9 ms·

Science journalism is generally just awful. I seriously think that a major reason for the lack of public scientific literacy (I get an earful of anti-evolution

Science journalism is generally just awful. I seriously think that a major reason for the lack of public scientific literacy (I get an earful of anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family) is the lack of a competent institution for communicating these truths. Outside of scientific journals, and the occasional pop-sci bestseller, the average person has to rely on university press releases, bloggers, and magazine writers - and they generally seem to be terrible at their jobs.

azinman2 8y ago
I don’t think science journalism is the reason why anti-science themes have evolved in the public mindset. Science used to be culturally important in the 50s as a way to understand truth, explore the world, improve life, and create industry. It’s since been challenged by both religion and industry via politicians for viewpoints that go against some of their desires. Politicians have since used it as a tool for dividing, reinforcing the anti-science climate. I don’t think it’s fair to blame journalists here.
- neuromantik8086 8y ago
  > Science used to be culturally important in the 50s as a way to [beat the communists]. Fixed that for you
umvi 8y ago
> anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs which leads my family to dig in their heels, double down on their beliefs, and close their minds to accepting them. I've made a lot of progress by instead showing how those things are not only not anti-religious topics, but quite the opposite - they bring us closer to the truth of how God accomplishes what he does. Once they feel that their core beliefs are not being threatened, but merely augmented, it's much easier to accept them.
- darkmighty 8y ago
  Honestly, scientific literacy does jeopardize the "personal God" concept, and in particular obviously the Christian mythology. There are still plenty of christian scientists though, some more keen on the moral teaching and community aspect of the religion, some interpret the texts as non-literal (a tiny minority I presume cling to literal texts). I mean, I'm all for more engagement and scientific literacy, but let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here; specially for the more hardline churches -- while catholicism in particular seems happy to transition its role (into important lessons and social support) and turn dogma into allegory.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here Science and religion can get along just fine. Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. "Cells" are named for the places where monks live. The Vatican has operated scientific observatories for centuries. There's even one in Arizona that makes important discoveries to this day. The whole science vs. religion meme is something that the internet has amplified out of proportion by latching onto fringe groups and smaller denominations and holding them up as the only kind of religion that exists, creating artificial levels conflict to justify their position.
    - mr_overalls 8y ago
      > Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). But Lord help you if you apply the scientific standards of empirical rigor or explanatory parsimony to any topics further afield. Most obviously, there isn't a shred of evidence - none whatsoever - for the existence of a divine being along the lines of what's posited by the Abrahamic religions.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). There's a lot of people you can reasonably argue were murdered by the Catholic Church, but Galileo isn't one of them.
swebs 8y ago
Yeah, I've noticed the same. There's also a lot of anti-biology from my left-wing friends. The problem is also compounded by the fact that Wikipedia discourages primary sources in favor of shoddy reporting. It makes sense to reject self published scientific articles in favor of journal-published articles. But more often than not, modern media outlets just seem like a vector for adding political bias and inaccuracies by reporting on things they don't really understand.
- m3mpp 8y ago
  "Conservatives are anti-science": no downvote. "Liberals are anti-biology": downvote. HN is funny...
  - floatboth 8y ago
    Well known fact: no downvote. Transphobic dog-whistle: downvote.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Can you give some examples of liberals being anti-biology? That seems so far from even the common stereotypes of liberals that I'm genuinely not sure what you're talking about.
    - swebs 8y ago
      https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm...
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        There are some legitimate concerns there. However, given that the current Republican White House is outright censoring government science agencies on a large scale[1][2] when their results are politically inconvenient, it's pretty laughable to claim that leftists are the real science-haters. This article was published before the 2016 election, so at the time it might have been merely naive, but I see that the author has a video from just a few months ago where he "explains that the real war on science is the one from the left." He is absolutely not arguing in good faith. [1] http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tracker/ http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tr... [2] http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/fws-scientists-prevented-from-working-in-politically-contentious-areas/ http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/fws-...
dkfellows 8y ago
> Science journalism is generally just awful. Not just science journalism. I've yet to see a journalist get a story 100% right where I knew the facts personally ahead of time. If you're lucky, they've just garbled people's names...

azinman2 8y ago

I don’t think science journalism is the reason why anti-science themes have evolved in the public mindset. Science used to be culturally important in the 50s as a way to understand truth, explore the world, improve life, and create industry. It’s since been challenged by both religion and industry via politicians for viewpoints that go against some of their desires. Politicians have since used it as a tool for dividing, reinforcing the anti-science climate. I don’t think it’s fair to blame journalists here.

neuromantik8086 8y ago
> Science used to be culturally important in the 50s as a way to [beat the communists]. Fixed that for you

umvi 8y ago

> anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs which leads my family to dig in their heels, double down on their beliefs, and close their minds to accepting them. I've made a lot of progress by instead showing how those things are not only not anti-religious topics, but quite the opposite - they bring us closer to the truth of how God accomplishes what he does. Once they feel that their core beliefs are not being threatened, but merely augmented, it's much easier to accept them.

darkmighty 8y ago
Honestly, scientific literacy does jeopardize the "personal God" concept, and in particular obviously the Christian mythology. There are still plenty of christian scientists though, some more keen on the moral teaching and community aspect of the religion, some interpret the texts as non-literal (a tiny minority I presume cling to literal texts). I mean, I'm all for more engagement and scientific literacy, but let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here; specially for the more hardline churches -- while catholicism in particular seems happy to transition its role (into important lessons and social support) and turn dogma into allegory.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here Science and religion can get along just fine. Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. "Cells" are named for the places where monks live. The Vatican has operated scientific observatories for centuries. There's even one in Arizona that makes important discoveries to this day. The whole science vs. religion meme is something that the internet has amplified out of proportion by latching onto fringe groups and smaller denominations and holding them up as the only kind of religion that exists, creating artificial levels conflict to justify their position.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    > Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). But Lord help you if you apply the scientific standards of empirical rigor or explanatory parsimony to any topics further afield. Most obviously, there isn't a shred of evidence - none whatsoever - for the existence of a divine being along the lines of what's posited by the Abrahamic religions.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). There's a lot of people you can reasonably argue were murdered by the Catholic Church, but Galileo isn't one of them.

swebs 8y ago

Yeah, I've noticed the same. There's also a lot of anti-biology from my left-wing friends. The problem is also compounded by the fact that Wikipedia discourages primary sources in favor of shoddy reporting. It makes sense to reject self published scientific articles in favor of journal-published articles. But more often than not, modern media outlets just seem like a vector for adding political bias and inaccuracies by reporting on things they don't really understand.

m3mpp 8y ago
"Conservatives are anti-science": no downvote. "Liberals are anti-biology": downvote. HN is funny...
- floatboth 8y ago
  Well known fact: no downvote. Transphobic dog-whistle: downvote.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Can you give some examples of liberals being anti-biology? That seems so far from even the common stereotypes of liberals that I'm genuinely not sure what you're talking about.
  - swebs 8y ago
    https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm...
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      There are some legitimate concerns there. However, given that the current Republican White House is outright censoring government science agencies on a large scale[1][2] when their results are politically inconvenient, it's pretty laughable to claim that leftists are the real science-haters. This article was published before the 2016 election, so at the time it might have been merely naive, but I see that the author has a video from just a few months ago where he "explains that the real war on science is the one from the left." He is absolutely not arguing in good faith. [1] http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tracker/ http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tr... [2] http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/fws-scientists-prevented-from-working-in-politically-contentious-areas/ http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/fws-...

dkfellows 8y ago

> Science journalism is generally just awful. Not just science journalism. I've yet to see a journalist get a story 100% right where I knew the facts personally ahead of time. If you're lucky, they've just garbled people's names...