4 ms·

Although I do like addressing critics, I don't like this recent trend where critics of a particular science are treated with complete disdain. Is calling someon

Although I do like addressing critics, I don't like this recent trend where critics of a particular science are treated with complete disdain. Is calling someone "batshit crazy", in so many words, supposed to open a dialogue? For instance, the recent IPCC's attempt to make their position unchallengeable, with Tony Blair claiming No 'serious person' should doubt man behind climate change, says Tony Blair. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10329520/No-serious-person-should-doubt-man-behind-climate-change-says-Tony-Blair.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... So if you have any doubts or skepticism you are not a serious person. Another example is the constant attack on anyone that claims GMO foods should probably be labeled and that they could lead to disaster if not treated with the proper scientific respect it deserves. Here is an article from SciAm that claims basically that anything other than the status quo on GMOs is "hysteria": http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/09/06/scientific-american-comes-out-in-favor-of-gmos/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction... I could go on and on listing public criticisms of science and their rebuttals, but my point is this - science is about challenge. We need to take a very careful approach when we're trying to convince hearts and minds of the public and address their skepticism not with disdain but with empathy and understanding. Instead of saying, in a very eloquent way, "oh well, that's because you're stupid", we should stick to our scientific guns and beat down ignorance with facts. Going down any other path leads into the realm of philosophy, where science has no teeth. We can't simply wave our hand and say "trust us". Trust is earned. Let's earn it with science.

tokenadult 13y ago
You are not writing about the submitted article. The phrase you put in quotation marks is not found there.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- 3am 13y ago
  People throw around "attacking a straw man" far too much, but it would be completely appropriate in the grandparent post.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    I was trying to make a point that I summarized in the ending paragraph. I'm sorry you thought it was a straw man. My main point, if I can drill it further home, is not to attack anyone in debate and instead use empathy to lead to a dialogue. For instance, say you meet someone that is against vaccines because of their supposed link to autism. Would it be better to talk to them rationally about the subject, figuring out why there is a lack of trust, while sticking to the facts, or is it better to call them out in public in a retort that makes them look childish? If you want to be right then by all means, do the public retort. But if you want to convince them, then address them directly and stick to science.
    - 3am 13y ago
      Okay, on that point, I think it's fine to attack debate opponents as long as your are attacking them 1) on the merits of their points or 2) personal traits that are germane to the discussion. The autism/vaccine link has been studied to death, far more than it should have been. It doesn't exist. But people still bring it up. Is that a good faith debate? I feel like the anti-vaccine discussion wants to be treated as an equal on a scientific basis, but is unwilling to do the hard work being aware of and understanding the research on the topic. I think they deserve to be treated with scorn, because a good faith effort to educate them has been happening for the better part of a decade and it has had little effect. Science is a bitch. If you don't get the answer you like, you don't get an unlimited number of do-overs. EDIT: though, I think you have a legit gripe on GMOs.
      - ianstallings 13y ago
        Yeah, even the most compassionate person on the planet has limits to what debate it wants to entertain. I think we should stick to people that truly want to learn the truth and ignore the ones that simply want to muckrake. Unfortunately a lot of people "learn" from pictures with quotes on them posted on a social network, and it just wastes everyone's time. It's up to us to either address it or ignore it. I'd rather ignore it and reach those that can be reached. Because unfortunately I've found that digging into a topic with people that parrot statements without much basis in fact that they lose all interest. How can you convince someone that philosophically believes that the world is out to get them, that they should stop talking and listen? This is the great challenge of science, as always.
logicchains 13y ago
A cynic might say "follow the money". There's an awful lot of money behind the push for GMO, and a powerful company with a reputation for doing unethical things (Monsanto). Many people are quite emotionally (and/or politically) invested in the concept of global warming. I'm not saying I disagree that GMOs are harmless or that global warming is occurring, only that often when people speak with such vitriol they're doing it in the name of money or emotion, not science.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  Yeah that happens on both sides of some scientific debates these days. Ones that usually effect all of us, such as GMO or climate chance. I bet the guys over in doing astrophysics are very thankful no one is getting the pitch forks out because of dark matter claims. We'll work through it, as we always do. In the meantime we'll have to try and focus on thoughtful and healthy debate.

tokenadult 13y ago

You are not writing about the submitted article. The phrase you put in quotation marks is not found there.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
3am 13y ago
People throw around "attacking a straw man" far too much, but it would be completely appropriate in the grandparent post.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  I was trying to make a point that I summarized in the ending paragraph. I'm sorry you thought it was a straw man. My main point, if I can drill it further home, is not to attack anyone in debate and instead use empathy to lead to a dialogue. For instance, say you meet someone that is against vaccines because of their supposed link to autism. Would it be better to talk to them rationally about the subject, figuring out why there is a lack of trust, while sticking to the facts, or is it better to call them out in public in a retort that makes them look childish? If you want to be right then by all means, do the public retort. But if you want to convince them, then address them directly and stick to science.
  - 3am 13y ago
    Okay, on that point, I think it's fine to attack debate opponents as long as your are attacking them 1) on the merits of their points or 2) personal traits that are germane to the discussion. The autism/vaccine link has been studied to death, far more than it should have been. It doesn't exist. But people still bring it up. Is that a good faith debate? I feel like the anti-vaccine discussion wants to be treated as an equal on a scientific basis, but is unwilling to do the hard work being aware of and understanding the research on the topic. I think they deserve to be treated with scorn, because a good faith effort to educate them has been happening for the better part of a decade and it has had little effect. Science is a bitch. If you don't get the answer you like, you don't get an unlimited number of do-overs. EDIT: though, I think you have a legit gripe on GMOs.
    - ianstallings 13y ago
      Yeah, even the most compassionate person on the planet has limits to what debate it wants to entertain. I think we should stick to people that truly want to learn the truth and ignore the ones that simply want to muckrake. Unfortunately a lot of people "learn" from pictures with quotes on them posted on a social network, and it just wastes everyone's time. It's up to us to either address it or ignore it. I'd rather ignore it and reach those that can be reached. Because unfortunately I've found that digging into a topic with people that parrot statements without much basis in fact that they lose all interest. How can you convince someone that philosophically believes that the world is out to get them, that they should stop talking and listen? This is the great challenge of science, as always.

logicchains 13y ago

A cynic might say "follow the money". There's an awful lot of money behind the push for GMO, and a powerful company with a reputation for doing unethical things (Monsanto). Many people are quite emotionally (and/or politically) invested in the concept of global warming. I'm not saying I disagree that GMOs are harmless or that global warming is occurring, only that often when people speak with such vitriol they're doing it in the name of money or emotion, not science.

ianstallings 13y ago
Yeah that happens on both sides of some scientific debates these days. Ones that usually effect all of us, such as GMO or climate chance. I bet the guys over in doing astrophysics are very thankful no one is getting the pitch forks out because of dark matter claims. We'll work through it, as we always do. In the meantime we'll have to try and focus on thoughtful and healthy debate.