6 ms·

Why don’t Americans understand science better? Start with the scientists.

8 points by robg 17y ago

reasonattlm 17y ago
You might look at Aubrey de Grey's thesis on this topic. His focus is applied biogerontology, but the general incentives and situation he describes can be applied just as well to any field of science. See the diagrams in this short article: The Curious Case of the Catatonic Biogerontologists http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=19 http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?articl...
tokenadult 17y ago
PZ Myers's blog has a good comment on this opinion piece: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/solution_blame_scientists_add.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/solution_blame_sc... Earlier on his blog he provided detailed criticisms of the book by the same authors.
- mrcharles 17y ago
  Actually, that's not really much of a comment. Based on your pitch I was expecting a nice little tear-down, instead it's just drive-by on a book they wrote.
  - arakyd 17y ago
    The "nice little tear-down" is in the book review mentioned, but not linked, by the parent (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_amer...). Apparently these guys aren't very fond of PZ, and he isn't very fond of them either.
    - mrcharles 17y ago
      Should've linked that one first!
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    That's because the comment really should have linked to the actual review, which I bothered to dig through the backlog for: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_amer... and the followup: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_still_use.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_amer...
- robg 17y ago
  I wish I hadn't upvoted that. He's usually pretty good, but on this score I wish he would engage, engage, and engage some more rather than get defensive and dismissive. Their solutions need criticism, but I agree that scientists have generally been part of the problem. I interpret the anti-science I see in society as a backlash against the lack of humility, and outright arrogance, many scientists use to push their favored field. The bottom line is we're dependent on public dollars. It's our duty to explain what we do as public servants not as private dictators. We may not be comfortable talking about questions of faith, but that's what the public demands because it's closest to what they believe on a daily basis. I much prefer the Sagan model over the Dawkins version. From a distance it seems Sagan managed to advance science, while Dawkins seems to undermine it. It's all in how you treat people who disagree with you.
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    I wish he would engage, engage, and engage some more... Well, isn't that as much a problem with blogs as a problem with PZ? As I found by digging through his archives, he'd already engaged, at some length. The problem is that it's a hassle for either him or us to dig through his backlog and provide links to the meat of his arguments. Blogs are great, but there's certainly room for improvement in the way they organize knowledge.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      Blogs are great, but there's certainly room for improvement in the way they organize knowledge. Hear. Hear. I appreciate the comments here on HN above suggesting that I should have linked to PZ's review of the two authors' book rather than to his post today about the Boston Globe piece. I chose specificity of response to what was submitted here (yes, and personal convenience in slogging through PZ's blog to find the links) over lengthiness of post and point-by-pointness of reply.
    - robg 17y ago
      I agree to a large extent. That's a big part of the app we're working on. But in these posts, he comes across as angry and bitter. That's no way to engage the general public (even as it might be a great way to engage his audience).
etal 17y ago
Or, start with the various leaders who discovered that anti-intellectualism is a great defense against criticism of bad ideas that they want to do anyway. This tactic isn't new -- remember Adlai Stevenson? Notice that the issues where public and scientific opinion diverge the most are the most politicized ones? It doesn't just happen in America; this is the effect of politicians and religious leaders targeting mindshare while scientists simply can't make that the priority. We eggheads don't stand a chance unless our research lines up with someone else's goals.
- robg 17y ago
  Or that our research aligns with the public's needs. That's what I take away from the miles of unused tubes in Texas. The other problem is scientists aren't very good at organizing and lobbying. The biggest neuroscience organization, the one I belong to, has a well-known health care lobbyist representing them. His name? Newt Gingrich.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Scientific literacy is no shield against anti-evolutionists or global warming deniers, for example, who are often scientists themselves, who couch their arguments in sophisticated scientific language, and who regularly cite articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Having the knowledge equivalent of a PhD is more along the lines of what’s necessary to refute them, and even then, the task requires considerable research and intellectual labor, far more than most people have the time for. As a "global warming denier", now I'm being lumped into the anti-evolutionist camp. What's next? Sticking us in with the flat-earthers and the folks who believe men didn't walk on the moon? Perhaps we can be included with the holocaust deniers. That's a fun group. Science is about adbuction (inferring patterns from data), deduction (inferring rules from patterns), and induction (inferring new data from rules). You hypothesize and test to validate, and it's always provisional. That means that science doesn't play the role of the oracle of ultimate truth. As the article points out, for scientists to take on this role is counter-productive. Taking a cheap shot at the critics of current global warming theory is just so much political genuflecting. The article could have done without it.
- rimantas 17y ago
  That bothers me too. I would not call myself AGW denier, more like agnostic with some inclination to believe, but this attitude that if you don't believe in god that makes you believe that the Earth is flat is just stupid. The whole GW issue to me looks most alike to faith from them all.
- timr 17y ago
  "As a "global warming denier", now I'm being lumped into the anti-evolutionist camp. What's next? Sticking us in with the flat-earthers and the folks who believe men didn't walk on the moon....Taking a cheap shot at the critics of current global warming theory is just so much political genuflecting." Misuse of the word "theory" to imply debate where none exists puts you squarely in the same rhetorical camp as anti-evolutionists. It's not a cheap shot to group pseudo-scientific criticisms based on the common logical fallacies used to advance their respective agendas.
  - 17y ago
mrcharles 17y ago
Pretty sure that what science is is taught pretty early in school. "Scientists must make it clear that while they don’t have all the answers, science is about searching for the truth, an imperfect process of doing the best one can with the information available" Really? I'm pretty sure I knew this when I was given an overview of scientific process in grade school.
ars 17y ago
This article starts by complaining about lack of basic knowledge "what is a stem cell", and then ends with complaints about the unwashed masses not toeing the line on global warming. Science used to be only about testable things. Not anymore, now if you think about it really hard, and everyone else does too, and no one can find a flaw, it's science. Global warming, evolution, and most of cosmology are not testable. Are they true? Maybe. But they are not at the same level as the rest of science. Will they be testable? I hope so. So I'm not surprised that many people don't believe in those things, and scientists too. It's for a good reason. And complaining when scientists dispute global warming, when they have every right to is part of the problem! This article does EXACTLY what it itself is complaining about.
- scott_s 17y ago
  How are global warming, evolution and "most of cosmology" untestable?
mynameishere 17y ago
The author seems to think that real science is a subcategory of political science.

8 points by robg 17y ago

You might look at Aubrey de Grey's thesis on this topic. His focus is applied biogerontology, but the general incentives and situation he describes can be applied just as well to any field of science. See the diagrams in this short article: The Curious Case of the Catatonic Biogerontologists http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=19 http://www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?articl...

tokenadult 17y ago

PZ Myers's blog has a good comment on this opinion piece: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/solution_blame_scientists_add.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/solution_blame_sc... Earlier on his blog he provided detailed criticisms of the book by the same authors.

mrcharles 17y ago
Actually, that's not really much of a comment. Based on your pitch I was expecting a nice little tear-down, instead it's just drive-by on a book they wrote.
- arakyd 17y ago
  The "nice little tear-down" is in the book review mentioned, but not linked, by the parent (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_amer...). Apparently these guys aren't very fond of PZ, and he isn't very fond of them either.
  - mrcharles 17y ago
    Should've linked that one first!
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  That's because the comment really should have linked to the actual review, which I bothered to dig through the backlog for: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_amer... and the followup: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_still_use.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_amer...
robg 17y ago
I wish I hadn't upvoted that. He's usually pretty good, but on this score I wish he would engage, engage, and engage some more rather than get defensive and dismissive. Their solutions need criticism, but I agree that scientists have generally been part of the problem. I interpret the anti-science I see in society as a backlash against the lack of humility, and outright arrogance, many scientists use to push their favored field. The bottom line is we're dependent on public dollars. It's our duty to explain what we do as public servants not as private dictators. We may not be comfortable talking about questions of faith, but that's what the public demands because it's closest to what they believe on a daily basis. I much prefer the Sagan model over the Dawkins version. From a distance it seems Sagan managed to advance science, while Dawkins seems to undermine it. It's all in how you treat people who disagree with you.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  I wish he would engage, engage, and engage some more... Well, isn't that as much a problem with blogs as a problem with PZ? As I found by digging through his archives, he'd already engaged, at some length. The problem is that it's a hassle for either him or us to dig through his backlog and provide links to the meat of his arguments. Blogs are great, but there's certainly room for improvement in the way they organize knowledge.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    Blogs are great, but there's certainly room for improvement in the way they organize knowledge. Hear. Hear. I appreciate the comments here on HN above suggesting that I should have linked to PZ's review of the two authors' book rather than to his post today about the Boston Globe piece. I chose specificity of response to what was submitted here (yes, and personal convenience in slogging through PZ's blog to find the links) over lengthiness of post and point-by-pointness of reply.
  - robg 17y ago
    I agree to a large extent. That's a big part of the app we're working on. But in these posts, he comes across as angry and bitter. That's no way to engage the general public (even as it might be a great way to engage his audience).

etal 17y ago

Or, start with the various leaders who discovered that anti-intellectualism is a great defense against criticism of bad ideas that they want to do anyway. This tactic isn't new -- remember Adlai Stevenson? Notice that the issues where public and scientific opinion diverge the most are the most politicized ones? It doesn't just happen in America; this is the effect of politicians and religious leaders targeting mindshare while scientists simply can't make that the priority. We eggheads don't stand a chance unless our research lines up with someone else's goals.

robg 17y ago
Or that our research aligns with the public's needs. That's what I take away from the miles of unused tubes in Texas. The other problem is scientists aren't very good at organizing and lobbying. The biggest neuroscience organization, the one I belong to, has a well-known health care lobbyist representing them. His name? Newt Gingrich.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Scientific literacy is no shield against anti-evolutionists or global warming deniers, for example, who are often scientists themselves, who couch their arguments in sophisticated scientific language, and who regularly cite articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Having the knowledge equivalent of a PhD is more along the lines of what’s necessary to refute them, and even then, the task requires considerable research and intellectual labor, far more than most people have the time for. As a "global warming denier", now I'm being lumped into the anti-evolutionist camp. What's next? Sticking us in with the flat-earthers and the folks who believe men didn't walk on the moon? Perhaps we can be included with the holocaust deniers. That's a fun group. Science is about adbuction (inferring patterns from data), deduction (inferring rules from patterns), and induction (inferring new data from rules). You hypothesize and test to validate, and it's always provisional. That means that science doesn't play the role of the oracle of ultimate truth. As the article points out, for scientists to take on this role is counter-productive. Taking a cheap shot at the critics of current global warming theory is just so much political genuflecting. The article could have done without it.

rimantas 17y ago
That bothers me too. I would not call myself AGW denier, more like agnostic with some inclination to believe, but this attitude that if you don't believe in god that makes you believe that the Earth is flat is just stupid. The whole GW issue to me looks most alike to faith from them all.
timr 17y ago
"As a "global warming denier", now I'm being lumped into the anti-evolutionist camp. What's next? Sticking us in with the flat-earthers and the folks who believe men didn't walk on the moon....Taking a cheap shot at the critics of current global warming theory is just so much political genuflecting." Misuse of the word "theory" to imply debate where none exists puts you squarely in the same rhetorical camp as anti-evolutionists. It's not a cheap shot to group pseudo-scientific criticisms based on the common logical fallacies used to advance their respective agendas.
- 17y ago

mrcharles 17y ago

Pretty sure that what science is is taught pretty early in school. "Scientists must make it clear that while they don’t have all the answers, science is about searching for the truth, an imperfect process of doing the best one can with the information available" Really? I'm pretty sure I knew this when I was given an overview of scientific process in grade school.

ars 17y ago

This article starts by complaining about lack of basic knowledge "what is a stem cell", and then ends with complaints about the unwashed masses not toeing the line on global warming. Science used to be only about testable things. Not anymore, now if you think about it really hard, and everyone else does too, and no one can find a flaw, it's science. Global warming, evolution, and most of cosmology are not testable. Are they true? Maybe. But they are not at the same level as the rest of science. Will they be testable? I hope so. So I'm not surprised that many people don't believe in those things, and scientists too. It's for a good reason. And complaining when scientists dispute global warming, when they have every right to is part of the problem! This article does EXACTLY what it itself is complaining about.

scott_s 17y ago
How are global warming, evolution and "most of cosmology" untestable?

mynameishere 17y ago

The author seems to think that real science is a subcategory of political science.