NationStates Jolt Archive

If we look around our societies today we see attempts by certain groups to pooh-pooh science and provide unsubstantiated alternative ideas.

There is the rising threat of creationism;
the denial amongst certain groups that global warming is occuring at all;
the refusal of some people to accept modern medical treatment, instead opting for unproven or discreditted homeopathic methods;
the use of astrology and horoscopes in decision making (thanks Andaluciae)

What is the root cause of these problems?

Is it the media giving too much attention to negative scientific stories? Is it a lack of education? Do politicians and corporations deliberately foster an anti-science attitude? Is it the same as it always was, just the international media make it more visible? Do the public mistrust science, and if so, why do you think that is?

Don't forget that large segments of society relies on astrology and horoscopes for information about their daily life. Or all sorts of other forms of pseudo-science, like telepathy and the like.

It's a combination of a failure of the educational system to teach critical thinking and the scientific method (most public school science classes are taught as disconnected triva to be memorized), and the media treating stories about the supernatural, pseudoscience, etc. with fawning credulity because it gets better ratings.

It's a combination of a failure of the educational system to teach critical thinking and the scientific method (most public school science classes are taught as disconnected triva to be memorized), and the media treating stories about the supernatural, pseudoscience, etc. with fawning credulity because it gets better ratings.

can we repair the damage by educating people better or encouraging the media to portray science in a positive light? Even in the face of people who actively fight against such education by attempting to insert unsabstantiated alternatives?

also, many societies saw an increased reliance on science for a long time. We are now experiencing a sort of "back lash" from the non-scientific perspectives. Basically for every revolution there is a smaller counter-revolution. Take the sexual revolution. There was a huge increase in people having sexual relationships outside of marriage (for a number of reasons) and now there is a slight decrease in the number of people engaging in extramarital sex. It's just one of those things you can pretty much expect.

also, many societies saw an increased reliance on science for a long time. We are now experiencing a sort of "back lash" from the non-scientific perspectives. Basically for every revolution there is a smaller counter-revolution. Take the sexual revolution. There was a huge increase in people having sexual relationships outside of marriage (for a number of reasons) and now there is a slight decrease in the number of people engaging in extramarital sex. It's just one of those things you can pretty much expect.

so do you think it will die out on its own, or will it increase?

Don't forget that large segments of society relies on astrology and horoscopes for information about their daily life. Or all sorts of other forms of pseudo-science, like telepathy and the like.It's because science and technology haven't given us all personal jetpacks...


Ok, half tongue-in-cheek, but when the most famous scientists around are the ones dealing with distances longer than a galaxy and shorter than a neutron and yet mastery of the 'Newtonian' world is still left to (largely unnoticed) developments in the 'old fashioned' airplane, then the avergae person on the street who isn't of a mind to appreciate the beauty of triple-quark combinations or the artistry of the geometry within the event horizon of a black hole or any of that stuff are going to look at (say, and not picking on them) the Meteorologists doing quite well (but not perfectly) predicting the weather and go "hmph, Science... They didn't predict that rain the other day..." and look elsewhere for the cosmic cogs that turn the universal wheels...

Well, that's the impression I get... (about their attitudes, not my own...)

It's a combination of a failure of the educational system to teach critical thinking and the scientific method (most public school science classes are taught as disconnected triva to be memorized), and the media treating stories about the supernatural, pseudoscience, etc. with fawning credulity because it gets better ratings.
Agreed they make you memorize a list of facts for the next test but don’t go about deriving that proof … USING the method in which these theories were created with
The facts are important but they are overwhelming the critical thinking part

I'm glad people come out with different ideas. Some are mad and bad but without crazy people we might still think that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Even in the science community you have crazy thoughts, they just haven't been proven yet, and accepted as mainstream.

And even then, I refer to a point made on the same thread, people still smoke but they know its very harmful to them and has no real benefit except I suppose to calm your nerves and makes you look cool, (if there are any others let me know), but it seems a small sacrifice to make to keep your health. But do people still smoke, yep.....

But then if you believe in God it doesn't matter anyway because you're going to heaven, so smoke away.

can we repair the damage by educating people better or encouraging the media to portray science in a positive light? Even in the face of people who actively fight against such education by attempting to insert unsabstantiated alternatives?
I don't really think there's anything to worry about. People rely on numbers, facts and statictics. Unsubstantiated alternatives have their appeal because it calls for people to beleive in some thing just for the sake of beleiving. That sort of thing is very appealing to those who feel like they need to hold on to some thing 'from their past'. It also doesn't help that lots of science research is on things people don't want to know about (like on the environment and sustainability).

can we repair the damage by educating people better or encouraging the media to portray science in a positive light? Even in the face of people who actively fight against such education by attempting to insert unsabstantiated alternatives?
The educational system can be fixed, but it's not going to be easy. As for the media, well, Freedom of Speech protects them. They can publish almost anything they want and get away with it. I'd hate to sacrifice freedom, so I don't think there's much that can be done.

so do you think it will die out on its own, or will it increase?
It'll probably die out on it's own, but that doesn't mean we should all just wait for that to happen. Whenever possible, point out to people when they use unsubstatiated facts. If they get all touchy, that makes it difficult, but otherwise, it's not a big problem.

It's a combination of a failure of the educational system to teach critical thinking and the scientific method (most public school science classes are taught as disconnected triva to be memorized), and the media treating stories about the supernatural, pseudoscience, etc. with fawning credulity because it gets better ratings.

Add to that the fact that the terms "fair and balance" have been bastardized in the media. The media seems to think that every story needs two opposing viewpoints, and that each viewpoint, no matter how accepted, has to get equal time or it will not be balanced. This is, of course, rubbish.

What is the root cause of these problems?


I blame Star Wars: the moral of the film is that you can't trust science or technology, and you are better trusting in mystical claptrap. The message it sends out is that the Enlightenment was just something that happened to other people and real answers are to be found in the actions of the charlatans that have always been with us.

The educational system can be fixed, but it's not going to be easy. As for the media, well, Freedom of Speech protects them. They can publish almost anything they want and get away with it. I'd hate to sacrifice freedom, so I don't think there's much that can be done.

should the scientific community make an effort to offer the media more exciting stories? What about more scientists going in to journalism, to help put a stop to the horrendous errors that occur when someone is is barely literate in physics attempts to report on quantum mechanics?

The educational system can be fixed, but it's not going to be easy. As for the media, well, Freedom of Speech protects them. They can publish almost anything they want and get away with it. I'd hate to sacrifice freedom, so I don't think there's much that can be done.
That's true, especially since the media has become a source of entertainment instead of things that really matter.

The educational system is going to be very difficult to change. Even though lots of people acknowlege something needs to be done, no one can really agree on what changes should be made.

can we repair the damage by educating people better or encouraging the media to portray science in a positive light? Even in the face of people who actively fight against such education by attempting to insert unsabstantiated alternatives?

Banning quackery would be a good start - make it illegal to publish horoscpes, jail time for homeopathists et al, make psychics illegal etc.

It is illegal for an untrained person to set up shop as a lawyer - they must demonstrate that they can do the job first. The same should apply to quacks - if they can show that their chosen twaddle is anything other than a sham they can practice. Otherwise, they are tried for fraud etc etc etc.

Banning quackery would be a good start - make it illegal to publish horoscpes, jail time for homeopathists et al, make psychics illegal etc.

It is illegal for an untrained person to set up shop as a lawyer - they must demonstrate that they can do the job first. The same should apply to quacks - if they can show that their chosen twaddle is anything other than a sham they can practice. Otherwise, they are tried for fraud etc etc etc.

is that an option, or would there be a public backlash?

here in the UK I don't think that would work

Add to that the fact that the terms "fair and balance" have been bastardized in the media. The media seems to think that every story needs two opposing viewpoints, and that each viewpoint, no matter how accepted, has to get equal time or it will not be balanced. This is, of course, rubbish.
Very good point. People need to know that science is a brutal competition of ideas in which the weak are discarded and the strong are accepted. It's not a fair fight, it's as brutal as natural selection.

It's a combination of a failure of the educational system to teach critical thinking and the scientific method (most public school science classes are taught as disconnected triva to be memorized), and the media treating stories about the supernatural, pseudoscience, etc. with fawning credulity because it gets better ratings.

Partly true, I think, but there's another reason, connected to commercial television. Commercial TV is wholly paid for by the advertisers. To the broadcasters, then, the most important things they show are the adverts. It goes like this:

A few TV channels show some wide-eyed junk about UFOs or how the moon landings were faked in a late-night graveyard slot. These programmes attract a certain type of viewer: credulous, with very poor critical faculties. The adverts shown in those programmes perform rather better than average, because of the naivete and lack of impulse control of the core audience. Pretty soon, companies are keen to buy advertising slots in the next episode of "Who'd a' Thunk It?". By the laws of supply and demand, the cost of these slots -- and their value to the TV channel -- starts to rise. Compared to the cost of making such programmes, they become very valuable indeed. The programmes move out of the early-hours wasteland and into prime time. In short, it's not that Yokel TV actually gets the best ratings overall -- it just attracts a big chunk of an audience that advertisers are desperate to reach: the slack-jawed crowd who'll believe anything you tell 'em.

should the scientific community make an effort to offer the media more exciting stories?

Not with their current so-called "fair and balanced" approach. If you give them an exciting story, they will go out of their way to find the one hack who disagrees with you, and then present his views as just as valid.

What about more scientists going in to journalism, to help put a stop to the horrendous errors that occur when someone is is barely literate in physics attempts to report on quantum mechanics?

That would be a good idea. You don't know how many times I've seen something reported that was just completely bogus, or horribly misrepresented.

The problem is that science, as a whole, has become far too insulated. Given the nature of our world today, for better or worse, perception is reality. As science delves into deeper understanding of physical reality, it will naturally require an increasingly complex vocabulary to explain these findings. This is absolutely necessary. The problem occurs when scientists fall so in love with that vocabulary that they either can not or choose not to explain these concepts to laymen. Everyday people stop seeing the value of what they consider to be esoteric concepts, even though these concepts may have everyday, real world impacts on their lives. They start to view scientists as rarified "wizards" who are worthy of mistrust because they appear to horde information. While this isn't true, scientists are guilty of doing nothing to counteract the perception, so the gulf grows.

This gulf is exactly where "bunk" science like ID creeps in. While ID proponents may not understand science, they do understand marketing. They recognize that if you can encapsulate ideas, you can sell them regardless of their actual scientific merit. They relate their ideas directly to people, rather than only publishing papers in journals only other scientists read. This immediately makes them more approachable than your average scientist as well as more comprehensible (again, it doesn't make them or their ideas right, just "sellable"). They widen the understanding gap further by extending the argument from the actual science to the personal, saying that scientists are breaking their own rules by not allowing "new ideas" to be given consideration. Mind you, these "new ideas" may not be worthy of scientific consideration, but it's the same tactic as calling someone "un-American" and a traitor if they disagree with Bush's policies. It's not true, but mud slinging doesn't have to be.

Until real science accepts that, unfortunately, in today's world, scientific merit is not enough to gain trust and respect, the mutt-sciences will continue to rise in popularity while legitimate scientists are increasingly viewed as effete timewasters who are ultimately useless.

should the scientific community make an effort to offer the media more exciting stories? What about more scientists going in to journalism, to help put a stop to the horrendous errors that occur when someone is is barely literate in physics attempts to report on quantum mechanics?
It's got to do with ratings. The average person may have a mild interest in hard science, but has a ravenous appetite for monsters, mystics, magic, and Maddona on a grilled cheese sandwich. Science won't be able to draw viewers and readers away from entertaining Bulls--t until people are educated with critical thinking skills and a good foundation in science.

Maybe if we fix the educational system future generations will be more fascinated by a program on M theory than a program on the mothman.

I blame Star Wars: the moral of the film is that you can't trust science or technology, and you are better trusting in mystical claptrap. The message it sends out is that the Enlightenment was just something that happened to other people and real answers are to be found in the actions of the charlatans that have always been with us.

Hmm, intriguing. I would say, rather, that the moral of the film is that mystical claptrap battles other forms of mystical claptrap for eternity. If you think science is on your side, you are only misleading yourself, because your secular leader is only a leader of one of the mystical factions in disguise.

Not with their current so-called "fair and balanced" approach. If you give them an exciting story, they will go out of their way to find the one hack who disagrees with you, and then present his views as just as valid.

I think, though, you still have to operate in the environment. True, the media will indeed try and do this. However, to simply choose not to participate, like the situation in Kansas, just makes the situation worse. If all people have to choose from is mutt-science, then can you really fault them when that's the choice they make?

The problem is that science, as a whole, has become far too insulated. Given the nature of our world today, for better or worse, perception is reality. As science delves into deeper understanding of physical reality, it will naturally require an increasingly complex vocabulary to explain these findings. This is absolutely necessary. The problem occurs when scientists fall so in love with that vocabulary that they either can not or choose not to explain these concepts to laymen. Everyday people stop seeing the value of what they consider to be esoteric concepts, even though these concepts may have everyday, real world impacts on their lives. They start to view scientists as rarified "wizards" who are worthy of mistrust because they appear to horde information. While this isn't true, scientists are guilty of doing nothing to counteract the perception, so the gulf grows.

This gulf is exactly where "bunk" science like ID creeps in. While ID proponents may not understand science, they do understand marketing. They recognize that if you can encapsulate ideas, you can sell them regardless of their actual scientific merit. They relate their ideas directly to people, rather than only publishing papers in journals only other scientists read. This immediately makes them more approachable than your average scientist as well as more comprehensible (again, it doesn't make them or their ideas right, just "sellable"). They widen the understanding gap further by extending the argument from the actual science to the personal, saying that scientists are breaking their own rules by not allowing "new ideas" to be given consideration. Mind you, these "new ideas" may not be worthy of scientific consideration, but it's the same tactic as calling someone "un-American" and a traitor if they disagree with Bush's policies. It's not true, but mud slinging doesn't have to be.

Until real science accepts that, unfortunately, in today's world, scientific merit is not enough to gain trust and respect, the mutt-sciences will continue to rise in popularity while legitimate scientists are increasingly viewed as effete timewasters who are ultimately useless.

Very thoughtful … I have been seeing that a lot lately … as complexity is added it is being turned into some mystical belief rather then what science is a METHOD to organize data and theories into something useful

Those bunk pseudo-scientists have a tendency to be great at marketing …. Using language and definitions which they think just exceed the average persons understanding (thereby giving them credibility as “thinkers”) while not so far exceeding it that the average person wont get SOME idea what’s going on.

Banning quackery would be a good start - make it illegal to publish horoscpes, jail time for homeopathists et al, make psychics illegal etc.

It is illegal for an untrained person to set up shop as a lawyer - they must demonstrate that they can do the job first. The same should apply to quacks - if they can show that their chosen twaddle is anything other than a sham they can practice. Otherwise, they are tried for fraud etc etc etc.
I disagree on the horoscope part. It's punishing free speech to jail astrologers. As for homeopathy and other quack medical treatments, I would say they could be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.

I think, though, you still have to operate in the environment. True, the media will indeed try and do this. However, to simply choose not to participate, like the situation in Kansas, just makes the situation worse. If all people have to choose from is mutt-science, then can you really fault them when that's the choice they make?

I can fault them when they have their mind made up before ever talking to anyone.

My advisor was recently interviewed for a story that the local Fox station was doing on stem cell therapies. I could hear parts of the interview from the next office. Four times within 15 minutes, the interviewer asked the exact same question: "If we have adult stem cells, why research embryonic stem cells." Four times my advisor gave the answer, in laymen's terms no less.

The media wasn't trying to figure out the truth. They were trying to catch her contradicting herself so they would have a sensational story.

As soon as the media is fixed, it may be a useful conduit for science. As it is now, it simply isn't.

I disagree on the horoscope part. It's punishing free speech to jail astrologers. As for homeopathy and other quack medical treatments, I would say they could be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.

Well, to be fair, homeopathy and alternative medicines do give benefit. Perhaps that benefit is only a placebo in nature, but studies have been done to show the amazing power of placebos.

Banning things never helps. We banned alcohol, drugs, etc., yet the problem didn't go away. Indeed, prohibition just made alcohol related problems worse and the same can potentially be argued for drugs. You have to change people's fundamental desires or at least capture their attention to establish any sort of permanent effect. Banning things just gives them an air of mysterious attractiveness.

I can fault them when they have their mind made up before ever talking to anyone.

My advisor was recently interviewed for a story that the local Fox station was doing on stem cell therapies. I could hear parts of the interview from the next office. Four times within 15 minutes, the interviewer asked the exact same question: "If we have adult stem cells, why research embryonic stem cells." Four times my advisor gave the answer, in laymen's terms no less.

The media wasn't trying to figure out the truth. They were trying to catch her contradicting herself so they would have a sensational story.

As soon as the media is fixed, it may be a useful conduit for science. As it is now, it simply isn't.

First off, that's just a bad reporter. Not a bad technique, per se. If you know someone's lying or hiding something, intervallic repetition of a question is a good way to jar it loose. Of course, that reporter had no business using it in that situation for a question like that because it's not as if your advisor was in on some huge secret and the silly bitch was going to trip him up into admitting there's a world-wide conspiracy to harvest embryonic stem-cells.

Indeed, there need to be more people with a firm understanding of science and a good grasp of communication working in scientific reporting. I'm working on it. :)

Anyway, the media is never going to be "fixed". It's going to respond to what people want. The days of "truth in journalism," at least in a large scale, are over because of corprate demands and the need to make a profit. The paradigm has changed and you must work under the new model or risk being marginalized or misunderstood. At present, real science has a lot of catching up to do in this department.

So it seems the general consensus is that scientific concepts need better marketing. I suppose this is the logical solution as most people wont be able to understand what they're about and so someone will be needed to sell them and be a better salesman than those for ID etc. The thing is with this situation is that the value of the idea doesnt realy count. Whoever has the best PR is the one that get accepted.

Penn and Teller have the right idea. Their show "Bullshit" debunks pseudoscience and superstition and does so in an entertaining manner. Unfortunately it's only shown on the Showtime cable network. More shows like this, hosted by funny and charismatic people and shown on network TV could have a positive impact.

So it seems the general consensus is that scientific concepts need better marketing. I suppose this is the logical solution as most people wont be able to understand what they're about and so someone will be needed to sell them and be a better salesman than those for ID etc. The thing is with this situation is that the value of the idea doesnt realy count. Whoever has the best PR is the one that get accepted.

I think, unfortunately, it's gone beyond even that. Real science needs a visionary who also knows how to handle the media, like a Carl Sagan. There needs to be a lightening (I can never spell that word) rod that can not only encapsulate real scietific ideas, but also has a good TVQ.

So it seems the general consensus is that scientific concepts need better marketing. I suppose this is the logical solution as most people wont be able to understand what they're about and so someone will be needed to sell them and be a better salesman than those for ID etc. The thing is with this situation is that the value of the idea doesnt realy count. Whoever has the best PR is the one that get accepted.
Unfortunately we're an image driven society. People want an SUV not because they need to tow a horse trailer, but because they're marketed as a sign that you're successful. Kids want to act "gangsta" not because it will help them get a job or secure their future, but because MTV and other media outlets tell them that it's cool.

People choose ignorance over science because science is seen as overly complex and limiting while mystical claptrap is seen as simple and liberating. Let's face it. Science tells us we can't travel faster than light. Pseudoscience tells us space aliens regularly do it in order to kidnap people and run tests on them. One places limits, the other says there are no limits. Which would any uneducated idiot choose?

Penn and Teller have the right idea. Their show "Bullshit" debunks pseudoscience and superstition and does so in an entertaining manner. Unfortunately it's only shown on the Showtime cable network. More shows like this, hosted by funny and charismatic people and shown on network TV could have a positive impact.

True, but the risk is if you "debunk" something someone believes in, you have to do it in such a way as not to humiliate them. Humiliation doesn't win you followers...except for on very specific web sites that you can access with an AdultCheck password. "Bullshit" is great, just as Richard Dawkins makes some very good points. The problem is they way in which they do it doesn't make people say, "Oh, that's interesting, I never knew that before and shall now feel differently." It makes them say, "Fuck you, pal, and your sanctimonious self-possession."

is it really the responsibility of scientists to go out of their way to prove that the way things are is the way they are? Should it be down to legislators to ensure that things are reported accurately and advertised truthfully?

is it really the responsibility of scientists to go out of their way to prove that the way things are is the way they are? Should it be down to legislators to ensure that things are reported accurately and advertised truthfully?
It's not the government's job to make sure that everyone gets his point across effectively, only that they have the right to get their point accross. If you want to change the way people think you have to work at it.

It's not the government's job to make sure that everyone gets his point across effectively, only that they have the right to get their point accross. If you want to change the way people think you have to work at it.

so as well as spending your time working for the greater good of humanity, you have to have a PR machine to stop nuts from saying your years of research is less worthy than their magic plant remedy?

is it really the responsibility of scientists to go out of their way to prove that the way things are is the way they are? Should it be down to legislators to ensure that things are reported accurately and advertised truthfully?

Ideally? No. Ideally scientists could do exactly what they are doing, focusing all of their attention and energies on their subject of choice, while confident that their discoveries would be accurately relayed to a public capable of comprehending them in their entirety.

Needless to say, though, that's not the world we live in and it doesn't look like it's going to be the world we live in any time soon. It is perhaps a world we should strive for, but while we're striving, we have to operate under the conditions we live in. Furthermore, it's always concerning when one suggests that legislators should step in to decide what's reported "accurately" and "truthfully".

so as well as spending your time working for the greater good of humanity, you have to have a PR machine to stop nuts from saying your years of research is less worthy than their magic plant remedy?
Yep, that's about right.

Yep, that's about right.

so we are forced to reduce research time in order to discredit whackos? That's pretty stupid.

so as well as spending your time working for the greater good of humanity, you have to have a PR machine to stop nuts from saying your years of research is less worthy than their magic plant remedy?

Well, yes, by the laws of the society we currently live in. It seems, though, that if the scientist is really working for the "greater good of humanity," they should be willing to attempt to explain that to humanity.

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm

It just absolutely floors me that there could still be anyone today, in the 21st century with all of our scientific breakthroughs and advancements, that would even still deny the power or plausibility of an idea like evolution, and support creationism, which the Church itself dismissed more than 160 years ago. Not so much in Canada, really, where most support evolution, but in the US in particular, which likes to tout itself to the rest of the world as so smart and advanced, and yet half of the populous (44%) supports Creationism alone as the sole method by which the Earth and all its inhabitants was created and believes that God created man in his own image within the last 10 000 years.

so we are forced to reduce research time in order to discredit whackos? That's pretty stupid.

No, scientists don't have to discredit whackos. They'll do that themselves if science makes a concerted effort to break out of it's ivory tower.

No, scientists don't have to discredit whackos. They'll do that themselves if science makes a concerted effort to break out of it's ivory tower.

how do we break out of this ivory tower?

so as well as spending your time working for the greater good of humanity, you have to have a PR machine to stop nuts from saying your years of research is less worthy than their magic plant remedy?

*Shrug* It seems to be what is necessary. In between research, being on various scientific committees and study groups, and liver transplants (she is an anesthesiologist), my advisor also gives lectures at churches, interviews on NPR, interviews to news stations, and talks to politicians.

*Shrug* It seems to be what is necessary. In between research, being on various scientific committees and study groups, and liver transplants (she is an anesthesiologist), my advisor also gives lectures at churches, interviews on NPR, interviews to news stations, and talks to politicians.

what does she talk about?

Guess we can take these probelms one at a time. I really dont think were in any danger. What your listing here is not damaging or threatening hard science nor does it look to be able to do so in the near future.

There is the rising threat of creationism;

If creationism itself was ever a threat to the progress of science it died out back around the year 1600. Today while it is a popular belief and many hold to it in any academic circle it is not widely accepted. The march of science will not be hindered by that religious belief. Especially with the liberal bent of most of Europe. In the U.S. they may believe what they like but its not going to be forced down the gullet of everyone else.

the denial amongst certain groups that global warming is occuring at all;

Hmm you talk about it as if its an absolute fact. While there is some interesting evidence to support the theory of global warming its hardly up to par with proven facts. Its biggest problem is that its trying to work on a global scale. That scale is massive and doesnt just include space but must also encompass time. We have been recording to some moderate degree weather patterns across the planet for perhaps forty years now. That is hardly sufficient time to understand the cycles and quirks of a system that has been going for billions of years. And please do note that one volcano of average size puts out more hazardous materials and CO2 in one eruption than our modern industry has in its entire existence.
But maybe Im just one of those brainless cooks who doesnt see doomsday on his doorstep when its staring him in the face. And once again it certainly hasnt hurt those who are proponents of this theory. It continues to be propogated. The variety of ideas and opinions makes us stronger. It also means that there will always be skeptics on every issue. The fact that they see things differently doesnt mean they are foolish or uneducated. Sometimes they simply interpret the facts in a different manner.

the refusal of some people to accept modern medical treatment, instead
opting for unproven or discreditted homeopathic methods;

That is their perogative. If they have that option and refuse it they may suffer the consequences but they are excercising thier freedoms and right to choose. Certainly there are a few herbs and spices that have a proven positive effect. Modern medicine is far more effective for serious diseases but many of Grandmas treatments work well for the common cold which modern medicine has yet to cure anyhow. Psychology plays a major role in in medicine as acknoledged by most leaders in the medical community. At times while the treatment itself may be ineffectual the positive psychological boost can do wonders. Hence the popularity and occasional success of 'Faith Healing'.

the use of astrology and horoscopes in decision making (thanks Andaluciae)

Hey you get lucky sometimes. Again I have to ask how this is a threat to modern society or science. People do what they want to do. Thats part of the idea behind Freedom. A Democracy operates to ensure people may do as they please within basic legal limits. This doent hurt progress. Some of these people are generally logical upstanding citizens. And I would challenge you to point out to me a person who whether they admit it or not does not subscribe even on a personal level to some degree of superstition. That is part of our basic mindset whether we want to admit or not. Most people generally ignore it as irrational but its there. Even the highly skilled scientists who propel us forward are not immune. Some even indulge in it. To date it has had very little overall impact negatively on modern society.

how do we break out of this ivory tower?

Well, that's the question. PR/marketing is one way. Learn to encapsulate ideas as effectively as mutt-scientists have. Better yet, take a tip from their book. Develop organizations who's sole job is to effectively market real science to the masses. There are organizations out there now that do this, but they're hardly waging an effective image battle and are still stuck in the mentality that "true" is automatically the same as "sellable". The best way is to find a figurehead, someone who commands attention, champions real science and can inspire the public to become better informed simply by their passion and presence.

On a personal level, don't condescend. Many scientists only seem comfortable talking to other scientists and only then because they can have conversations peppered with jargon. Try and understand the humanity that you're serving and be patient and willing to explain what you're working on without being self-possessed and superior. Basically, apply the same techniques any person in any business has to use when selling themselves.

what does she talk about?

Generally, she is talking about stem cell reesarch. Her Ph.D. was in that area and most of us in the lab are also working on stem cell-related projects (adult and/or embryonic).

Guess we can take these probelms one at a time. I really dont think were in any danger. What your listing here is not damaging or threatening hard science nor does it look to be able to do so in the near future.

There is the rising threat of creationism;

If creationism itself was ever a threat to the progress of science it died out back around the year 1600. Today while it is a popular belief and many hold to it in any academic circle it is not widely accepted. The march of science will not be hindered by that religious belief. Especially with the liberal bent of most of Europe. In the U.S. they may believe what they like but its not going to be forced down the gullet of everyone else.

the denial amongst certain groups that global warming is occuring at all;

Hmm you talk about it as if its an absolute fact. While there is some interesting evidence to support the theory of global warming its hardly up to par with proven facts. Its biggest problem is that its trying to work on a global scale. That scale is massive and doesnt just include space but must also encompass time. We have been recording to some moderate degree weather patterns across the planet for perhaps forty years now. That is hardly sufficient time to understand the cycles and quirks of a system that has been going for billions of years. And please do note that one volcano of average size puts out more hazardous materials and CO2 in one eruption than our modern industry has in its entire existence.
But maybe Im just one of those brainless cooks who doesnt see doomsday on his doorstep when its staring him in the face. And once again it certainly hasnt hurt those who are proponents of this theory. It continues to be propogated. The variety of ideas and opinions makes us stronger. It also means that there will always be skeptics on every issue. The fact that they see things differently doesnt mean they are foolish or uneducated. Sometimes they simply interpret the facts in a different manner.

the refusal of some people to accept modern medical treatment, instead
opting for unproven or discreditted homeopathic methods;

That is their perogative. If they have that option and refuse it they may suffer the consequences but they are excercising thier freedoms and right to choose. Certainly there are a few herbs and spices that have a proven positive effect. Modern medicine is far more effective for serious diseases but many of Grandmas treatments work well for the common cold which modern medicine has yet to cure anyhow. Psychology plays a major role in in medicine as acknoledged by most leaders in the medical community. At times while the treatment itself may be ineffectual the positive psychological boost can do wonders. Hence the popularity and occasional success of 'Faith Healing'.

the use of astrology and horoscopes in decision making (thanks Andaluciae)

Hey you get lucky sometimes. Again I have to ask how this is a threat to modern society or science. People do what they want to do. Thats part of the idea behind Freedom. A Democracy operates to ensure people may do as they please within basic legal limits. This doent hurt progress. Some of these people are generally logical upstanding citizens. And I would challenge you to point out to me a person who whether they admit it or not does not subscribe even on a personal level to some degree of superstition. That is part of our basic mindset whether we want to admit or not. Most people generally ignore it as irrational but its there. Even the highly skilled scientists who propel us forward are not immune. Some even indulge in it. To date it has had very little overall impact negatively on modern society.

creationism;

debate in recent weeks in Nature as to whether it should be taught in Universities in the states.

Global warming;

the average global temperature and sea surface temperature have been steadily increasing. I have seen the graphs and know people who worked on the instruments.

alternative medicine;

while some plants/herbs are beneficial there are many remedies that have no basis (like crystals) that lead to people dying from treatable disease. There is also the case of a British man who had TB but refused treatment and infect 12 other people.

astrology/horoscopes;

undermine the very foundations of scientific principles.

On a personal level, don't condescend. Many scientists only seem comfortable talking to other scientists and only then because they can have conversations peppered with jargon. Try and understand the humanity that you're serving and be patient and willing to explain what you're working on without being self-possessed and superior. Basically, apply the same techniques any person in any business has to use when selling themselves.

Interestingly, I have yet to meet a scientist who does this. As graduate students, they suggest that we have at least three or four ways to describe our research. One that is at a basic level for laymen, one that is a little longer for if they are interested, one that is a short-form for others in science, and one that is about a paragraph long for others in science.

I have sat down with more than one person who was on the extreme end of the stem cell debate. After a brief explanation of the actual procedures involved, I have yet to meet anyone in person who I explained it to that doesn't now support, or at least not oppose it.

*Looks at computers advancing in technology everyday.*

Computer science.

*Looks at research in disease continuing everyday*

Medical science.

*Looks at 'better' cars*

More science there.

Don't give me that bullshit that science is dying out. If anything, it's moving at a fast pace. The creationists don't have shit. Whining over evolution in school isn't going to stop science in anyway, no matter what you think. Look at Japan and the nanotechnologies rising.

*Looks at computers advancing in technology everyday.*

Computer science.

*Looks at research in disease continuing everyday*

Medical science.

*Looks at 'better' cars*

More science there.

Don't give me that bullshit that science is dying out. If anything, it's moving at a fast pace. The creationists don't have shit. Whining over evolution in school isn't going to stop science in anyway, no matter what you think. Look at Japan and the nanotechnologies rising.

I am not saying it is dying out, but it is being hindered by groups that are actively fighting scientific principles

creationism;

debate in recent weeks in Nature as to whether it should be taught in Universities in the states.

If a university wants it I say go for it. The more ideas out there the better. Just because there is that class option doesnt mean its going to drive out the other views. Free flow of information should continue. It should be up to the individual and the school to decide what is taught not government mandates.

Global warming;

the average global temperature and sea surface temperature have been steadily increasing. I have seen the graphs and know people who worked on the instruments.

All right. Over the short term. We've had much warmer periods in Earths history in the past. We've gone through high tropical spells and ice ages. The Global temperature is in constant flux. If the global temperature hadnt been increasing from about 10,000 years ago we would still be in the last ice age and half on North America would still be glaciated.

alternative medicine;

while some plants/herbs are beneficial there are many remedies that have no basis (like crystals) that lead to people dying from treatable disease. There is also the case of a British man who had TB but refused treatment and infect 12 other people.

So what do you want to do? Strap him to a hospital bed and force treatment on him? Hes simply deciding what he wanted to do. He paid a high price for that but I very much doubt he was in the dark about what modern medicine was offering. I suppose the best you could do that point is quarantine him and make sure that those who interact closely are aware of his ailment.

astrology/horoscopes;

undermine the very foundations of scientific principles.

Not really. They are simply what people want to believe in. Its true they hold no real science but to say they undermine it suggests that they are slowly damanging scientific credibility. If they have any real effect on science it is to give it something to compare against. Science will always prove more accurate at what it predicts. No proven science however can claim to predict your future with any high degree of accuracy. Psychologists can sometimes determine what you may do based on your inclinations but they cannot tell you how best to live.

I am not saying it is dying out, but it is being hindered by groups that are actively fighting scientific principles

They aren't winning. At all. Science is all around us, even if some morons don't even realize it.

Interestingly, I have yet to meet a scientist who does this. As graduate students, they suggest that we have at least three or four ways to describe our research. One that is at a basic level for laymen, one that is a little longer for if they are interested, one that is a short-form for others in science, and one that is about a paragraph long for others in science.

That's also what I was taught and it's good advice to live by, no matter what the situation. Please don't misunderstand me and I apologize if I was being unclear. I'm not saying that every scientist is guilty of making this mistake. Indeed, scientists have to have some communications/marketing skills if they want to get research funding. However, it seems the gestalt that emerges from the community as a whole is less "user friendly" than the alternatives offered. Perhaps I'm wrong in this, but it is the impression that I get.


I have sat down with more than one person who was on the extreme end of the stem cell debate. After a brief explanation of the actual procedures involved, I have yet to meet anyone in person who I explained it to that doesn't now support, or at least not oppose it.

And that's good and what should be happening. It just needs to also be happening at the societal level as well and that's where I'm not seeing it. There are any number of factors that contribute to this, but one of the biggest (at least in my opinion) is that pseudo-science is much more effective at marketing itself than real science is.

creationism;

All right. Over the short term. We've had much warmer periods in Earths history in the past. We've gone through high tropical spells and ice ages. The Global temperature is in constant flux. If the global temperature hadnt been increasing from about 10,000 years ago we would still be in the last ice age and half on North America would still be glaciated.


Yes, I am not arguing about the causes, I know all too well they are VERY complex. However, there are still those that deny it is happening at all, and refuse to face the fact that in the next 100 years we could have a severe refugee problem.



So what do you want to do? Strap him to a hospital bed and force treatment on him? Hes simply deciding what he wanted to do. He paid a high price for that but I very much doubt he was in the dark about what modern medicine was offering. I suppose the best you could do that point is quarantine him and make sure that those who interact closely are aware of his ailment.


I suggest charging him with assault for knowingly infecting the other people.

I am not saying it is dying out, but it is being hindered by groups that are actively fighting scientific principles

Whos actively fighting it again? There are some groups that for some illogical reason or another disagree but very few are out there trying to debunk science. Those that do are failing miserably. Most of the disagreement with science actually comes from within the scientific community itself and different scientists in the same field intepret the same data differently. Its all part of the process. Ultimately any group that directly opposes proven fact will show itself to be wrong and after a while generally ignored. Most scientists will bow to what is proven beyond a doubt and it will then be incorporated into the mainstream.

A lot of the problem comes from the desire of certain people to not challenge themselves. Take creationists for example, despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution they choose to ingore it and support crack-pots like Kent Hovind or the folks who run Answers in Genesis because they tell them what they want to hear. They don't want to shake their perceptions on reality by hearing about things contradictory to it so they form groups to oppose things oppose them.

This happens with science because it often challenges people's base perceptions of reality and it scares them. They'd rather hear about things that re-enforce their own ideas or at the very most things that don't interfere with them.

That is why there is little opposition to research in physics in the public scene but there is lots to research in medical and biological fields. Your average person won't have their foundations of reality shaken by the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle or some new super-nova but they will have it shaken when people start talking about the origin of humanity or research on stem-cells.

That's my two cents.

If a university wants it I say go for it. The more ideas out there the better. Just because there is that class option doesnt mean its going to drive out the other views. Free flow of information should continue. It should be up to the individual and the school to decide what is taught not government mandates.

If a university wants to teach a class on it in a theology department, no problem. If a public school wants to teach it, they can only do so among all creation stories of all religions - or at least the major ones - outside of any science class. If anyone purports to teach it as science (unless they are holding it up as a perfect example of what not to do), there is a problem.

All right. Over the short term. We've had much warmer periods in Earths history in the past. We've gone through high tropical spells and ice ages. The Global temperature is in constant flux. If the global temperature hadnt been increasing from about 10,000 years ago we would still be in the last ice age and half on North America would still be glaciated.

(a) It is hard to deny the evidence that the rate of warming is higher now than it has averaged since the ice age. If it was, we'd be melting right now.

(b) Denying that we have any effect on global temperature is ludicrous - and is what many are currently doing. People can and should debate on how much we effect it and how.

Whos actively fighting it again? There are some groups that for some illogical reason or another disagree but very few are out there trying to debunk science. Those that do are failing miserably. Most of the disagreement with science actually comes from within the scientific community itself and different scientists in the same field intepret the same data differently. Its all part of the process. Ultimately any group that directly opposes proven fact will show itself to be wrong and after a while generally ignored. Most scientists will bow to what is proven beyond a doubt and it will then be incorporated into the mainstream.

Nothing in science is ever "proven beyond a doubt." The fact that you would use that phrase is a big part of what is wrong in society right now.

And most of the high profile disputes are *not* coming from within the scientific community. Most are coming from people who purport to be scientists, use scientific terms, and have absolutely nothing to do with science at all.

The problem is the general (General?) population like things that are dramatic. My thread about medical physics = 0 replies, my thread about x-rays killing people...

A lot of the problem comes from the desire of certain people to not challenge themselves. Take creationists for example, despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution they choose to ingore it and support crack-pots like Kent Hovind or the folks who run Answers in Genesis because they tell them what they want to hear. They don't want to shake their perceptions on reality by hearing about things contradictory to it so they form groups to oppose things oppose them.

People have an innate desire for a greater sense of purpose and unity. The idea involved in many religions where Creationism plays a role can provide that in addition to a sense of community. The people who believe in it are looking for an easy solution to a complex problem. There they find it and will come to believe in it strongly not because of evidence but because of the faith that develops over time.

That is why there is little opposition to research in physics in the public scene but there is lots to research in medical and biological fields. Your average person won't have their foundations of reality shaken by the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle or some new super-nova but they will have it shaken when people start talking about the origin of humanity or research on stem-cells.

True. I do wish we could go forward in those areas of research. The greater debate on stem cell research has more to do with abortion than medical science though. Why I think we should work more at getting stem cells from sources that are less controversial like the umbilicus of healthy newborns which is usually discarded anyhow. And one Id really like to see go but is still stymied is human cloning.

People have an innate desire for a greater sense of purpose and unity. The idea involved in many religions where Creationism plays a role can provide that in addition to a sense of community. The people who believe in it are looking for an easy solution to a complex problem. There they find it and will come to believe in it strongly not because of evidence but because of the faith that develops over time.

That isn't faith.

Meanwhile, studies on fundamentalism have shown that it only crops up when people are unaware of the history of their religion and are weak in faith, seeing a challenge to it.

True. I do wish we could go forward in those areas of research. The greater debate on stem cell research has more to do with abortion than medical science though.

Considering that abortion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with stem cell research, the only reason the debate even mentions abortion is uneducated people spreading lies.

Why I think we should work more at getting stem cells from sources that are less controversial like the umbilicus of healthy newborns which is usually discarded anyhow.

We do work on that. Guess what? They are a different type of cell, with very different potential.

Well I came into this late so I'm just going to cover some stuff.

1. The banning of astrology, psychics etc. on the grounds of fraud.

Actually those things are considered to be fraud in the US. You have to have a disclaimer that says they are solely for entertainment purposes. Though perhaps the disclaimers need to be a bit more prominent.

2. Creationists :mp5:

I don't get this one. I mean I don't even know where its coming from. I went to Chatholic school and they weren't trying to push it there. So how is it getting into the public schools?

3. Alternative medicine.

I have nothing against alternative medicine. Just so long as its subject to the same controls as regular medicine. Which of course means liscenses, testing, and all sorts of other crap intended to insure people aren't ending up with snake oil. One of the bigger issues here is that because alternative medicines are outside the scientific area, very few researchers are willing to actually test these things. So when one or two researchers run the tests, theres nothing to corraborate or counter the reletively miniscule evidence that shows up.

2. Creationists :mp5:

I don't get this one. I mean I don't even know where its coming from. I went to Chatholic school and they weren't trying to push it there. So how is it getting into the public schools?

The Catholic Church accepts evolution, it's fundimentalist Protestants that don't/

I think I've figured out the solution to pseudoscience! We just have to market bullets to the brain as alternative medicine!

I've given this issue a lot of thought and I personally think science is overrated. It has its uses, sure, but it is not the cure-all that many consider it. Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, nor can it tell us what the meaning of life is. It can tell us how certain aspects of the universe work but it has limits. A skepticism of science is a good thing if you ask me. I agree that Christian fundamentalism and the "New Age" stuff are very poor alternatives to scientism, though.

Science, if used as a solution to everything, leads to nihilism. If you try to derive ethical principles or a meaning of life from science, you will get precisely nothing. It tends to lead to dehumanizing conclusions (humans nothing more than collections of particles responding to deterministic laws of physics, etc.) that I think need to be tempered with a good dose of more humanistic and caring thinking.

I think there needs to be a balance between science/faith (or whatever you want to call it), because, be honest, do ANY of us want to live in a world ruled entirly by science?
Nice square, effecient, 10'x10' cubes, with only effecient, clean, science-approved, appliances and so on?
I dont know about the rest of you, but it sounds, as some might say, "Hella boring".
But thats just me :P

Interestingly, I have yet to meet a scientist who does this. As graduate students, they suggest that we have at least three or four ways to describe our research. One that is at a basic level for laymen, one that is a little longer for if they are interested, one that is a short-form for others in science, and one that is about a paragraph long for others in science.

I have sat down with more than one person who was on the extreme end of the stem cell debate. After a brief explanation of the actual procedures involved, I have yet to meet anyone in person who I explained it to that doesn't now support, or at least not oppose it.

My advice is to talk to a child.

Explain to a four-year-old why her shadow 'jumps across' when she walks under a light... or how a rainbow is formed... or why distant trees 'move' slower than those up close...

If we look around our societies today we see attempts by certain groups to pooh-pooh science and provide unsubstantiated alternative ideas.

There is the rising threat of creationism;
the denial amongst certain groups that global warming is occuring at all;
the refusal of some people to accept modern medical treatment, instead opting for unproven or discreditted homeopathic methods;
the use of astrology and horoscopes in decision making (thanks Andaluciae)

What is the root cause of these problems?

Is it the media giving too much attention to negative scientific stories? Is it a lack of education? Do politicians and corporations deliberately foster an anti-science attitude? Is it the same as it always was, just the international media make it more visible? Do the public mistrust science, and if so, why do you think that is?

What is the root cause of all these things?

I'd like to be able to blame the media... the government, maybe... a conspiracy.

But, I'm afraid that it's likely the truth is much simpler, and much closer to home.

I have to make a choice: I have to admit that my future is totally unpredictable... I'll die at some point, and I'll never know when.....

OR: I can accept the 'fortune' that some tells me.

I have to make a choice: I have to accept that my people (of Earth) are largley concerned more with dollars than with the next generation, and that we are raping the planet for short-term financial incentives...

OR: I can accept the suggestion that maybe it's all scare-mongering and hype.

I have to make a choice: I can accept that the world of science is huge beyond my comprehension... that there are phenomena I'll never understand... concepts I personally can never conceive... answers I will NEVER have...

OR: I can get my 'easy answers' all from one 'reliable' source.


People 'buy' pseudo-science because it is cheap, easy and comfortable.

We are lazy and scared, and 'anti-science' is a panacea.

I've given this issue a lot of thought and I personally think science is overrated. It has its uses, sure, but it is not the cure-all that many consider it. Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, nor can it tell us what the meaning of life is. It can tell us how certain aspects of the universe work but it has limits. A skepticism of science is a good thing if you ask me. I agree that Christian fundamentalism and the "New Age" stuff are very poor alternatives to scientism, though.

Science, if used as a solution to everything, leads to nihilism. If you try to derive ethical principles or a meaning of life from science, you will get precisely nothing. It tends to lead to dehumanizing conclusions (humans nothing more than collections of particles responding to deterministic laws of physics, etc.) that I think need to be tempered with a good dose of more humanistic and caring thinking.

The problem with this is that scientists are already well aware that some questions are just outside the realm of science. There is no scientific way to measure beauty (although the golden mean comes close) democracy, or freedom for example.

Christian fundies aren't trying to prevent science from being used to solve unscientific delemas, they're trying to use religion and culture to disprove science.
For example:
Homosexuality is wrong.
If homosexuality is inborn, then it is not a choice.
Morality is based on choice.
If it is not a choice then it can't be morally wrong.
Ergo, homosexuality is not inborn.

Science does not deal with "is it wrong?" "is it a choice?" or "what constitutes morality?" All it deals with is "is there a biological basis to it?" All the other stuff comes from religion and culture, but the fundies don't want to question that, so they attack the science.

I've given this issue a lot of thought and I personally think science is overrated. It has its uses, sure, but it is not the cure-all that many consider it. Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, nor can it tell us what the meaning of life is. It can tell us how certain aspects of the universe work but it has limits. A skepticism of science is a good thing if you ask me. I agree that Christian fundamentalism and the "New Age" stuff are very poor alternatives to scientism, though.

Science, if used as a solution to everything, leads to nihilism. If you try to derive ethical principles or a meaning of life from science, you will get precisely nothing. It tends to lead to dehumanizing conclusions (humans nothing more than collections of particles responding to deterministic laws of physics, etc.) that I think need to be tempered with a good dose of more humanistic and caring thinking.

Dude. That's like saying that, because chocolate+milk=chocolate milk!=Don't rape babies, chocolate+milk!=chocolate milk.