multiple doctoral degrees and many are only accepted after they have a first PhD in something other than theology or philosophy. See Berkley or Georgetown for instance)
Danica McKellar tutors math on her web site
http://www.danicamckellar.com/