Slashdot Mirror
How To Communicate Science to a Polarized US Audience
Prescott writes "Given the divisions in the US around subjects like evolution and climate change, scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public. Speakers at the recent AAAS meeting talked about how scientific information is delivered to and understood by a public that interprets it via personal beliefs, religious and otherwise. 'The talks were organized by Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communications who is a proponent of the framing of science, in which communications techniques borrowed from the political realm are applied to promote scientific understanding. As such, a number of speakers advocated specific frames for publicly controversial scientific issues. Unfortunately, the use of those frames appears likely to generate controversy within the scientific community, and several speakers noted that science faces challenges that go well beyond communicating knowledge to the public. There were some hints of a way forward that might work for both the scientific community and the public, but the challenges appear significant.'"
Science needs to talk about science and not political agendas.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Use small words.
If we could have more realistic science fiction television and films (what happened to that planned movie of KSR's Red Mars ), then people might learn science principles through osmosis. Too bad now it's all sounds in space and warp speeds. People get a large part of their exposure to science the future of technology through what is essentially fantasy.
When communicating with a highly polarized audience, I harken back to my days studying freshman chemistry and the old saying that "like dissolves like".
Therefore, communicating with a highly polar audience requires a highly polar solvent. I find that ethanol works wonders in that regard.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views? As far as I can tell, this would only benefit the religious as a marker for what they don't have to believe in or allow taught.
Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?
Regards,
--
*Art
Lets tackle the major issue here...how to communicate science to a Polarized US Audience that they are NOT infact the only country in the world interested in science.
actually, lets just focus on getting the idea of other nations accross first.
In other words, the majority of Americans are so uneducated, that the poor scientists must fight primitivism.
That's just insane.
When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.
Also, avoid divisive figures. It's possible to talk about climatology without bringing up Al Gore, in fact we'd all probably be a little better off if we didn't. No disrespect to the man's scientific endeavors, but it's probably best to leave Richard Dawkins out of your discourse as well. Figures like Dawkins and Gore only add political, religious, and whatever other fires to already testy subjects. You have to stress the point that science isn't based on emotion and feeling. In short, keep it academic and logical. Don't use ad hominems or appeals to emotion.
I got a catholic block.
Why do scientists think they need to communicate science to the general populace? Most of the audience doesn't care, and won't understand. Communicate to the people who can use the information. Make the information readily available to the people who want it. Let the rest deal with the things they're trained to handle.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public.
I consider this a non-issue. How do you explain science that may conflict with personal beliefs? "Welcome to wrongville, population: You. I'll give you a free bus ticket out, but if you don't want to ride, please feel free to go to the edge of a cliff and disbelieve in gravity".
Less irreverently... You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it".
You would think that after our history teaches about what most American's relatives did in Europe that we would have learned the same lessons that EU did; Namely separate religion from science. It is one thing to be fighting over GW (with all the fud put out by oil companies, etc, it is no wonder that Americans and others have issues understanding the situation), but the idea that Americans believe in ID is downright scary. There are ppl that actually believe that the earth is less than 5000 YO. Hell, I had a lengthy discussions with one of my ADULT students in 99, and he was telling me that Carbon dating does not work. They tested it on a knife blade. When I pointed out that one of the fundamentals requirements of this, is that it had been living material, he said that Dobson said that it was not a requirement of the test (I was teaching at HP in C. Springs; this man belonged to FOTF group). The test was worthless and yet, this guy (and almost certainly others) were SOLD on it. Roughly, it is coming down to ppl like FOTF, Moral Majority types bending intelligent ppls minds. It is religious groups that are killing America. Hopefully we bounce back from it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Evolution... man created
Climate Change... God created
For a long time, Science took the opposite position on these two issues. Funny how more recently these same scientists have have done a complete 180 and realized that in fact climate change is *not* a factor of man's interaction and are now inline with the first of the two (above) understandings.
One down... one to go
from the viewpoint of a UK reader, the best way to promote science in the US seems to be to pass it off as a wonderful invention of God.
/. will be as sympathetic an audience as I can find.
I mean come on, intelligent design? evolution as a theory? velociraptors and children playing happily together? That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world. Except in the US.
Mod me to hell and back for all I care - thats what I think. Okay, my views may not be representative of society as a whole - but possibly
The mere fact that you can pack a room, for seven speakers on "Communicating Science in a Religious America." tell me that there is something wrong. These idiots want to have their cake and eat it - on one hand they want to rubbish scientific thinking and deny evolution on the other they want bluray discs, microwaves and nuclear tipped bombs. Get real.
From my viewpoint all religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous as each other - no matter what they preach, what religion they follow, what they wear or what country they come from. Sometimes the danger is more subtle then other times. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.
I'll exit my soapbox quietly and get my coat then.
Simply impose a separation of science and state. Just as in religion, there are some who wnat power and fame. Put an end to that, and science gets it reputation back.
Yes I know that idea is a dream.
Audience 1: Unwashed masses
....
In order to get the message out, you need to tailor your message to what they are willing to hear. And no, I don't think you need to calculate religiosity into the content as much as they may think. Yes, that should piss-off plenty of strict scientists, but the unwashed masses are not your first audience.
Audience 2: slashdot crowd
Insert pithy comment here about living in basements and reading comic books while creating turing aware nano-scale machines.
Audience 3:
I understand the concern though. Because what typically happens is the sloppy manipulative communication used to grow the audience for scientific content washes over into the other audiences and ultimately into the research communication.
I don't think communication style is science's problem though. I think ignoring scientific principal in favor of some regional religiosity is a global phenomena at this point. Something like a post-modern dark ages. It's a crazy idea.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Don't waste our time
Science by its very nature is an extremely elitist kind of human activity. Communicating science to a polarized public is not an issue, since communicating it to any kind of public is nearly impossible. The only way to communicate scientific knowledge it is withing an educational environment, be it a lecture hall, a seminar, or a private tutoring session. If we want more science in the state policy, we just need to vote for educated men and women!
Make it about the science only. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what makes you think that it is the way you think it is.
I think the real problem with, for example, talking about Global Climate Change, is that people don't discuss it as a scientific issue, but as a moral or political idea. If you're going to discuss science, discuss the science only, and then make sure everyone knows when you change the subject to politics or religion.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
After all, the polarity of the audience will reverse in the next two million years anyway.
I hope the summary is wrong, cause it makes this guy sounds like an idiot. Communications techniques borrowed from the political realm will not help to promote scientific understanding, because those techniques were not designed to promote understanding.
Politicians don't want you to understand them. They want you to feel like they understand you. They want you to feel protected by them, or to feel afraid of the other guy. The last thing any politician wants is to promote understanding.
The feelings politicians target with their communications techniques have no place in science. If you feel the Earth is 6000 years old, science isn't going to try to make you feel understood, because science doesn't understand your feelings. If the science says our climate is warming, it doesn't matter if you're happy all those wacky liberals in California are facing 100 years of drought. Science doesn't care.
it's not like we're moving into an era dominated by superstition
What's it like in your world? And can you beam me up? Cause down here on Earth, we're not moving into an era dominated by superstition; we're already there.
Seriously, you'll never convince some people simply because they're arrogant enough to believe that their world view (often tainted by religion) is inviolable. I actually knew of a geologist who was a Young Earth type: the Bible was literal truth, fossils exist only to test our faith, etc. etc. How he managed to get through academia with that foolishness rattling around in his head amazed me.
And this guy was working where I was at the time: Los Alamos National Laboratory, a place not known for hiring idiots (intentionally anyway).
The funny thing is these folks will complain that you're trying to change "their reality", as if reality was subjective, let alone theirs.
So I just tell people like this my honest opinions anymore: This topic simply cannot be understood by someone with your level of intellect.
Insulting? Well, tough shit. My reality is the objective one, and both it and I simply don't care.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Many viewpoints that are portrayed as anti-science are nothing of the sort.
Many people, for example, accept global warming while at the same time relying on economic estimates that say guarding against global warming would be more expensive than dealing with it. For rejecting a "Manhattan Project" sized government response they are dubbed "anti-science" even though they accept the science.
Likewise, people that are opposed to stem-cell research on ethical grounds are called "anti-science". These people, again, do not doubt that the science they oppose is sound. They have moral objections that should be easier to understand than the science, but evidently aren't.
Scientists often expect to be believed simply because they are scientists. This doesn't work, you have to present as much evidence on a comprehensible issue if you want to be believed. Regardless of this, there are always people who won't believe something, regardless of how widely believed or how (not) controversial it is. Intentional ignorance is unavoidable, sadly.
My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
This quote, about how science is actually done, is one I put on my quotable quotes page. It's worth reminding people that the "eureak" model of science is a little bit simplistic.
"The work of real science is hard and often for long intervals frustrating...
"Keep in mind that new ideas are commonplace, and almost always wrong. Most flashes of insight lead nowhere; statistically, they have a half-life of hours or maybe days. Most experiments to follow up the surviving insights are tedious and consume large amounts of time, only to yield negative or (worse!) ambiguous results.""
-Edward O. Wilson
"Scientists, Scholars, Knaves, and Fools," in American Scientist 86 (1998)
But, as has been pointed out by Michael White, journalism is more about a "good story" than about accuracy about how science is done.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I don't think that the whole evolution versus creationism business is as big a deal as you think. It's more a result of a minority of vocal activists attempting to hijack the system to fit their agenda. It gets a lot of media play because they make a lot of noise, but it's hardly a widespread attack on America's school systems.
Besides, the system does tend to be self correcting - a little bit of embarrassment goes a long way.
Lie, or Sex It Up.
May the Maths Be with you!
The problem isn't so much that the polarized religious factions in the US do not understand the science that is being presented to them. The problem is that they discount any science that contradicts with their beliefs. They put more stock in a 2000+ year old book than they do in any modern empirical scientific methods. Religion is a wonderful thing for providing a moral framework for individual interaction. Sadly, it has been molested by power-mongers and fanatics into a catalyst for war and ignorance.
Most science isn't controversial. But for some reason the right wingers like to ignore all of it -- not just evolution and cloning. I think they somehow think science is out to get them. I suppose if you make polluting
cars it is in a way.
nuts?
Doesn't that give their view a legitimacey they don't deserve? Wouldn't it be better to just resign yourself to the fact that certain people are just lost and that it's a waste of time trying to retrieve them?
As the old saying goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." It seems to me that people have had plenty of opportunity to get a hold of the water, especially in the age of the internet, but decided to go fro the Koolaid instead.
The other day, Barak Obama gave what may be the best speech in 100 years. He talked to Americans as though they were adults and not like the scared children George W. treats them like. www.huffingtonpost.com is full of comment on the speech. Given the way he handled the race problem, evolution and climate change should be a piece of cake for him.
Try to prove to some hard-religious people, using just pure logic (no need to go to obscure science), that that word have an internal contradiction (do something that can't be undone later, then there is something in some point that you can't do) is already pretty hard already (something similar could be done with most all-something attributes of any god). Evolution? things that happened more than 6000 years ago? Earth not center of creation? Thats even harder to see. Proof can be faked, devil could had put the tail, or just "dont believe", and, of course, as everything, must be seen with the right glasses.
"polarized" sounds like science talk, and Jesus don't want no science talk in this country
Can't we just use science to wipe out the non-believers? Wait, which side am I on again?
If you don't like the outcome of a test result, change the size of your poll, or change the population being tested. Many scientist throughout the history of mankind have done this, so to have many pollsters trying to take polls on political issues. 98% of the people polled say Obama needs to be the next President... Huh, you mean I have to poll people somewhere besides right next to an Obama rally that's letting out?
They bring their political worldviews and bias to the research and interpretations just like the rest of us bring to our work. Science acknowledges this inherent bias with techniques like double blinding and control groups that seek to remove these biases.
Scientific consensus has a history of being wrong on many fronts at any given time. Given time, the scientific method gets it right, because it is constantly changing to fit new observations. But at times, people have had everything from bleedings to thyroid irradiation, to hysterectomies based on scientific consensus that is later proven incorrect.
The hot-button issues are hot buttons for a reason. I am an atheist and agree with Dawkins on the blind watchmakers and other facts of evolution point away from an intelligent creator, but I no longer believe science will ever prove atheists are correct. I now understand that spirituality is a response to a nihilistic, pointless existence. Some people will always fill that void with some form of religion no matter how much science may prove that point.
And the global warming crowd seems way too tied up in non-scientific anti-capitalism and irrational hydrocarbon and nuclear hatred. And too many of the supposed outcomes are projected towards total Armageddon and wrapped in Malthusian hysteria, and just reeks of religion.
Perhaps scientists need to spend more time looking in the mirror, and less time figuring out how to talk down to the proles.
You need to lay down a lot of groundwork.
- Basic scientific method
- The need for any valid theory to be falsifiable
- Observation, observation and more observation
- Making predictions (and ACCEPTING the outcome... I'm looking at you, hurricane season predictors)
- Experimentation
- Just because some 2000 year old text says so does not make it true
You wouldn't think that last one would even be necessary with grown adults, you know?
Framing is, pure and simple, an underhanded political technique. To "frame" science, is an attempt to inject the political into scientific arguments; moreso, it's the reprehensible attempt to state a political _premise_ as the basis for a scientific argument. Political premises usually are _not_ irreducible absolutes; when they're presented as such, it's a lie. By basing scientific argument on a false _political_ absolute, and placing that political false-absolute outside the realm of the debate, they basically seek to argue from a false starting position, and one that benefits their argument and give the appearance of their not arguing dishonestly.
(Note that "spin" differs from "framing" in that "spin" is a misinterpretation of the facts. "Framing" attempts to misinterpret _reality_ so that when their "facts" are presented, everything fits. Spin is the equivalent of a fortune teller reading a tarot deck. Framing would be stacking that deck before it's read. It's still mysticism either way you look at it, but the latter tries to make it look as if their's only one way it could have played out in the first place.)
That's not science. Not by a long shot. Bad enough it happens in politics, even worse if the scientific community would sanction its creeping into scientific debate. They should be tarring it, feathering it, and riding it out of town on a rail. Framing science is the corruption of science. A way to gain agreement without actually doing the scientific work. It's lazy. It's evil.
I see no need to frame scientific debates. Facts are facts. Explain the facts. Answer questions according to the facts. Tell folks where or how to go and get the facts and see for themselves. Explain that what one wishes, hopes, feels or prays to will not change those facts. If one can see the facts, and doesn't accept them, they're a fool, there's no place for them _in_ scientific debate. Best to ignore them and let them live out their days in ignorance.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Belief in the veracity of this text is considered required, and disagreement is often punished. With contemporary western christian religions, you might lose some friends or get kicked out of a social group. Other religions aren't as gentle about apostates (viz. Islam, where it is a capital offence).
What Religion provides in exchange for the fealty of the adherent is not to be underestimated:
1. A universal belief system that doesn't change, and thusly requiring no critical thinking skills.
2. Said system provides meaning in a life where one is thrown at birth into a universe that seems to have none at all.
3. Most Importantly: it provides a social network for the care and upbringing of children.
4. Almost as importantly: it provides ancillary networks for the functioning of social services that fall outside the reach of government systems.
Science does nothing of the sort. Science gives us a mysterious universe where truth is only true until proven otherwise. Science separates the form of collective human existence (DNA, proteins, etc.) from the content of personal human existence (why am I here?). Science doesn't run daycare systems open to the public. Science doesn't run soup kitchens for the hungry, or set up bunks in the basement for the homeless, etc. From every direction, Science, as a social object, is distinctly different and uncompetitive with Religion.
This just touches on the complexity involved. "Selling" science to the "Masses" assumes the masses are predisposed to accept the Science "World". Clearly, in many nations, they are not, and one can't really blame them. In the USA when I needed daycare for my daughter, the public schools were a: filled and b: of very low quality. So we sent her to a daycare run by a Lebanese Christian church. We weren't Christian, and they were very "light" in their religious angles, and the schooling was very good. When my Brother in Law's roof blew off, people from "Church" helped him. I've been told that Hamas runs health clinics in Gaza. There's a "Catholic Relief Fund" but I've never heard of a "Physicist's Poverty Program" or a "Biology Homeless Solution".
As a consequence, it's not much of a stretch for the average human being to blow off the whole "critical thinking" deal and step in line with some mythology. It's not going to matter how you tart Science up. It's not lipstick on a pig, it's more like lipstick on "the empty void of provisional truth and the relentless churn of Testability, Repeatability and Occam's Razor - and falsifiability if you can afford it."
As a former science worker, I deplore the scientific illiteracy of the public, but especially the American Public who are so often willfully ignorant of science and critical thinking. Other countries vary - some are in the thrall of theocratic regimes others not. But making Science "more appealing" or "more interesting" is going to take a shift in social preferences and mores from the public, and a much deeper commitment to issues of compassion, social justice, and sociality as a whole on the part of Science. This could mean things like NOT WORKING FOR PEOPLE WHO BUILT ATOMIC WEAPONS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF DEATH, just as much as it is incumbent for Religion to stop with the "smiting" and "vanquishing" of heathens and apostates. Combine all THAT with Science in a short tight skirt, and you might actually get somewhere. Otherwise, you're fucked and wasting your time.
nuff said.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
First, write a brilliantly concise, simple and irrefutable essay on the neutrality and accessibility of the scientific process, how it has shaped the world today, brought about countless benefits and how it is not necessarily incompatible with religious/ spiritual belief.
Now copy it out on to a shovel. Take the shovel to your anti-science skepitc and invite them to read it. If they still act like morons, bludgeon them to death with it.
Make sure you use a permanent marker, so you can wash off the blood and bits of brains without erasing the text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_State_Board_of_Education
"On August 9, 2005, the Board approved a draft of science curriculum standards that mandated equal time for the theories of "evolution" and "intelligent design". This echoes a previous decision in Kansas. In 1999, the Board ruled that instruction about evolution, the age of the earth, and the origin of the universe was permitted, but not mandatory, and that those topics would not appear on state standardized tests. However, the Board reversed this decision February 14, 2001, ruling that instruction of all those topics was mandatory and that they would appear on standardized tests. On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe", [1] or what is known as "Methodological naturalism"
THAT makes it an issue.
http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/evolution-of-a-controversy-school-board-members-say-no-mas/
"You've heard the brewing haha. Four members of the Polk school board--Lofton, Kay Fields, Tim Harris and Hazel Sellers--were shocked, shocked!, when comments they made to a newspaper regarding the teaching of evolution ignited a firestorm of dismay and derision. What'd they say? Sample comment: "If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum. If [evolution] is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well." That's Lofton."
THAT makes it an issue.
"You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it"."
Nonsense. The purpose of this discussion isn't how to convince religious people that science disproves their religion, it's about how to "communicate" to a polarized audience. Communicate doesn't mean "convince".
You're not attempting to disprove anything, you're trying to disseminate accurate information in a way that a non scientist could understand.
1/5 of the world's population believe that Jinns make technology work. That a match works because their moon god wills it to work. Science has much to overcome
The role of religious fundamentalism in the US is exaggerated by the media, and the presence of an evil crackpot in the White House doesn't help.
The main reason science doesn't get taught effectively in the US is plain old laziness, apathy, and stupidity.
If the same proportion of secular parents gave a shit about their child's education as the proportion of religious nuts homeschooling their kids about how their grampa warn't no monkey this problem would largely be solved.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
No, I'm talking about when a "new discovery is made" which counters previous scientific belief when it is clear that the previous scientists belonged to some pre-disposed school of thought! The most howling example I can think of off the top of my head is the late Gene Shoemaker's "discovery" that moon craters were caused by impact. Duh! For his Ph.D. at Princeton (1960), Dr. Shoemaker conclusively showed that Barringer Meteor Crater, located near Winslow, Arizona, arose from a meteor impact. Shoemaker has done more than any other person to advance the idea that sudden geologic changes can arise from asteroid strikes and that asteroid strikes are common over geologic time periods. Previously, astroblemes were thought to be remnants of extinct volcanoes -- even on the Moon. -- Source
What about moon craters looked like volcanoes? But because the scientists were pre-disposed to Uniformitarianism, ignoring or rejecting Catastrophism as religious hogwash, they complete missed, ignored or re-engineered their observations to match their pre-disposition...
And people noticed! And they never forget. They don't consider that "good science", they consider it that science conformed to pre-disposition and bias. Once that trust is broken, it's hard to get it back. So when they hear "hard science" about Global Warming, they believe that the scientists are swayed by their agenda. And how can they determine if that sway is true or not?
Maybe we need some UberPanel, a Supreme Court of Science which renders rulings on the scientific validity of the findings. But, as we have seen, even Supreme Courts have their agendae. So what do we do? Does snopes.com cover this?
Nisbet focused on evolution, arguing that it needs to be framed as a method of societal advancement.
Isn't that how eugenicists look at it?
If you purposefully aim your science at religious fundamentalists you are only giving credence to their silly myths. Fine if you share these views, but scientifically dishonest if you do not.
How to communicate science to a national audience
1. Show the evidence.
. . . That's pretty much it.
How NOT to commmunicate science to a national audience
1. Tell the theory.
2. If people think "theory" = "guess", call them stupid.
3. Force children to learn that their parents' beliefs are wrong.
(The last step is essential if your goal is to NOT communicate science.)
Education.
A-Bomb
Many pundits made fun of his presentations but they worked because he didn't insult the audience.
I look at this issue this way.
1. Many of the people don't care, don't even try to inform them.
2. Don't insult the rest by assuming anything
3. Don't come at it from the angle that religious beliefs cloud their judgment, the approach I have seen from some anti-religious showed more ignorance than die-hard believers
The real questions, how to present this in school in an environment hostile to achievement? I think religions are the least of our problems with upcoming generations. The real problem is this idea that we cannot acknowledge the fact that some kids are genuinely better than others. Worse is getting past the idea that hard work really does pay off. I can't tell you how many kids won't put the effort forward because they are told it doesn't matter. Hell a school system which does not celebrate hard work is not going to do squat with science.
You were right in a way, keep the politicians away from science and the schools and the problem might solve itself. Politicians do as much if not more damage to the acceptance science than religious zealots... While one may not want it the other burdens it with too many requirements to overcome
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Don't forget to limit your explanation to no more than 2 sentences. Most of the population simply cannot understand any concept that takes more than 2 sentences.
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
This clearly requires a public education campaign. Saturate the media and highlight the scientific basis, background and theoretical conflicts with the various theologies in the world.
Here in the United States, I say we FUND this education campaign by... taxing the blasted churches.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
-- Robert Heinlein
Have gnu, will travel.
These things are like dominant genes...
Science is a "This is what we think is a good model for things we don't understand, until we find a better model". That is, everything in science is true until proven otherwise, and its an EXTREMELY important part of science. Religion, and other such beleifs, are presented as universal fact (note that "bad" scientists do this too, so its not limited to religious zealots...though bad science could be called a religion, too).
So you have on one side things that are rigid, presented as raw fact, and on the other, something flexible that can change anytime, and has as its FOUNDATION a "you may prove it wrong if you know better". So obviously, the rigid "facts" will be pushed as a "we know better".
A lot of things in life are like that. Take western culture, which embraces (officialy anyway...in practice its something else sometimes) all cultures, then you have mid eastern culture, which is extremely close minded. So you have an increase in the mid eastern culture, as it will inevitably spread faster.
Flexible and "open minded" things will always get eaten alive by the close minded who push harder. Heck, the only way science ever goes through lately is when legislation gets in the way...because then science lowers itself to a point where it does the same thing religion does.
I have a coworker- a very smart, phD, educated individual. We just had an argument with several other smart, phD level individuals joining in about a very simple topic: Water.
Hard water, in fact. He discovered a website that purports to soften water by wrapping several lengths of wire around a copper pipe and applying a secret pulsed 9 volt charge. The effect is to make the hard water appear 'soft' and feel 'soft', without the use of salts and ion-exchange media. The effect is temporary, the site claims, and reverts to the same previous hardness within 24 hours.
Did I mention he's a very smart individual?
His point: "Something happens. My hands don't crack".
My point: Just where the hell do you think the ions go? South for the winter?
At this point several of the other brilliant individuals grabbed my hard drive magnets to put on their copper pipes because they'd also heard of 'magnetic softening' and wanted to try it out.
Hope your day is better than mine.
The problem is complicated.
1. Being right doesn't necessarily mean you'll win the argument. If people don't understand the argument, don't understand the basic ideas being discussed, or more to the point don't *want* to understand the underlying ideas, you can talk until you're blue in the face and they won't get it. Try to explain to a three year old why you can't afford to buy the $200 LEGO toy by discussing mortgage payments and your salary some time. If you expect to win on logic alone, you're misunderstanding the whole basis of rhetoric.
2. Science and advertising don't mesh well because science isn't constant. Consequently, scientists aren't comfortable making absolute statements. Doctors often are, and that's one reason doctors as a group are often mistrusted for what individual doctors have said -- when a doctor says "carbohydrates are responsible for weight gain" and other doctors say "no, fat is!" it reduces trust by the public in all doctors. Research that indicates one thing today, might be reversed by something that indicates a contradictory thing tomorrow. That's how science works: it changes. It's never Right, but always the best description of what we know at any moment, subject to what we find tomorrow.
Well, that's not what most people are looking for. They're looking for a mechanistic, deterministic way to live their lives: do this procedure, and this will be the result. The idea of an open-ended, changing target is not something people are comfortable with. If given a choice between a non-deterministic view of the world and a deterministic one, people will choose the deterministic one because it gives them a feeling of control over their lives and everyone wants that.
Religion gives people a feeling of determinism: you do these things, say these things, and you'll be a Good Person.
The point being: the best we can hope for is to not be ignored by most people, and probably the best way to do that is use the techniques that psychology and business have found are most effective for convincing people to take an interest in a subject: marketing. That sucks, because it feels like a sham way to convince people of stuff that should be obvious. But that's just how most people are, and we need to accept it.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"I for one am very impressed at how many scientific "facts" get shot down by new evidence every week, at least in the area of cosmology(is cosmology the right term?)."
Name some AC. I realize I'm responding to an AC, who is most likely AC because they believe in fairy tales but don't want to admit it so you post AC with an observation of how many "facts" get shot down every week.
So now that we all know what the real deal is, name some of those "facts" AC. You talk about the importance of discerning between facts and theories, but I bet most of those "facts" you think were "facts" were never presented to you as anything other than theories, ESPECIALLY if they're regarding "cosmology".
Are you sure you're not intentionally confusing them in a weak attempt to make scientists, and science in general, appear wishy washy and willing to jump to conclusions?
If slashdot is any indication of the communication skills and social expectations of scientists then I think the scientists might be the ones that need to develop an understanding -- of people. People are not always logical. Even technical people are influenced by emotion. I offer as evidence OS preference flame wars -- if we were purely logical we would just share FACTS regarding each OS and not get into flame wars (but it's just the OTHER people being illogical, right?).
In the context of this article, what is the goal of communication? It it just to convey information or to convince people or to persuade them to take some action? Whatever the goal is you need to realize that some people won't listen/agree/act and that doesn't necessarily make them idiots. Try to see if from their point of view: you hear some guy claiming to be very qualified saying something you don't quite understand that possibly conflicts with your world view. What are you going to do? Get your own Ph.D. and do your own research so you can see if the guy really knows what he's talking about? No, you've got your own life to live so you've just got to decide at the time -- Is this something I need to care about? Is this guy really qualified? Is he biased AGAINST what I believe in a way that would influence his interpretation of the facts? Is he being paid to say this? I'm sure most of you ask yourself these questions when you hear about research "proving" something you don't agree with (or "disproving" something you did agree with).
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
A polarized public is to be expected, given the lack of good science.
WTF? 90% of us are just fine. It's the 10% of idiots on either side of any issue who won't STFU that are "polarized."
What?
Let's not paint every American with the same brush - there's a hell of a lot of us whom are appalled at the state of things here...
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
>No matter how brilliantly, concisely, clearly, and interestingly you present the scientific facts, they will hold no sway over one who is utterly and dogmatically committed to a diametrically contrary belief.
True. Too bad the scientists don't have those facts, or choose to ignore the facts for their own agendas far too often. Or, sell out to the largest grant donor. Makes it very difficult to convince the "other side" when it's clear the opinions-results-"facts" being presented are based on the predetermined outcome you chose to support.
If that isn't the case, why do we have loud, hateful debates over things like global warming, where both sides claim "science" as their source of information? Talk about "dogmatically committed to a diametrically contrary belief".
>In short, what we need to be teaching is not science, but its underpinnings--rational thought and analysis. Until people learn to willingly employ those there truly is no hope.
Could not agree more. But again, most "scientists" are just as dogmatic when it comes to their beliefs as "religious people". Take the question of carbon dating, whether it's accurate or not. Do you suppose people bother to take a rational look at the data, or do they just REACT, with one side saying "obviously they're lying" and the other say "obviously they're nutjobs" without even considering empirical information?
Questioning the basis on which your version of "rational" is based is far too unsettling for most people to be bothered with. It would be better if one applied objective analysis to the study of one's religion/belief system, be it protestant, physics, psychology, or more. But it's a subjective topic, and people are gullible as well.
I would add, until people get over whining that "all truth is relative", no argument can be won regardless of the preponderance of fact, history, or any other source of information.
The problem is, without absolute truth, what is "true for me" is whatever I want to be allowed to get away with. Absolute truth brings right and wrong, and with that comes personal responsibility. Good luck with that in today's society.
Every discussion is framed, grasshopper. You only get to choose the frame.
Have celebrities on who need to guess why something is the way it is or what something is given multiple choices and make sure the guest celebrities are witty as are the hosts. Wild, colourful sets also required. Imagine the old Hollywood Squares focussing on just one or two topics ranging from heart disease to tofu cooking. Include short segments interviewing experts in the field and carry out experiments and trials with outside people as well as the guests.
Japanese TV has perfected this means of science (and other) general knowledge education through two shows my family watches all the time:
Tameshite Gatten! (Try it and Discover)
Sekai Ichiban Uketai Jugyou. (World's best/most useful/want to learn classes)
We learn a ton of practical, interesting things whilst laughing our asses off.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
Part of the problem is that we don't teach science, we teach a little biology, a little chemistry, a little physics....
What we need to do is give a broader picture that covers the gamut. It's easy for creation scientists [yes, an oxymoron] to play at the edges of science and convince people who don't see it as a whole.
I mean, how many ways are there to prove the universe is older than 6,000 years old? If you refuse to accept one of these ways, the whole scientific structure would fall apart -- it's all tied together. Pull one string out and it'd all fall apart.
Écrasez l'infâme
There's something like a Physicist's Poverty Program: Medecins sans Frontieres (yes, I know, Physician != Physicist). Doctors and nurses well versed in the scientific method who perform critical work in areas where no one else dares to work. Similarly, there are a number of goodwill operations and charitable works being done by scientists.
Though your point is well taken: Science itself offers no hope or social network. Religion does.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Everyone needs a refresher course in scientific method. Maybe a simple test everyone can do...
Place a ball in a room with the "non believer". Walk into another room with them. Come back into the room with the ball. It should be in the same place you left it. Point out this fact. Ask them to think about why it is in the same spot.
Now sit in a chair and send them into the room again. Get up, move the ball. Sit back in the chair and ask them to come back in. Ask them about the ball. How did it change location? Anyone sensible would assume you did. Point out that they didn't see you move it, so how can they be sure? Well, the theory is based on the person's knowledge of how a ball can change locations, and all the other factors in the room. For one, a person was in the room. Taking all into consideration, one can surmise that I moved the ball. You can't be 100% sure of this, having not seen me or video recorded evidence of such, but it's the most logical explanation. And unfortunately, in logical things, you aren't allowed to say you are 100% sure unless you have 100% of the facts in place.
It's not "faith" that they believe I moved it. It's science based on extrapolating from known facts. The end result is not 100% secure, and therefore has to be called a "theory". Dismissing evolution theory is like saying a ghost moved the ball in my scenario. Maybe if someone is not smart enough to understand science, they should put their trust in those who are.
Even gravity is a theory. We know it exists but cannot explain all of the mechanisms involved. We understand it enough to be able to fly airplanes despite it, and chart planetary orbits, etc. There are holes in gravity theory. Should we dismiss it and teach "divine attraction" instead?
"Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?"
Well, mostly because that's what science does.
"As far as I can tell, this would only benefit the religious as a marker for what they don't have to believe in or allow taught."
No, it would benefit a scientist by allowing them to remain true to their ethics and principles.
"Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?"
I honestly couldn't care less. Drawing equivalence between my behavior and that of religious zealots has never been a concern for me, and how they choose to go about delivering their message has no bearing on how I deliver mine.
Science doesn't hide things because they're uncomfortable. Science doesn't avoid difficult questions because the answers may be unpleasant.
It sounds very much like you're advocating the same kind of half-truth and obfuscation based propaganda of the church, and I reject that garbage as vehemently as I am able.
So the answer to "Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?" is "Because those conflicts exist, and science isn't about hiding from things you don't like or can't deal with."
They need to feel embraced by Nature and Nature's God. Randomness and chaos scares them.
We should point out that each and every random mutation obeys the Laws of Chemistry and the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Mathematics as far as we know.
That mutations happen in accordance with Natural Laws.
Are the Laws of Chemistry random? No, they derive from the Laws of Physics. Are the Laws of Physics random? We do not know, many physicists say they seem "dialed in," so this question is still in the province of metaphysics, and far removed from questions regarding biological evolution. This should be taught in a way that does not smell of a passed buck; students should be encouraged to explore these questions with faculty whose subjects are closer to physics and philosophy.
From mathematics, biology teachers should teach a proper understanding of the word "random." That random processes can at least be modeled with mathematics, and math is all about Laws and Proofs and other certainties which should appeal to the Lawful Good Authoritarian mindset. Get out the 2d6 and show how 7 is the peak of their Gaussian distribution! That "random" is not scary at all and obeys Mathematical Laws.
As an aside, usually the Republicans promote freer markets. If you can understand Adam Smith, you can understand biological evolution! Crappy companies go out of business, crappy species go extinct. Public tastes are often inexplicable and at least as random as any mutation (the solution space is larger, as a base pair can mutate to only one of three other pairs). Many ideas of trade and evolution are quite parallel, even running on the same conceptual engine, selfishness.
The selfishness of genes leads directly to Cain's Question and answers in the affirmative: from the gene's viewpoint we are certainly our brother's keeper.
Stipulating some game theoretic insights, many other Moral Laws can be derived - the Prisoner's Dilemma brings forth some reasons for cooperation.
And always, when a student's question is really beyond what the teacher and even science knows, the answer should be "I don't know" or "we don't know." Honesty and no buck passing! They may need a knowledge gap to house their God, and a militantly agnostic attitude should be taken by teachers when the students ask Those Big Questions. Did God "dial in" the physical constants? We do not know we are literally agnostic.
I wonder if there really is a drive against science in the United States or if it's just sensationalism on the part of the media. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't believe in evolution, the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and that the earth orbits the sun and that neither are at the center of the universe. And they would think it's preposterous to think otherwise. And the beliefs same regardless of whether or not they're religious.
Perhaps I live in the wrong part of the country, but I still think there's a bit of sensationalism going on here. I've found people to be informed, to varying degrees of course, thanks to television and especially the internet. A quick search of the internet can uncover quite a bit of information, and disinformation as well, I'll admit.
What I've found interesting while living in Asia is how much more pervasive spirituality and religion is there. It's embedded in the culture. Astrology there is more complex and taken more seriously there. You can buy books on how to use spiritual guides to help win the lottery. They still believe in things like phrenology. I can't count the times I've heard people say that a taller forehead means you're more intelligent. In China a school recently stated that kids with flatter heads were more apt to do poorly in school. Pretty much any part of someone's body can supposedly signify something.
No one really seems to question it. They just see it as another way to view the world I guess. And these notions are prevalent everywhere in east Asia, even in Japan. I'm not passing judgment one way or another, but pointing out that this certainly isn't unique to the United States.
Although I admit recent efforts to force creationism into the science class is concerning, to say the least. And while I think something needs to be done to stop that sort of nonsense I don't think it's a major problem yet. I'm more concerned about influences from popular culture. Look at all the attention given to garbage like American Idol. I'm more concerned about celebrities and athletes get all the attention but we barely hear anything about science and technology. We don't hear anything in the popular media about all the scientific progress being made and the valuable role scientists play in our society.
There really is only one big thing lacking in the way science is communicated, honesty. How many 'science' articles have you read in mainstream media lately that actually presented the true scientific study, rather than extrapolation or analysis? Even here on Slashdot, a presumably more science savy site, the summary and headlines read like the recent 'room temperature superconductor' article. The actual science hadn't discovered anything of the sort, a better summary would've been another step closer to room temperature, but still a long ways to go.
Even laymen aren't as stupid as many in the science crowd might believe. After being told that fusion power, flying cars and fabulous discovery X are just 10 years away for multiple decades, some cynicism sets in. If articles could just present the honest progress and verified science that really has been done, everyone would be the better for it. People shouldn't be expected to have to go in and read the scientific journal for every new science article they read just understand what really has and has not been discovered.
I've riffed on this a little bit in one of my own sites, but always find this an interesting topic so I'll re-hash. Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness talks about research showing that we see things with greater clarity "now" than in the "distant past" in much the same way we see things with detail closer up than things far away. I think one has to understand that it's uncomfortable for most people to think about things in the distant past in a detailed way. So if it doesn't effect my day-to-day life to think that the earth is 6000 years old (and to be realistic it doesn't effect most people's day to day life) then I've got no good reason to put myself through the discomfort of trying to visualize the evolutionary or cosmological process over millions and billions of years. To that end I think the key is going to be, as the authors of the original article seem to point out, finding common ground, and finding life relevant applications for this information.
David Sloan Wilson has some interesting things to say on the subject of religion, the "new atheists" and evolution (for those who don't know who he is, he's an atheist and evolutionary biologist who has written a couple books like Darwin's Cathedral and Evolution for Everyone). I think I can sum up part of one of his arguments in his recent Huffington Post series as "If you say 'screw them, we'll make them bow to the truth of our science' you lose the moral high-ground." In much the same way saying "their evil so it's OK if we torture THEM" does the same thing for a nation.
There's a problem with high-level scientific understanding, and that's that it is high-level. To "prove" to somebody X or Y you've got to first insure that they know enough about the subject to understand your argument (and the facts) in the first place. Because the vast majority of the population doesn't have an inclination, or vested interest in learning enough about science, or religion for that matter, they have to make the call on who to believe. For the most part what, to me, the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd seem to be saying is "trust us, we're scientists, the facts are on our side" in the same way that religious leaders say "trust us, we're pastors, God is on our side." Well, if my Grandmother told me God was right and Richard Dawkins told me Science was right, if I'm not getting too deep in personal investigation of the subjects, I'm more inclined to listen to the nice old lady than the prickly obnoxious scientist.
It's like the old saying (which has probably been mythbustered) "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." When we can make science useful and relevant to people's every day life, it's easier to teach it. And if you're competing with a church experience that, for all its flaws, includes friends who come take care of you when you're sick, and ask you how you're doing every weekend at services, and all of the GOOD things that religious experience brings to people's lives you're going to have a tough time selling a few crotchety atheists as ambassadors. To take an evolutionary tact with the same thought, how are you going to compete with groups of people that provide a medium to meet and breed (prolifically) with people of like beliefs. I'm not sure the numbers, but if your average atheist couple has 1.2 kids, and your average Christian couple has 2.3 kids you're going to have to win somebody over to not be overwhelmed by their numbers. I don't think Dawkins wins over many converts to athiesm because he preaches to the choir (to use a church metaphor).
wordtrip.com
a bi-polarized US audience?
It's sad that losers like you get shut the fuck up in public, so have to resort to modding me down for no reason in private.
Pretty easy, just as long you don't polarize the info you're communicating on a perpendicular plane.
What I'm getting at is that you can't communicate to some people, regardless of how good your data is, your evidence, or your argument.
That is not strictly true. You can't communicate with argument, true, but you can always communicate. When you meet a real hard case, then perhaps you can flatly say "Oh yeah." and smile mysteriously.
If a person flat out refuses to hear counter to their belief because of "faith", there is nothing you can do. Faith is, after all, accepting something as fact which observation and evidence prove to be false.
I know this is a common idea of faith. I can't disagree because language has a democratic quality to it. Nonetheless, I believe that the root of faith is about being strictly true to your own experience of things at a deep level. Since their is a painful quality to expressing arrogant behaviour, if one is strictly true to their experience, one will let go of arrogance of all kinds. That pretty much negates beliefs of all kinds, since it's impossible to "know" something. One can only have ideas about things.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I can't help but wonder if there are degrees of biblical literalism. Is he only counting the "young earther" believers? Is he counting the "Jesus was walking around a few days after the government murdered him" believers? Is he counting the "This God character actually exists in Real Life" believers?
And even among non-biblical-literalists, there's still a US Imperial Shitload of room for paranormal belief. I guess I'm one of those intolerant schism-makers, but I think that if a mind believes that-which-cannot-be-detected, then any study that relies on detection (i.e. all science) is going to be untrusted. If you're a mystic, whether you think the planet is 6000 years old or you think that black cats perpendicularly exude an invisible malignant force, then science doesn't mean anything.
For example, suppose I describe the operation of a modern computer, but deny the existence of electricity, because for whatever reason, I'm just not aware of electricity. If I really apply myself, I might come up with a consistent model, with maybe a few incomplete "damn, I just don't know" parts. If you know about electricity, though, my model isn't going to be merely "wrong" to you: it's going to be ridiculous and useless, because its very premise is wrong. If I make a bunch of clever and insightful conclusions from an utterly wrong premise, my process might be kind of neat, but my result is useless and doesn't tell you anything about the real world.
Well, that's how a mystic sees science. Science is blissfully unaware of gods or leprechauns, because these things have never been detected. So science's models don't have these things (from a mystic's point of view, the premise is flawed), and starts with a "damn, I just don't know" 14 billion years ago. If you do know about gods or leprechauns, though, because you have access to information that isn't detectable (i.e. faith), then the model is useless. The scientific explanation of evolution is as rock-solid as the explanation for gravity, but it's only internally consistent. It's an excellently engineered castle built on the sand.
It's all well and good to talk hypothetically about gravity when leprechauns aren't around, or evolution when God isn't around, but those are cases that don't exist in the real world. We know, through faith, that dragons and The Afterlife and ladders that curse people who walk under them, all exist, so for science to reach conclusions without being based on these things, is ultimately pointless. Why are we even talking about the incremental selection from a varied pool of genes, causing life to change, when we damn well know that elves were there all along, and were both motivated to and capable of design lifeforms? What a waste of time.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Wow, that was poorly phrased and reveals .. I guess I just outed myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic. But what I should have said was: "suppose I describe the operation of a computer, but my description does not contain electricity, because for whatever reason, I'm just not aware of electricity."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It is polarized precisely because there is legitimate disagreement within science itself about what is 'good' science and what's not, when the paradigm chosen has direct and immediate consequences in politics, economics, sociology, philosophy and religion. I am all for objective and evidentialist presentation of all the relevant facts that support one's theory, but not for the Lysenkoist politizing of science (i.e. of the truth itself) and the persecution of those who disagree with your paradigm, and suppression of their voices from science--something all too common in modern science.
In keeping with the political notion, I think the biggest problem is that, like everything else in the US, there is no middle ground. We drive people to make uneducated choices simply so they can buy the t-shirt and blindly root for their 'team'.
We are constantly told that if we're not in favor of fighting overseas, then we're in favor of terrorism. If we believe in a god of some sort, then we have to be anti-science. That if we're not 'for the children' then we're automatically against them.
And how much have we actually proven, versus simply not being able to disprove? Does my belief that the theory of evolution is probably correct somehow prohibit me from seeking a spiritual understanding of the world around me?
One of the wondrous aspects of the human mind is the ability to operate equally well in the realm of concrete truths (fire is hot) and the the realm of imagination or unprovable concepts (is fire hot and why? What if it weren't?). And yet, we do all that we can to divorce ourselves from this in favor of being either-or.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
The scientific belief is that the universe is ordered according to principles and that those principles are knowable. Science tells us both how things work, and why we know. Science also has a lot to say about why things are the way they are.
For example:
We might be able to say why air has weight - but not at the ultimate level. Weight is associated with mass and gravity. The elementary particles of air have mass. Since the air particles are in a gravity field, they have "weight". But our "why" reasoning breaks down at fundamental levels, such as why things have mass altogether. At this point, we point to intrinsic properties, and how it is that we know them.
So science does goes a great distance with the "why". Ultimately this is the exploration of the natural world that kicks off when a child first starts to ask the question.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You cannot hope to give a country better leadership than it deserves. If people are stupid, they will elect the likes of Bush and Clinton.
So, focus on science while you can in this country and forget about the rest.
I think if scientists would show some humility and simply present their findings instead of trying to interpret them for everybody, politicize them, and insult everyone at the same time, people would be a lot more accepting of the evidences they have discovered.
For example, instead of saying, "the Earth is getting warmer and it's all our fault", leave off the "it's all our fault" part since there is a lot to suggest that simply isn't true.
When someone points out that temperatures on other moons and planets in our solar system have also increased in temperature, and we don't live there, don't discount it. When someone points out that ocean temperatures have not risen as expected, don't discount it. As a scientist, observe and be willing to change your beliefs as new data comes in rather than warping or discounting that data to fit your pre-conceived agenda.
Science should be a never-ending search for fact and truth and at no point along the way should scientists decide that there is no more evidence to be had and close the door on a subject. That is when truth will elude us.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
He's rolling.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2008/03/19/5047676-ca.html
"If a person walks on water, they'll sink."
Really? Up in Canada we regularly walk on water, although usually only from November to March. Now if you remember Christ was around 2,000 years ago before all this global warming....
On a more serious note though it illustrates the point that, looked at in a different context, things are not always as impossible as they may at first seem.
Do you assert that you know more about CO2 emissions than climate scientists?
Furthermore, do you not acknowledge that an ozone whole formed over Antarctica and NZ? The whole is no longer growing precisely *because* of international action that didn't really cost that much at all.
Finally, would you prefer to have a few more hundred dollars in your pocket now, at the cost of gambling with the stability of the human race in 50 years?
If you have already thought all that through, and you really do know best about CO2 emissions, then you should publish a paper. Perhaps you'll win the Nobel Prize for setting so many scientists straight. Or maybe you believe that the scientists will ignore your paper when they know they can't refute it, and get their powerful political cronies to shut you down. Oh wait, I'm describing Exxon's public relations campaign about global warming.
There is an old expression: fool me once, shame you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once upon a time some lobbyists were spreading disinformation on behalf of the tobacco companies about the science of lung cancer. Cynics would say that they murderously didn't want the public to know that smoking could kill them. The very same lobbyists are doing the same job with climate science.
So either:
So, which is it?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
A scientist might say careful and extensive testing fails to falsify hypothesis A, and theory A implies that policy B would be beneficial to mankind. Therefore, I will teach mankind scientific thinking, and B will obviously happen... ( 4. Profit! )
An engineer might say (1) so many dollars or hours of scientific education will cause x% of the populace to embrace theory A and act on policy B, (2) so many dollars or hours of (scientifically tested) political rhetoric will convince y% of the populace of the same, and (3) for similar efforts: y% > x%. Therefore (4), screw science education, rhetorical methods works better in getting the populace to "understand" theory A, and act on important policy B.
Or some such...
Try to prove to some hard-pseudo-scientific people that using just pure logic (no need to go into advanced rhetoric) that simultaneosly believing in the deconstructionist "standard-model" of quantum physics and the experimental theory of general relativity would have an internal contradiction. They're general response is to equivocate enough that you can hear all the general logical debate flaws (attacking the messenger, strawmen arguments, etc) all in a period of 1 to 2 minutes... Tell me that isn't something to behold...
I always tell people, nobody has the answers and the hard-pseudo-scientists that claim the scientific religion does have the answers and they shouldn't be questioned are pretty much origin-of-species-thumping folk that are essentially right next to the bible-thumping folks that are they have so much of an issue with.
Sure, I'll concede that 6000 years is wrong, but the only thing that science has going for it that religion doesn't have is that religion (at least most of them) are for better or worse tied to something that was written down a thousand or so years ago. Some of the tenants seem pretty good, some are wrong. If you looked at a so-called scientific textbook from just 100 years ago and tried to make the case that science is always right, well you'd be in the same boat as many of those religious folks are today defending a document or a status quo.
Which brings me to my real point. Science is about theory explaining observations and testability. It's not about true and false. So the people who argue Science is right and religion is wrong are just as wrong as the religious people. It's always nice to have people who agree with you, but really good science is about prediction not about being right. In science, a better theory that has better predictive power may come along, but that doesn't necessarily completly invalidate the previous work (think newtonian mechanics and special relativity). Science is not about immortalizing the current state of the art, it's a mechanism to gain greater predictive power for the future.
Evolution (in the sense of modern man evolving from a common ancestor as modern apes as opposed to generic evolution) is in the true scientific sense only vaguely scientific because, we aren't really actually actively testing this theory directly (mostly because the timescale makes it impractical), and we aren't observing or repeating it (it's an expost-facto observation of historical fossil records), although evolution in its generic form seems to somewhat good at explaining thing (timeframes are still tough to manage here except for things like bacterica). Of course generic evolution as well as Evolution seems to be a very, very good compelling theories for explaining where we come from, but there doesn't seem to be a good case to call it good hard core science (for instance compare this to the photo-electric effect, superconductors, or drug effectiveness evaluation on patients, or even rats running in a maze listening for sounds of their feet, if you recall one of the Richard Feynman's antecdotes on the subject).
In my opinion, having "good" scientists strap their wagons to Evolution as the prototypical science theory actually does a disservice as it's not exactly the best example of what a prototypical scientfic theory would be (have predictive power and be repeatable in our lifetime) if the goal were to actually educate or convince the public about the value of science. Of course most people that front Evolution as the prototypical science theory often have other agendas, so I guess they're free to do whatever they want, but in my book they aren't actually advancing science or the understanding of science at all.
Science often falls in to the same trap that lawmakers end up in. The more extreme the case you use as the example, the worse the law to apply to it becomes. Maybe it's hard to get people excited about the photo-electric effect as science but that's a much better thing to front that some over-arching theory about Evolution.
TFA: [re: Ken Miller] There are few people better placed to discuss the often-messy intersection between science and religious faith.
There is no intersection, messy or otherwise. They are orthagonal -- entirely independent. It is only as vocal few of the religious that want to force their world view as acceptable as science, or worse, to supplant science. Miller, an author of both science and theology (his own Catholic thinking anyway), falls prey to the thinking they are not independent and should be somehow reconciled. There are plenty of people who both understand science and have religious leanings who have no problem with either and who manage to keep them separate. Science writers should thus focus on the science, not blur the view by trying to be inclusive of two entirely different ways of looking at the world.
Writers for popular media are especially prone to convolve the two because of the "controversy" which exists in part because they insist it does in their writing, thereby helping create (or at best, exacerbate) the "controversy" because it makes good copy. As science writers, if they feel the need to include both, should do so in historical terms. Sagan does so in "Cosmos", reporting the facts that religious extremists in (among others) Ionian Greece, Alexandria and Italy imposed their world view onto science and scientific thinking, forcing them into exile. If they did this, they'd make themselves more aware of the danger of not keeping them separate, a danger which they make more likely to come to pass whether in their ignorance or in their attempts to sell ad space.
Ironically, it is the Catholic church that is one of the few religious groups who now hold that the two ways of thinking are separate. The Jesuits, and often the Vatican also, tackle scientific issues on their own terms, stating that they "intersect" only at the object of their scrutiny, the mysteries of the universe. They hold that doing so illustrates the beauty of creation, honoring a creator. Einstein held a personal world view not very different. But in keeping the two otherwise separate they allow people to accept this reason for doing science, or to appreciate those mysteries for their own sake. For example, the Vatican held a conference on scientific cosmology, noting in particular Stephen Hawking's contribution. They are comfortable with thinking such as:
Judeao-Christrian cosmology: In the beginning... God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
Modern scientific cosmology: In the beginning [the Big Bang happened; why?, and ] there was light.
Same universe, same phenomenon, and the result is allowed to have one or the other causation applied, not forced to overlap, nor to have one supersede the other. They make no denials that the hope the latter leads people to consider the former, and possibly become comfortable with it or even embrace it, but they do not require this.
All this is very different from the present "controversy", which centers primarily around attempts by power hungry extremists using religion for their own purposes, as has often happened throughout history. They attempt to force their belief system to be accepted as equal to, if not superior to, scientific thinking on the same subject. They do not attempt to allow the two to coexist, as their intent is not to promote religion but to force their world view on others. This unjustly gives religion a bad name, as does journalism that fails to keep them separate. In this sense, religious writers who promote the open mindedness of their religions have it more right than the science writers who (usually unwittingly) actually promote the problem by insisting there's a "controversy".
Science does not insist that religion is an invalid world view, only that (as a set of presumptions or preconditions) it is not to be used in science. Religious belief does not require one to accept the tenets of a religion at the expense of science. Anyone coming from either viewpoint who tries to reconcile them is at best making a mi
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Not sure your proposed experiment is really teaching anything about science. Try this...
Place a ball in a room with the "non believer". Walk into another room with them. Come back into the room with the ball. It should be in the same place you left it. Point out this fact. Ask them to think about why it is in the same spot.
Now sit in a chair and send them into the room again. Get up, move the ball. Sit back in the chair and ask them to come back in. Ask them about the ball. How did it change location? Anyone sensible would assume you did. Point out that they didn't see you move it, so how can they be sure? Well, the theory is based on the person's knowledge of how a ball can change locations, and all the other factors in the room.
Now get them to propose an experment to test the theory that you moved the ball. Perhaps the tie you up in the chair and shoot you dead. They then go out of the room and back again, will the ball move? Perhaps have them run the experiment and get the result. Ah, maybe then they will be convinced.
Thought experiments about what could happen and logical explainations are nice, but eventually you have to actually have a testable experiment to gain faith from the theory. For all you know God could have moved the ball. By repeating their experiment, they can deduce that you were the one that originally move the ball, but they can't be 100% secure in that result.
That is science.
It is neither faith nor belief.
It is a supposition.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Once we figure out how to communicate physical science to people blinded by religion or politics, can we then figure out how to communicate economics to people blinded by religion and politics?
In particular, why are so many scientists and technologists typically ignorant of the basics of economics?
be communicated. It will communicate itself. Societies which dont stick to that process will go down in history. We live in a globalized world, and should i feel (i am a scientist) that I would be asked funny questions about articles i collaborate on, i would leave - actually the ignorance sometimes expressed towards scientists in the US is a bias not to go there. I accept if somebody asks me "what do you think are the consequences of your work?", but in the moment somebody says to me, "Gott wuerfelt nicht" (quoting Einstein: translated to "God doesn't roll a dice"), so why are you busy with quantum mechanics? I would just say good bye. As a physicist i have the priviledge to be rather far away from such religious questions, because right now last century physics is a big success. Everybody has a device with billions of switching elements based on modern physics in his pocket most of the time. So more intelligent people would not deny that physics, which is needed for to the most complex system working on earth (the internet), is not something which you should deny one second later, when discussing climate change etc. But as i said, evolution of societies will settle this thing.... (E.g. seen the brain-drain in Russia right now)
"Grasshopper" is condescending.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
> after our history teaches
not much, i'm afraid:-(
> GW (with all the fud put out by oil companies
or al gore...and i just ran across this:
"using satellite data combined with a small model, Spencer finds that
changes in cloudiness appear to drive changes in temperature. If this is
so, Spencer suggests, this means that models have fundamentally mixed up
cause and effect."
http://reason.com/news/show/125323.html
> It is religious groups that are killing America. Hopefully we bounce back from it.
or secular religionistas:
"While Title IX has been effective in promoting women's participation in
sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to
the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of
Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title
IX to mean that women are entitled to "statistical proportionality."
That is to say, if a college's student body is 60 percent female, then
60 percent of the athletes should be female--even if far fewer women than
men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic
directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as
men. To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits,
they have simply eliminated men's teams. Although there are many factors
affecting the evolution of men's and women's college sports, there is no
question that Title IX has led to men's participation being calibrated
to the level of women's interest. That kind of calibration could
devastate academic science."
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man
This concept requires good scientists, not a bunch of politically motivated B-student PhD's chasing government grants to act as an arm of the DNC.
You can't take the sky from me...
Fuzzy math!
From the way the question was posed, I can tell the writer is biased and is trying to get me to believe in something. Solar cycles exist, it is proven, we can observe, study, model them. The weather exists, we observe that too. Anthropogenic global warming. Sorry, that is the religion of the left. It is something that they believe in just as fervently as the most religious adhere to their convictions. The author whines asking "Why don't they believe me?!" Because you are using data, combining it with faith and preaching it. Sorry, I am not interested in your religion.
If I presented to you a list of cold, hard, facts. What the hell do I care if you don't believe me. Guess what, water is wet, the earth is round and it orbits the sun... If some idiot wanted to dispute these issues, what the hell do I care. If their ignoring the facts has no bearing or impact on me whatsoever.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
He's building a straw man just to tear it down. The issues according to evangelicals was EMBRYONIC Stem Cells and not using federal funding to create new human life just to destroy it for medical research. But this entire argument quickly became moot because scientists found other methods of obtaining the exact stem cells the desired using other means. SO, there IS federal funding for Stem Cell research, and nobody is or has been opposing it. This entire issue is resolved but for the fact that the members of the religion of science want to keep using it against the "evangelicals" in order to paint them as ignorant heathens who need to enter reeducation camp.
Notice how the author doesn't point out that it was EMBRYONIC stem cells, and tries to make the point that them damned evangelicals are against researching cures for paralysis.
Yeah, you want me to pay attention to your science writing? Stick to the facts. Be accurate, don't use straw men to make your argument. Present the facts and let the people judge. This whining is indicative of those who wish to indoctrinate people and can't understand "Why aren't they BELIEVING ME?!"
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Yes, writing can be overdone. Some writers overuse 25-cent words. But a larger part of the problem is that we demand that every idea be simplified to where anyone with a fifth-grade education can understand it in 20 seconds or less. Another problem is the willful arrogance of the ignorant. I know people who KNOW that they are ignorant about, say, evolution, yet they don't feel that this self-admitted ignorance lessens the value or insight of their own opinion. I'm not saying that they have failed to gain expertise--I'm saying that they can't even explain the basic tenets of evolutionary theory. They just don't care about what it IS, because they already know that it's wrong.
There is a bit more involved here than a scientists talking down to the rubes.
Ever notice how a story that agrees with the groupthink is tagged "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" (the "ignore the pirates" story). But one that's counter gets the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag.
Anyway here's a possible solution for debate here.
There are a LOT of things that are very similar, between science and religion. Maybe that's why there's so much contention between the two. It's a Bizarre Love Triangle - there's Science and Religion, both fawning over Universe. Jealous siblings fighting over who is the favourite child, who will inherit the farm.
:) Seriously, I'm not religious in any way, but even I can see that people seem to "fall in love" with their Faith. I don't mean that in a dismissive way at all, just the contrary. Perhaps faith is Love Plus One. We all make emotional decisions about our lives and faith is a very emotional thing. That's very powerful and essentially human. Do we want to dismiss it, curtail it, or understand it?
It is just as impossible to "fight" the presence of religion, as to dissuade the scientific community that the Earth is 1 AU from the Sun.
That's the crux of the matter. Faith is *part* of the human condition, from which "religion", as a practice, stems. We have to concede that and accept it will always be with us - and that it's NOT a bad thing. Unless you think we'd be better off without our most profound experiences; be it Faith, epiphany, love, the "eureka moment", what have you. If you say that people often believe "foolish" things when they're in love, just think of every scientist that fell in love with a theory and spent their lives going against the grain for the sake of it. That's faith, too. Powerful, isn't it?
I don't think many non-religious people (myself included) realise what faith demands of a person. There is something there you have to respect, because it is the *same thing* that has driven much of scientific history - the willingness to accept and try to understand a universe which is much bigger than you are. It's easy to think "having religion" is like watching TV; it's all there laid out for you to mindlessly consume. Not so. Faith is a *process* inside, as much as loving someone is a process, with all the contradictions, confusion and emotional challenges therein.
We all need it, perhaps we just express it in different ways. What happens when a person loses their faith in life? In love? In their fellow human beings? From a child, we all carry around the faith that people are generally "good", that we are "safe", that we are "important". These things, necessary to a healthy inner human life, are the basic things most religions encourage us to feel. Protected, loved, safe, important.
Perhaps that's why cold, hard science is so hard for those of faith to understand. I think, in a way, they feel sorry for us. I probably would too, in that position. But what both science and religion need to understand of each other, is that they are both essentially in love with the same thing; Creation, the Universe. It doesn't matter that the stories are different. The human mind *knows* how to deal with conflicting realities, otherwise we wouldn't have religious scientists, or persons of faith who accept the things that science has created. There is a middle way.
I don't like religious extremists, nor do I like scientific extremists (looking at you, Dawkins). They want to create a world of separateness, of duality. Life, at least for us humans, isn't quite that simple. Science is not a blasphemy, and religion is not a delusion. They are both about looking up to the heavens and seeking answers, they are both about faith and love, and both are essential aspects of human nature.
So let's try to spread *that* word and enter an age where the sense of wonder and awe at the universe, and of ourselves, is the presiding philosophy, and know we all share the same feelings of respect for, and faith in, this Creation.
People are emotional creatures. Tell them science has brought them everything they're using and all the medicines they're taking, they'll just yawn. Tie science with their sense of pride and their sense of belonging to their nation, and they will believe it once again.
Well, perhaps in Northern Europe things are as you describe. In Southern Europe, however, things are exactly the opposite: there is a rise in religion, especially in the Balkans, Turkey, and in the Middle East.
So since the problem is sentimental, why not advertise evolution and science in general as the one and only thing that can change our lives? look at where we are now: we can live to be 100 years old, thanks to science.
Problem is, religion has definitely not been "harmless", either to the believer or to his victims. Do I need to mention the tortures of the Inquisition, the murderous Crusades, or the many rounds of warfare between Protestants and Catholics in England?
True believers like you are almost impossible to reason with because religious faith by definition is unreasonable: you believe in God/Allah/Buddha despite the absolute, total lack of evidence that the target of your worship even exists. Historically, true believers have been willing to kill to defend their indefensible beliefs. That propensity for violence in most religions is what makes them repulsive to any clear thinker.
Religions are not harmless: they are deadly, very infectious viruses of the mind. Don't you think it's about time you exercised your immune system?
Isn't it funny. In my understanding it is not the scientists that have a problem with communicating their findings, it is the politicians (sometimes disguised as religious leaders) that frame the science in a way that distorts the facts or does create controversies exploited by emotions.
Now the solution is for the scientists to frame their message with the same methods?
Sorry, I don't believe that is the right way to solve the controversy. It simply makes the scientists to politicians (which they are enough amongst themselves holding on to established findings). For the average woman on the street it simply does elevate the emotions and clouds factual judgment.
It needs politicians, that are willing to expose their colleagues and talk open and factual about science and not only when it does strengthen the emotions that bind their constituency to them. But what is the hope as long as only a few percent of people have an idea what simple statistical probability means (a core element in modern science). The same can be said for journalists. I'd love to see a concerted effort to teach the average journalist some basics about science, because it is often lacking and if the mass publishers of information don't get it, it is too easy to use them for the political game.
That is poor logic: if the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, there is still an endless list of possible deities: Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, Legba, Quetzalcoatl, and so on. How do we decide which of them is the real ruler of the universe? There is no evidence for or against any of them. We may as well flip a coin.
Someone actually modded (my) parent post down as a troll... That's just bizarre.
You might not agree with me (though I don't see any posts actually doing that), but who would this this was troll?
It's also odd that the first troll mod I've gotten in years is on one of the most carefully-reasoned posts. Some people just don't want to hear it, I guess?