Slashdot Mirror
How To Make Science Popular Again?
Ars Technica has an interesting look at the recent book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, a collaboration between Chris Mooney, writer and author of The Republican War on Science, and scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum. While it seems the book's substance is somewhat lacking it raises an interesting point; how can science be better integrated with mainstream culture for greater understanding and acceptance? "We must all rally toward a single goal: without sacrificing the growth of knowledge or scientific innovation, we must invest in a sweeping project to make science relevant to the whole of America's citizenry. We recognize there are many heroes out there already toiling toward this end and launching promising initiatives, ranging from the Year of Science to the World Science Festival to ScienceDebate. But what we need — and currently lack — is the systematic acceptance of the idea that these actions are integral parts of the job description of scientists themselves. Not just their delegates, or surrogates, in the media or the classrooms."
As much as many people would like to think otherwise, public policy is set by elected officials who may take science into consideration, but also must consider economic trade offs and cultural issues. Throw in the usual paranoid claptrap about corporations if you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Just because the Republicans did not rush headlong and unquestionably into the public policy positions championed by the James Hansons and Al Gores of the world doesn't mean they were conducting a war on science.
If science is unpopular today it is because of the arrogant, dogmatic and privileged folks who stand at its door. Add to that the people who embark on regular crusades, telling people they are stupid and ignorant for not listening to them, it's no wonder students shy away from science.
From TFA:
From quotes on websites to a joke by Stephen Colbert, they offer anecdotes about how the public was against the IAUâ(TM)s (International Astronomical Union) decision to remove Pluto from the list of planets, leading the authors to call the situation a âoeplanetary crack-upâ and then ask, âoeDidnâ(TM)t the scientists involved foresee such a public outcry?â Well, if the scientists did foresee an outcry, then what? Should they conduct a public vote next time?
Mooney and Kirshenbaum barely mention any of the scientific bases for the IAUâ(TM)s decision. Instead, they present the case as if the astronomers chose to reclassify Pluto on an inexplicable whim, and it makes one question whether or not the authors looked into any of the actual science for themselves.
I think it's pretty well established that the goal should not be to fit science into pop-culture, at least not if we want it to remain correct and relevent. Your average citizen doesn't care that pluto is only the first discovered Kuiper Belt object, they care that they learned it was a planet when they were a kid. That isn't thinking scientifically. There is no way to make the decision popular without compromising on proper science.
It's not an easy problem to fix. It seems to me like it requires you to teach people to care about science, rather than making science into something people care about. It wasn't that long ago when Bill Nye was getting kids interested in more pure science. Now about the best we have is Mythbusters, which certainly piques curiosity, although it has to resort to explosions and skipping most of the steps in the scientific method to make it palatable. They even have a "warning" for science content, which is a bad sign (tongue-in-cheek or not). Maybe we could get back to that, but it seems the prevailing momentum is toward smaller tidbits and shallower topics.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
To stop teaching kids that religion is an alternate view to science. Religion should be taught nowhere near science, they are two distinct subjects. Oh yea and get rid of the crazies that bash science.. do these people not realize that pretty much everything they use in their life was adapted using the scientific method?
Science's irrelevance is some of the long-time-in-coming consequences of a society that emphasizes short-term, extremely self-interested value system with a repudiation of the notion of social plurality.
Unless they adapt by supporting cavemen and women riding dinosaurs or hitching a ride on some other demagogue, Science remains irrelevant.
After all, I don't benefit from science in any special way. Where's my flying car so I (alone) can leave the unwashed masses on the ground. How about my super-smart pill so only my children and I don't have to work very hard?
I mean c'mon... This science thing is bunk unless I alone profit at the expense of everyone else.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Naked girls. Guys would flock to science if there wers lots of naked girls.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Speaking as a European, actually science is pretty popular in the USA, globally (except for the mad handful who think science is the sworn enemy of their faith). Actually, I quite like to think of the USA as the country of nerds. Case in point, that's where all the Europeans nerds want to go cause since some time around the 1930s that's where all the big science and engineering are. In Europe (UK excluded, too much of an American satellite to be representative) we don't make offerings to the holy ghost of Charles Darwin, and we couldn't care less about science fiction (seriously, we care nowhere near as much as people in the USA do). But we're better at mathematics, physics, chemistry or biology, because secondary education didn't fail us. It's not a cultural problem, it's all an educational one.
The problem is not how "popular" or "cool" it is, the problem is with education. To put it simply and bluntly, your educational system sucks, particularly when it comes to science. Reform it. Education is pretty much the same problem for anyone, you're doing it wrong, look at how others are doing it right.
An obvious rift exists between many religious and scientific communities.
Yep, and there shouldn't be one. Science and faith aren't incompatible, some great men of science were also men of faith. But in America more than anywhere else it was turned into an epic science vs faith war where everybody picks a side and the battlefronts are shit that no one would normally care about, like biology and genetics or palaeontology or even palaeoclimatology.
Also, why the hell can't I post this comment? It says "There was an unknown error in the submission.". It seems Slashdot is crumbling to pieces day after day.
You just got troll'd!
If you're truly trying to integrate science with "mainstream culture", a big part of the overlap is in engineering. Science for the sake of scientific knowledge is great, but we've found that it's often easier to connect to people by looking at how science connects with their lives, which often falls into the realm of engineering (or medicine). We have tried to do that with our free educational electronics videos.
Even as science and medicine and gadgetry continue to advance, it's important to make it accessible and exciting to those outside the field. But while the original book being reviewed argues that "the scientists themslves" must take up the lead in educating the public, the fact is that making these subjects accessible has its own set of required skills that are not necessarily the same as those needed for being an excellent scientist. Some will be able to do both, but it's not for everyone.
For public school situations take that damn football money and use it for science classes.
2nd Hire decent teachers that actually enjoy learning and teaching.
3rd Encourage questions. Ask the students questions, and then wait for a response. Let them actually think! Have some actual communication.
Optional: go places! Take students to new environments to get them to think outside of the box. Science is awesome, you don't have to dress it up to make it fun!
All else fails: Blow shit up! Then explain why it blew up!
If you're going to be an evangelist for science, there are a lot of potential pitfalls. I personally was almost turned off science by the half-assed philosophy that many scientists seem to implicitly hold.
For people on the borderline---who might've accepted a scientific worldview but ultimately rejected it---anecdotally the biggest factor I've found is a feeling that accepting the scientific worldview is nihilistic. Usually this seems (again, anecdotally), to be a result of some particularly overreaching attempts to use science as a sort of naive-reductionist philosophy, where every discovery of mechanisms delegitimizes higher-level things, because now they're "only X", and in some sense don't "really" exist anymore. People particularly object to this with humans. Arguments like "X is just brain chemicals" or "Y is just evolved behavior" get thrown around, and you ultimately end up at claims like: "You don't really love her; that's just brain chemicals". "There isn't really any such thing as morality; that's just evolved group behavior". And people generally recoil at and reject that view, if you're implying that actually nothing about human existence is "real".
Of course, nothing in science actually demands that sort of explanation at a philosophical level. Nobody argues that since chemistry is "just physics", it's therefore in any sense not real or illegitimate. It's a perfectly correct way of explaining, at a particular level of description, how the universe works, and chemical properties are real properties, that really do exist. The fact that chemical properties are due to lower-level interactions doesn't change that. Daniel Dennett even coined a term for some of these kinds of philosophical misuse of science: greedy reductionism.
Fortunately, I was saved from that by some more philosophically sophisticated scientists who pointed out to me that the views held by people who study physicalist explanations of the world are much better thought out. And on, say, what the mind "really" is, fully defended physicalist accounts of mind don't have the same greedy-reductionism that characterizes the rather questionable comments of a lot of neuroscientists.
Sure, there are all sorts of other problems, like fundamentalist Christians who won't ever accept any explanation not derived from the Bible. But as a scientist, I tend to think some outreach is better than just attacking them: there's plenty I might change about their organizations, but I can't, so what can I change about mine? Simply being more accurate about the philosophical implications of science, I find, helps to dispel a lot of unnecessary worries, while having the added benefit of actually being, well, more accurate.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In today's society nothing draws crowds like glamour. So, get some researchers rediculously overpaid, have them hit the clubs in Bentleys sippin' Cristal. What is popular is what will lead people to live the way they want to live. Currently, that is through finance and investment banking. But, if you could make being a researcher more glamourous and fun (in terms of the lifestyle it would afford) then people would flock to it. After all, how do you make something popular when it leads to a decade of post-secondary and then publish-or-perish with a possibility of stability with tenure AFTER moving around englessly from post-doc to post-doc.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
If each schools Academic Decathlon team got the same amount of exposure as the high school football team did then you would see a lot more interest in academics from the general population.
My senior year our Academic Decathlon team made it to the national conference in Chicago. I heard that we placed in the top 10 in each category, but I never did see a single thing about it in our local paper. And this was a small rural school.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
1. Teach critical thinking - Kids need to learn at an early age how to figure things out for themselves. This goes from how do I turn the TV on to Why is the sky blue. Self exploration of knowledge leads to a door that's hard to close. Starting at an early age, this could be enough on its own
2. Teach humility - We've all ran into ridiculous theories and misconceptions perpetuated by someones unwillingness to admit error. Before any progress can be done to foster a world driven by scientific process people need to be willing to say "I was wrong".
3. Say goodbye to religion - I have no problem with any specific ideology but an organization whose very approach means ignoring point number 1 and some amount of point number 2 will have no place in a scientific society. Sorry.
We must all rally toward a single goal: without sacrificing the growth of knowledge or scientific innovation, we must invest in a sweeping project to make science relevant to the whole of America's citizenry. We recognize there are many heroes out there already toiling toward this end and launching promising initiatives, ranging from the Year of Science to the World Science Festival to ScienceDebate. But what we need--and currently lack--is the systematic acceptance of the idea that these actions are integral parts of the job description of scientists themselves. Not just their delegates, or surrogates, in the media or the classrooms.
They briefly touch on this when discussing movies but somehow everyone is forgetting that the problem isn't in science or scientists, it's in what motivates us. Our capitalistic society is simply getting better at convincing us that research and experimentation aren't rewarding. Making money is. A 9 to 5 job coding Jakarta Struts will net me more cash than working on my doctorate regarding AI or NLP ever will. Sure I could hit on something big and then put in 80 hours a week and try to launch a start up but that's like playing the lottery.
... that's not the answer. The answer is to increase monetary rewards for scientists. We can rip on intellectual property and intellectual property law but that's one of the few examples where our capitalistic system ties inventions and discoveries monetarily to their originators. And when that's in place we'll ask why it matters that those "scientific" progresses were made since we can't readily access them in a cheap manner?
We don't need to destroy the whole system, just make it monetarily worth while to devote your life to science and the scientific process. This mission statement seems to just make scientists more popular or more prestigious
Right now, you'll make more money as a surgeon doing gastrointestinal bypasses than you will experimenting in surgery and medicine. Because GI bypasses are a surefire bet in America. And one person doing them will help individual people but not really society unless you look at GI bypasses on the whole. The same can be said in so many other fields.
The funny thing is that the general populace isn't really interested in science, they're interested in how science can provide them cheaper things, better health, easier money, naturally selfish goals. Look at the quest for knowledge, it's only worth pursuing if it has very practical uses that are often tied to money. In short, you're not going to change this because capitalism's been so successful and changes to how it works now are going to make people unhappy. The discussion is worthless unless you're willing to change how the system rewards scientists across the gamut--not just special institutions or foundations but from the single scientist up to the largest corporation.
My work here is dung.
I think you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway. As someone who is fascinated with all things science related, I bemoan the total apathy towards science within the community. However, I feel that it is important to point out that it is not just science that is being neglected by the community; politics, philosophy, social conscience and other highly important fields have also been totally lost to the common mind.
It's not just discussing the latest article in Nature magazine or Scientific American that results in dumb stares, but also trying to discuss things like the relative merits of current geopolitical policies of various nations, how and why the legal system has gotten to its current state, even this very subject, the apathy of the common person, is not the sort of thing that most people are able to discuss in any depth.
This may all sound very high-horsey, however, I challenge anyone to go to a party, bring up a discussion about the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered, and see how long you can keep it up. I'm likely to get laughed at for the mere suggestion of this, someone will call me a dork or similar.
The thing is, I actually get out a lot. I travel several times a year, and spent a lot of time meeting new people. It's something that I really enjoy. I'm not a dork. I think.
So, how do we make science (and other "intelligent" subjects) popular again? I dunno, how about priming children in an environment that's a bit more stimulating than the modern day care facility. How about teaching them the basics in an environment that's a bit more positive than the jokes that are primary schools where teachers' hearts are rarely in the job. Don't even let me get started on the barbaric mass-cagefight that is high school.
You want to know why science is not popular in the first place? Because we (as a society, we can't just blame the "education system", after all, parents, they're YOUR kids) as a society are teaching our kids to be consumerist, apathetic, self-centered brats. We need a whole new social order, including a new social mindset that teaches people a proper set of values. Science and all the higher arts won't be popular again until people learn to value them.
Thus, asking how to make science popular I feel is the wrong question. The correct question is how to teach people it's value.
I hate printers.
The argument isn't that random processes prove that a designer doesn't exist, but rather proves that a designer isn't necessary to have design.
Basically, the default stance is, "There probably isn't a god because of the lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis." Creationists use, "all things designed that we know of have designers, therefore we have been designed by a designer." Dawkins and Hawkings embraced random chance in the ability to make things that appear designed, effectively shooting down that argument as evidence to support the existence of a designer.
In Cat's Crade, in the guise of Dr. Hoenikker "Any scientist who cannot explain his work to an eight year old is a charlatan." If you can't separate scientific process from opaque jargon, you'll never be able to engage the layman. As such, IMO, the burden falls on every one of us to try and make scientific knowledge as accessible as possible to anyone who cares to listen. Also, spending some cash on science education (maybe as much as we spend on athletics...) to get good teachers, and engaging materials and activities might help. Or maybe another Star Trek TV series. It worked for me when I was growin' up.
The argument this clown is using is exactly WHY so many distrust science. Because the scientists are so obviously political these days. Now this wouldn't be bad if they were political scientists (i.e. the fuzzy social sciences) but it has no place in physics or chemistry.
You can't have it both way folks, which view of a scientist do you want the masses to have?
1. The scientist as the almost monastic searcher for facts, discovering new wonders by relentlessly collecting facts in the field, doing careful experiments in labs full of shiny equipment, publishing carefully reasoned papers which are mercilessly peer reviewed and basically being devoted to following the facts wherever they lead. But in the end, scientists tell us how the universe works and what is possible. Engineers use that knowledge to build things after the marketing dept identifies a customer for it and then the politicians decide how to regulate and tax it.
2. Philosopher Kings. Politicians with PhDs. Victims of several bad ideas, namely that a) expertise in one narrow area implies a general wisdom; b) that rule by a technocratic elite is 'better' than rule by the consent of the governed; c) that just because science says something is possible means we must do it, because morals aren't scientific after all.
The last century has shown a marked shift in the public's idea of the word 'scientist' from the first to the second. This explains their change in attitude. In other words if Hansen and his ilk stopped the politicking and went back to their lab and produced some results that didn't get shredded people might start readjusting their views again. Even better would be if the other so called 'real scientists' policed their own a little, forcing the ones who want to take up a new career in politics to LEAVE science first. Because it should now be clear that attempts to lend the good name of science to a political argument doesn't actually work, that instead the bad name of politics attached to science.
And here is another good example of the problem. Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_. It is a wonderful introduction to science in many ways yet terribly flawed by Bad Idea A from above in that Sagan mistakenly believed himself an expert in Foreign Relations apparently for no other reason than he was a smart fellow. But the series is full of the most naive useful idiot twaddle of the sort that, with the Cold War ended, few would dispute. When the grandkids are older I plan on showing them the series and use it as an example of the problem of scientists trying to become political leaders without first investing the effort to actually become an expert.
Democrat delenda est
which means neither the parents, teachers, students, or politicians, are allowed to be offended by the results. The results are that we are not all created equal and testing can show it. Hence we dumb it down dragging some of the brightest down with us and discouraging some who may have had a chance to some of the brightest from ever showing it.
Throw in the self destructive behavior of certain cultural elements and the high minded liberal mindset where these self ascribed people with all the knowledge deem what each "group" can do and how best to "level the playing field" and we end up with a system which essentially declares one race inferior to another and backs it with claims that the test/course/etc is racially biased - as if information can be such.
Top it off with a system designed to keep bad teachers in the due paying roles and to lard up the administration with every family member a local politician knows of who needs a job and is it any wonder we fail our kids?
I do know one thing, it certainly wasn't religion that dragged down our education system, we did our best to drive that out of our schools we forgot to watch was being done by other means.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The outcome of a science and/or engineering degree at this point is competition with millions of people making $8/hr.
.
Seriously, in a self-interested, capitalist society what could POSSIBLY motivate a young person to expend limited educational resources on something that resulted in that?
.
Any rational person would go for medicine, law or finance or any other field with higher pay with less chance of outsourcing.
.
Whine and hand-wring all you want. We did this to ourselves when we started giving away the store to save a few bucks for next quarter. We'll never win another war because of superior technology. Any technology we *do* create will be outsourced in seconds, so why please explain to me why I would ever bother?
.
Hope you're all enjoying the global marketplace.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Possibly because it's a barely significant difference. Take a look at the studies that have been performed and you see a tiny offset of the top of the bell curves. Over 95% of all people, regardless of race, fall into the same region, with slightly more of the outliers being of certain ethnicities. Given that IQ tests contain very strong cultural biases, it's difficult to draw any conclusion from the available data unless you are cherry-picking results to justify an existing bias.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Dawkins' point is an epistemological one. We have a perfectly good explanation for how the life that we see on earth today evolved, through (internally) random processes, from more primitive ancestors. Thus, it is not rational to introduce a new agent, God, to our concepts of the universe to explain what we can already explain without him.
I take it that you are arguing that, given what we know from computer science, the evolutionary process may well be designed by God. And this is true. But the point is that there is no positive reason to make this leap. Therefore you shouldn't make it. A standard for rational belief has to require a positive reason for the belief and not its mere compatibility with the observed evidence. If compatibility is all you require, then a whole flood of unverifiable propositions sneak in the back door. Suddenly you have reason to believe in invisible fairies, haecceities, ghosts, any force you can think of a name for (and then some) that has no observable effect on matter, etc.
caritj.org
Get rid of nut jobs like Dawkins and focus on real hard science. When you have people trying to pick a fight with religion rather than focusing on reproducible science, people lose interest.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
This is an old theme of American history, called anti-intellectualism. The American public isn't so much "anti-science" as anti-intellectual.
I think that GP has a point about the proper relationship between science and policy; all too often people use the authority of science to sneak in policy and value judgements as science (for example, intelligence testing). We need to be critical of the people who insist that science should set policy, as GP recommends.
However, to do so successfully we can't be anti-intellectual, and that's where I part with GP. The Republicans are the party that panders to anti-intellectualism; their war on science was real. G.W. Bush is an anti-intellectual poster boy, too.
Invented, just like chess.
Are you adequate?
It's the fact that people consider what should be fascinating topics boring that is the problem
Thankyou for proving my point so perfectly. You did it so well that I think I may be lining myself up for a whoosh...
I hate printers.
Spatial cognition has been shown to be culturally variable; check out the work of Stephen Levinson on language and spatial cognition. It is possible to design spatial reasoning tests that are culturally biased in that regard; e.g., the Queensland Test was designed to raise the score of Australian Aborigines relative to Australian Whites.
In fact, there's just nothing culturally neutral about getting somebody to sit down to answer an intelligence test. Read the New Yorker's article on the controversy about the Pirahã and ask yourself, in the end: how would you administer an IQ test to this tribe, and would the results be more indicative of their "intelligence" or of their cultural differences to us?
To paraphrase William Labov: if you want to figure out how intelligent somebody is, you have to enter the appropriate social relationship with that person. IQ tests simply fail this; they presuppose that everybody is a well-mannered urban European middle-class authority-fearing white-coat-deferring sit-downer, who is just delighted to sit down and perform decontextualized, pointless intellectual exercise on command.
Are you adequate?
Not so much is at its the solution that lacks utility.
Think of it this way. We have a murder suspect. We have a body with a knife in the back. The knife has his fingerprints. There's a trail of blood that leads to where his car his parked. The victim's blood is in the car. The victim's blood is found at the suspect's home and the knife is in the suspect's garbage can.
The most parsimonious explanation is, of course, that the suspect did it. It creates a testable hypothesis, has a logical series of events, each in and of itself testable.
Or we can say God did it. None of the evidence is incompatible with that claim. God's powers are unlimited. But the explanation lacks all utility. Nothing in claim can be meaningfully scrutinized. No test can be formulated, no observation is incompatible with the statement "God did it". It is the great irony of trying to use God to explain phenomena; God can explain everything, and thus explains nothing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"...And the hundreds of Nobel Prize scientists who got involved with trying to communicate the dangers of global warming to the world long, long before Al Gore got involved in anything... Ignore them! Al Gore's special lethal uber-cooties makes what all those Nobel Prize winning scientists say irrelevant.
Al Gore and James Hansen aren't just making this stuff up. They're simply relaying what 90% of scientists in related fields and what 90% of all scientists agree with. This is what folks in the world of science call a "scientific consensus". Unfortunately, because this particular scientific consensus is ideologically inconvenient for you, you want us to believe that 90% of all scientists in the world are part of a massive international conspiracy run by Al Gore.
No offense, you are exactly the problem that is being discussed here.
How about ceasing to overregulate home chemistry sets (which now really do little more than allow kids to see color changing tricks), and allowing for private citizens to once again be citizen-scientists without the fear of drawing the suspicion of the DHS (Look! He's got a lab in his garage! He must be a terrorist!) or the DEA (Look! He's got a lab in his garage! He must be a making meth!). Heck, I'd love to set up a hydroponic tomato garden in my basement so I can have tomatoes during the winter in Minnesota, but I don't want to risk being booked on having "drug-growing equipment" (Look! He's got them plant lights in his basement! He must be growing pot!)
I mean, come on, people! In the days after 9-11, restrictions put forward governing certain incediary chemicals nearly killed the ability of model rocket hobbyists to purchase engines online or at distant hobby shops (due to proposed shipping restrictions). The model rocket and hobby industries had to lobby to make sure those changes didn't cripple a hobby that spurred the interest of many people in the fields of aerospace, aerodynamics, engineering, chemistry, and physics. Heck, let's get back to being able to order our own chemical supplies so we can make our own rocket engines!
It has even changed kitchens. My mother had a recipie that used baker's amonia as a primary ingredient (I'm assuming as a levening agent in conjunction with baking soda). As far back as the 1980s she could no longer buy it herself without registering with a pharmacist and having them order it for her (in limited quantities--you know how often cookie-bakers must have engaged in bomb-making activities). Recently, I went to a number of pharmacies, but none of them could get it for me.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
I recommend Jerry Coyne's review of this book. It eviscerates it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/unscientific-unscientific-america-part-1/
It's easy to make science-related careers more popular: pay scientists more than poverty-level. Having passion for a career is one thing, but at the end of the day, passion doesn't put food on the table. The paycheck does.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
As the world continues to make scientific progress (albiet more slowly than theoretically possible, but that is acceptable), it will slowly become increasingly difficult for the unintelligent and uneducated to survive.
All things and people being equal, your point might actually be true. However, with the way that western societies have been doing anything and everything to ensure the survival of the weakest, laziest, most unfit of it's citizens at the expense of the rest of the population, I doubt your premise will come true while those states continue on their march towards socialist, nanny state policies. While social welfare programs tend to give folks a big warm and fuzzy, in the long run, it squeezes any incentive for trying to get ahead in life out of all but the most motivated of individuals. While it is definitely admirable that some individuals will continue to excel regardless of the social structure they find themselves in, this policy will eventually lead to downfall of western civilization as it takes more than just a few girders to hold up an entire bridge.
Two things in our favour, though:
Like anything useful, critical thinking is best considered as a form of technology, and as such it will have benefits and detriments, usually not the same to a large, mixed, group of people. I like it because it's consonant with my values and because I believe that it improves our spiritual and material well-being, but I know that this might not apply to everyone. Oh, and great point about humility: I've often said that graduate study's best contribution to my education was schooling me in being very ready to be wrong .
*...which is, coincidentally, the name of my retained law firm
Christianity demands reason being left at the door. There are some things you just don't question. Period. The bible is true - period. The world is 6000 years old - period.
And you're wrong. Period. The percentage of overall Christian sects which are biblical fundamentalists is small. And I'm not even including the non-fundie Roman Catholicism, which is the largest Christian denomination by far.
But don't let the truth stand in the way of your bigotry.
I fail to see what fundamentalists have to do with the Christian requirement to believe that the Bible is the true Word of God, but thanks for pointing out that most Christian religions aren't, technically, fundamentalist.
You still can't run away from the fact that every Christian sect requires the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Some admit that it's the Word of God as seen by those who wrote it down - which means that it isn't 100% correct, because humans are not infallible.
So that gives enough wiggle-room to allow for statements like "it wasn't literally seven days, that's just a metaphor." Which are nice, but they still demonstrate the core problem: Christians cannot accept anything that cannot be logically jammed to mesh with their version of the Bible.
Want to believe in evolution? Then Genesis is just a metaphor, so it's still logically consistent with the Bible.
Even non-fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the True Word of God, and therefore, for anything to be true, you must be able to reconcile it with the Bible.
The problem is this. . .
You, (the elite managerial over-seer), wants all the little people to toil in order to provide you with food, shelter, safety, power and luxury. It takes back-breaking effort to provide these things to you and there is no good reason to do it. As with most people of your sort, you live with a constant shadow on your shoulder; you harbor a morbid fear that one day the flow of wealth and abundant resources (which you don't work for) will cease. Because you have never really worked at anything, you fear work; nothing is more terrifying than the thought of being reduced to the status of a common peon. And so in fear, you cast about with great concern! How is your fear most likely to manifest? Why a popular uprising! Any moment now, you will be discovered and the slaves will take back what they have given you and which you do not deserve to have.
Thus, population management becomes a great concern to you. An obsession.
So how do you make sure that the slaves never have enough energy or awareness to see who is making their lives miserable and come together to do something about it? Why you make damned sure they are stupid and distracted and constantly fighting amongst one another!
Thus enters the Paradox! --To have the most fashionable elitist lifestyle, you need to employ the Wonders of Science! However, to employ the Wonders of Science, you need thinking men and women capable of sharp awareness and bright imagination. --And yet thinking men and women of awareness and imagination are exactly the kind of people who are most likely to realize that they are slaves and that you are their bitter enemy. They are the ones you fear most!
If only there was some way. . . --A method to mind-program people so that they retain the brain power necessary to engage in research and experimentation and other skills required by the Wonders of Science, while ALSO being remaining stupid and distracted. Is such a thing possible?
Fortunately for you, the answer is YES!
Among the maneuvers used to create the perfect army of mindless scientists and engineers are. . .
-Age segregation in schools. (Humans are pack animals; in healthy communities children of many ages play together, and the older and more experienced ones naturally take on leader/protector roles. In the school system, there are no clear leaders established through age, leading to endless, un-resolvable competition, generally resulting in the most base physical attributes becoming the dominant deciding factors. Say hello to "Jocks v.s. Geeks" --Those who are strong thinkers tend to seek love and approval from the only authority figures who appear to value such attributes, the teachers. All you have to do is program the teachers according to your system and they will make sure that the students are similarly programmed.
-Media! --Children who have survived the school system are shell-shocked by that war zone social structure. Their brains have developed strong wiring as they grew up, programed to have low self-esteem, to fear above all things, ridicule. So all you have to do is create a popular media which tells the population what is being laughed at this week, and you can rest assured that even the most progressive thinkers will shudder and cringe as their deep-programming kicks in.
-Meaningless debate! --It is important to maintain and nourish two opposing camps of thought on any number of emotionally evocative subjects. The population will self-divide and spend all their free energy fighting and arguing and hating one-another, while you rest safely up in your ivory tower and collect taxes.
-False Money and False Economic Theory. My typing muscles are getting tired, so I won't bother going into this. Any smart person, (who hasn't been laughed at recently), is capable of working out how money and debt keeps everybody in check.
-War. Again, no real need to explain this one.
There are, of course, many other techniques available, but these three are the work-h
It took long enough for me to find this response!
I'm sorry, I've been alive for twenty years shorter than the parent poster and I do not remember a time when science was ever "popular". Popularized, maybe, with the moon shots and all, but NEVER popular. If science was ever popular how would it ever lose popularity? Think about that for a moment. Science is a constantly changing beast, with something new emerging from an enormous variety of fields ... hourly! How could you ever get bored with science should it ever become popular?
I call shenanigans on the whole notion of science having been "popular" ... well, ever! Not even in Newton's time, and certainly not Galileo's when it wasn't even called science. Hell, it wasn't even called science until the last, what? 150 years of its existence. It was a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy) before that!
Science has never and probably will never be popular. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but use some scientific method and tell me when science was ever popular. I have no evidence to support the assertion and know of none to even test.
So if something is random, there is never any design behind it? It's always the case that when randomness is observed that it's unguided?
No. "Randomness does not imply a designer" is not the same as "Randomness implies no designer".
The enemies of Democracy are
I worked in Dr. Tim Townsend's lab during grad school. He was an all-American linebacker at the University of Tennessee as an undergrad and a rising star in transgenic animal research as a PhD. We used to play pickup basketball with Dr. Robert Guyette, a famous surgeon, who was the center for the 1975 UK NCAA finals basketball team. One of my grad school classmates in our pickup group was the division II player of the year, another started for Western Michigan. So yeah, all jocks are dumb. BTW, I was the late-blooming nerd who didn't have any athletic ability but got a fellowship for my academics. That didn't stop me from competing with all of these world-class athletes - and being world class athletes didn't stop them from being world class scientists. They also happened to be terrifically nice people. The whole world isn't high school - it just seems like it while you are there.
Sure. But that's not the point. A random process is observed. Is it correct to therefore conclude that the process is unguided/blind?
It is the point in so much as contradictory statements by scientists was your point, since they were not contradictory.
But to answer your question, no it is not logically proper to conclude that the process is unguided. Scientifically speaking, though, if you were trying to create a model for that process, then in the absence of any evidence suggesting a designer, and without any need for a designer to explain the evidence you do have, it would be correct not to include one. In every case of a random process with a known designer, there is ample evidence of said designer. There is no scientific evidence of a designer behind 'natural' random processes. In fact, in the case of the most common and popular hypothetical designers, said hypothesis is untestable and thus improper to ever include in a scientific theory.
I think you may be confusing "a 'designer' is not necessary, ergo I choose not to believe in one" with "a 'designer' is not necessary, ergo we have proven that one does not exist."
You can't prove God doesn't exist. However you can disprove the argument by the IDers that He must exist.
The enemies of Democracy are
"People worship "American Idol" over Stephen Hawking, because they are SOLD and MANIPULATED these values"
I'd love to see a reality show about contestants developing their own Theory of Everything.
Geometrodynamics, I choose YOU!
(Actually I've still got a soft spot for Einstein's classical UFT.)
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Anti-science indeed. Bitching that God made the earth is not nearly as damaging to society as the liberal penchant to remove freedom from people to actually do science.
You know why science isn't popular? Who can actually do it? It's because liberals and all their sissy crap made it off limits and useless to kids. Between the lawyers, consumer advocates, and all the other crap, liberals have successfully gotten rid of teaching electronics, teaching chemistry, having model rockets, building model aircraft, are trying to get rid of cars and would probably get rid of boats if they could, and people are expected to learn about science? Seriously. Show me the state park where you are allowed to launch a model rocket. Show me where you can fly a model airplane. God help you if you put a remote control boat in a pond. That would be some nature area for ducks and some endangered spore. Meanwhile, spores and mold have their own land but human kids have to sit in their rooms with nothing to do but play Wii and pump each other in the ass.
Liberalism and science are fundamentally at odds, even more so than creationism and science. Liberalism says that the earth should not be altered by man to save the spores. But you can't learn about something unless you play with it...
This is my sig.