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."
The first problem with American culture is simple credulity. There are accepted dogmas that are not meaningfully challenged in the mainstream. There are inroads being made, but there are two entities fully tied to the status quo, which are christianity and business.
For the most part, Christianity demands reason being left at the door. If you've seen the way young kids are indoctrinated, especially in evangelical circles, you immediately understand why skepticism has been eliminated from American vocabularies. There are some things you just don't question. Period. The bible is true - period. The world is 6000 years old - period. Anything outside of this one book is considered false until proven true, and only if it is congruent with a particular interpretation of the bible.
Business has similar dogmas that have now been accepted without skeptical analysis. The market always works. Unions are always corrupt and run by the mafia. Government is always bad, unless you're talking about nuclear weapons or invading other countries, in which case government is always good. (It amazes me some people can have a total meltdown over imaginary government death panels, and in the next breath praise former CIA torture policies.)
In a skeptical environment, these dogmas do not hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, a skeptical environment can only be allowed when it makes more money. Shell does not look for oil based on a Young Earth model, because that wouldn't yield oil. The Christian community will misuse scientific theory to strawman evolution, but would never apply any scientific principles to their own faith. Pharmaceuticals will claim that they have to gouge American consumers for their medications to afford the science, and hope you will ignore the fact that they spend more money on marketing than research. Every day drips with irony after irony.
There are elementary philosophical discussions that simply don't exist in American thought. Is it ethical to make money without working? Is it ethical to invade another country who has not attempted to invade you? Is it ethical to have private entities profit from going to war? Is it ethical to treat Christian churches as tax exempt entities when they are clearly creating wealth that is not going to charities?
All of this has a root in the idea that money is the only way to value anything. Once this becomes your basis for reasoning, you immediately eliminate all possibilities that don't involve profit. And unfortunately, many valuable things lay in areas which may never be profitable for the existing business infrastructure. How can new ideas flourish in such an environment? How can new technology replace old technology? How can we progress?
The answer is that we have lost our position as the meritocracy of ideas. Great minds from muslim states don't even bother applying for student visas. Exxon owns patents expressly so they won't be used. Businesses bully the rest of society with well funded teams of lawyers to keep markets uncompetitive.
We haven't woken up to these facts, because in true dogmatic fashion, we aren't allowed to consider the possibility.
As much as many people would like to think otherwise, public policy is set by elected officials who may take religion 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 Democrats did not rush headlong and unquestionably into the public policy positions championed by the James Dobsone and G.W. Bushes of the world doesn't mean they were conducting a war on religion.
If religion 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 religion.
Substitute two words, and your argument becomes the "arrogant, dogmatic" statement you are railing against.
Western society in general and American culture specifically is a lost cause. Keeping the majority of people dumb is far more profitable in the short term for corporations, theocrats, bureaucrats and supporters of the police state. And most people are happy with it as long as they keep getting soap opera melodrama and fake reality tv. We are living in a culture where showing intelligence is looked down on, much less encouraged.
Sorry, I am not feeling optimistic today... :(
Apparently somebody didn't care for your point, despite having documented your claim.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
How about we mod him a fucking moron instead? Suuuure let's blame Fox News for all the evils of America. Because CNN and MSNBC could never be biased one way or another. No, it's easier for asshats like you and the other poster to blame people whose political opinion differs from your own. Nevermind that damn near ALL 'news' broadcasts don't bother with actual news any more. No, today it's scandal this and scandal that. Don't bother reporting the truth when you can trump it up and make a sensational story out of it. Yes, I know, "that's exactly what Faux News does". You know what, fuck you for being a moron. Both political sides and their respective 'news' channels do exactly that. Neither side reports anything unless they can make the other side look bad by doing so. Pull your head out of your ass.
Sure, if your definition of "interesting" means "arrogant, bigoted and small-minded."
I saw a lecture he did, where he was "instructing" people on how to deal with others who claimed they had seen UFOs.
So, rather than keeping an open mind, or simply saying "I don't know what it was, and you don't know what it was", he advocated engaging in spurious logic by deliberately asking the person to speculate on what it was, and then (when they would comply by doing what he asked) ridiculing them.
So yeah, if he's the "saviour" of science, you've got a very, very dark time ahead of you.
Translation: Ignore the powers-that-be paid right wing propaganda campaign you see being waged against science your eyes see. Your eyes lie. Stop paying paying attention to what your lying eyes see. Listen to our right wing bullshit instead.
Yep, and there shouldn't be one. Science and faith aren't incompatible, some great men of science were also men of faith.
Yes, all during times where not being a "man of faith" would get you into very serious trouble very quickly.
If you look into the literature, you'll find a lot of them weren't. It was difficult to be an atheist when your entire world is religious and not believing was never offered as an option, but most of the "great men of science" were as close as you could get without crossing people you didn't want to cross.
And yes, science and faith are utterly incompatible. The #1 question of science is the one question religion can not answer. You can phrase it as "show me the evidence" or "let's try to duplicate those results" or "I wonder if we can prove this". It doesn't matter. Anyone saying that religion is not a deadly enemy of science is merely trying to protect religion from its rightly deserved fate.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
How about we take the scientific achievement that took place within different cultures. It just happens that's just what this book is about.
Of course, people who argue for the "equality" of different creeds and ideologies won't like the book, at all. It makes mention of several ancient cultures that did make scientific advances, however as is obvious to see anywhere in the world today, all save 1 failed. ("equality" of creeds strikes me as being such an obvious untruth that it baffles the mind as to think rational people can actually believe it, after all if they're all "equal" then how could it possibly be that there's more than one ? How can people who build upon math, who proclaim math's achievements, believe that the principle of the excluded third is wrong ? Talk about contradictory ... but that's just me)
Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Hindus, Japanese, Egyptians, Persians ... all made scientific advancements earlier than European civlization. Muslims, Mongols, other Chinese ... killed, conquered and massacred their way to richess and scientific knowledge far beyond what contemporary Europeans had. Muslims should really be split up in 3 groups. The original arab conquerors. Then their slaves killed them and took over (the "mamluks") and then they killed themselves while carrying out jihad against Christians and Jews, only to be replaced by invading Ottomans ("Turks" more or less).
And all these civilizations have one thing in common : they all perished. Every last one. Most of these (all except the Chinese) even eradicated their scientific knowledge (esp. the muslims were good at this), and went backward in technological development instead of forward.
The sad truth is, that there is a single ideology whose adherents have produced over 99% of all scientific knowledge, and who are the only ones who rescued the remaining 1% from destruction. There is one person who exemplifies the singular ideology that created our current level of knowledge : Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Why did he learn science ? Why should humans conduct science and improve themselves using it ? To get to know the beauty of God (as in Christ) better. The catholic church followed him (eventually) and we all know the result. This very forum is built upon his legacy, as is nearly everything we have around us.
That's the thesis of this book, and the guy makes a very convincing case. No doubt though, that lots of people, who might be reasonably accused of hating the ideology in question, will deny this.
Quote from the book :
âoeEvidence scattered from Angkor Wat to Machu Picchu attests to the ability of human beings throughout the globe, not confined to the leading civilizations, to achieve amazing technological feats. And yet, and yetâ¦.Modern Europe has overwhelmingly dominated accomplishment in both the arts and sciences. The estimates of the European contribution are robust. They cannot, in any way I have been able to devise, be attenuated more than fractionally.
Unfortunately if you read the book it will become clear just how much the author dislikes this observation. 3 "fields of science and arts" were created with the express purpose of not having any competing Europeans. Arabic literature (dominated by Jews), Indian philosophy (as Europeans dominate what you might call "eastern philosophy" too, certainly up until the 1990's), and Chinese arts (which somehow magically includes the printing press ("invented" by a Chinese emperor, who did nothing with it))
The author concludes the quote above, however, with this remark, even if it's slightly out of scope for the book :
As I write, it appears that Europeâ(TM)s run is over. In another few hundred years, books will probably be exploring the reasons why some completely different part of the
The Soviets successfully made becoming a Physicist or Radiologist desirable and even "sexy" objectives for several decades.
You mean when they weren't killing people for disagreeing with "approved" science ?
And, pray tell, becoming a physicist and certainly becoming a radiologist was magnitudes more popular outside the soviet "union" than inside. It seems to me Europe and America were the force pushing Russians to accompolish more, by setting an example, rather than the reverse.
Here you can find one of many Soviet repressive science disasters.
Communists kill scientists, and science. I can't say I understand why, but the Soviets did it. Mao did it. Kim Jong Il does it. Several South American states did it. There can be no real doubt, given history, something in communism (possibly the one-party-system and "necessary" imposed economic science) destroys science and makes people kill scientists.
100 DEAD SCIENTISTS AND MICROBIOLOGISTS - The Master List
B16098 / Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:09:18 / Miscellaneous
While some of these deaths may be purely coincidental and seem to pose no connection, many of these deaths are highly suspicious and appear not to be random acts of violence. Many are just plain murders.
If you see any incorrect dates or errors, please provide me with accurate information, Thank you!
Peace, Mark
[ LINK ]
List mirrored below. Rest in peace.
Awoken Research Group
http://valis.cjb.cc/
In the 1980's over two dozen science graduates and experts working for Marconi or Plessey Defence Systems died in mysterious circumstances, most appearing to be 'suicides.' The MOD denied these scientists had been involved in classified Star Wars Projects and that the deaths were in any way connected.
Judge for yourself
March 1982: Professor Keith Bowden, 46
Expertise: Computer programmer and scientist at Essex University engaged in work for Marconi, who was hailed as an expert on super computers and computer-controlled aircraft.
Circumstance of Death: Fatal car crash when his vehicle went out of control across a dual carriageway and plunged onto a disused railway line. Police maintained he had been drinking but family and friends all denied the allegation.
Coroner's verdict: Accident.
April 1983: Lt-Colonel Anthony Godley, 49
Expertise: Head of the Work Study Unit at the Royal College of Military Science.
Circumstance of Death: Disappeared mysteriously in April 1983 without explanation. Presumed dead.
March 1985: Roger Hill, 49
Expertise: Radar designer and draughtsman with Marconi.
Circumstance of Death: Died by a shotgun blast at home.
Coroner's verdict: Suicide.
November 19, 1985: Jonathan Wash, 29
Expertise: Digital communications expert who had worked at GEC and at British Telecom's secret research centre at Martlesham Heath, Suffolk.
Circumstance of Death: Died as a result of falling from a hotel room in Abidjan, West Africa, while working for British Telecom. He had expressed fears that his life was in danger.
Coroner's verdict: Open.
August 4, 1986: Vimal Dajibhai, 24
NOTE: My records show this date to be Oct. 1986
Expertise: Computer software engineer with Marconi, responsible for testing computer control systems of Tigerfish and Stingray torpedoes at Marconi Underwater Systems at Croxley Green, Hertfordshire.
Circumstance of Death: Death by 74m (240ft.) fall from Clifton Suspension Bridge, Bristol. Police report on the body mentioned a needle-sized puncture wound on the left buttock, but this was later dismissed as being a result of the fall. Dajibhai had been looking forward to starting a new job in the City of London and friends had confirmed that there was no reason for him to commit suicide. At the time of his death he was in the last week of his work with Marconi.
Coroner's verdict: Open.
October 1986: Arshad Sharif, 26
Expertise: Reported to have been working on systems for the detection of submarines by satellite.
Circumstance of Death: Died as a result of placing a ligature around his neck, tying the other end to a tree and then driving off in his car with the accelerator pedal jammed down. His unusual death was complicated by several issues: Sharif lived near Vimal Dajibhai in Stanmore, Middlesex, he committed suicide in Bristol and, inexplicably, had spent the last night of his life in a rooming house. He had paid for his accommodation in cash and was seen to have a bundle of high-denomination banknotes in his possession. While the police were told of the banknotes, no mention was made of them at the inquest and they were never found. In addition, most of the other guests at the rooming house worked at British Aerospace prior to work
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Al Gore and James Hansen aren't just making this stuff up.
actually, Hansen kind of did make stuff up...
Lookit - I'm not going to jump anyone's religion (either for or against), but we are talking about a scientist who got caught literally making up the infamous "hockey stick" that almost no one in climatology dares mention these days (and for good reason...)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Grow up.
http://www.physorg.com/news162795064.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html
But since you're convinced Hansen is on the up-and-up (or simply preprogrammed to agree with him because of which political side you're on), I doubt the truth will change your mind.
After all, you're one of the same greenpeace retards who stops us from having a sane Nuclear power policy (and thus forces us to burn coal and oil).