Is America becoming anti-science? Does anyone get the impression that half of our country wants to turn its back on scientific progress? There seems to be a backlash against climate change, alternative energy tech, evolution, genetic research etc. in this country that doesn't permeate other western developed countries as deeply. Why is such a large segement of America (which has benefitted so much from the high tech sector) suddenly becoming so luddite?
This article: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_a ... atters_em/strongly argues why science and the scientific method are so important for the well being of humanity.
The Anti-Science
Moderator: Global Moderator
The Anti-Science
Last edited by doodle on Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
Before this thing even gets going, I'd like to say that most people with concerns about climate change and especially green tech aren't "anti-science," but very often are more very much "pro liberty."
I completely agree that doing nothing on climate change is far riskier than doing something, and I agree there are way too many people out there that won't look at things scientifically (instead, emotionally), but I think we still have to tread gingerly if we're going to start taxing behaviors or subsidize others.
I completely agree that doing nothing on climate change is far riskier than doing something, and I agree there are way too many people out there that won't look at things scientifically (instead, emotionally), but I think we still have to tread gingerly if we're going to start taxing behaviors or subsidize others.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: The Anti-Science
I believe that human beings are almost genetically predisposed to some kind of belief in supernatural forces acting within the world.
It helps to provide a wholeness to our mental projections concerning the nature of reality.
If you look at much of the conventional wisdom in the investing world, it relies on all sorts of trickery and deception that are the stock in trade of all fortune tellers in history. Among these are the following: a belief that knowledge of the future is possible, a belief that it is possible to avoid having to work by harnessing supernatural forces, and a belief that death isn't an inevitable aspect of life.
I would encourage you not to have contempt for these human frailties, but rather understand that these tendencies are basically cultural remnants from prior eras in which they had more relevance.
The process of updating superstitions and folkways often proceeds more slowly than the real-world changes the culture is experiencing.
As for the idea that we will someday completely eradicate all otherworldly beliefs in favor of an objective scientific view of everything, I would remind you that we are dealing with the planet Earth, not the planet Vulcan.
Humans in many ways have always had their feet in two worlds--there is the emotional, passionate, spiritual, superstitious part of our nature that has been the inspiration for many wonderful expressions of human nature, and there is the rational, logical, objective part of our nature that has also been responsible for many incredible feats of understanding and improvement of the conditions of human life.
If someone chooses to adopt a set of beliefs that provides wholeness to their world, who am I to say that they are wrong and should change their beliefs to align with what I have found to bring a sense of wholeness to my world?
Often there can be very valuable and genuine expressions of human nature and beauty that proceed from premises that we might find questionable. Even if I am skeptical of the premises, I can acknowledge that the inspiration created by the premises has led to works of philosophy, art, architecture, literature and poetry that we can all agree have added to the richness of life for us all.
It helps to provide a wholeness to our mental projections concerning the nature of reality.
If you look at much of the conventional wisdom in the investing world, it relies on all sorts of trickery and deception that are the stock in trade of all fortune tellers in history. Among these are the following: a belief that knowledge of the future is possible, a belief that it is possible to avoid having to work by harnessing supernatural forces, and a belief that death isn't an inevitable aspect of life.
I would encourage you not to have contempt for these human frailties, but rather understand that these tendencies are basically cultural remnants from prior eras in which they had more relevance.
The process of updating superstitions and folkways often proceeds more slowly than the real-world changes the culture is experiencing.
As for the idea that we will someday completely eradicate all otherworldly beliefs in favor of an objective scientific view of everything, I would remind you that we are dealing with the planet Earth, not the planet Vulcan.
Humans in many ways have always had their feet in two worlds--there is the emotional, passionate, spiritual, superstitious part of our nature that has been the inspiration for many wonderful expressions of human nature, and there is the rational, logical, objective part of our nature that has also been responsible for many incredible feats of understanding and improvement of the conditions of human life.
If someone chooses to adopt a set of beliefs that provides wholeness to their world, who am I to say that they are wrong and should change their beliefs to align with what I have found to bring a sense of wholeness to my world?
Often there can be very valuable and genuine expressions of human nature and beauty that proceed from premises that we might find questionable. Even if I am skeptical of the premises, I can acknowledge that the inspiration created by the premises has led to works of philosophy, art, architecture, literature and poetry that we can all agree have added to the richness of life for us all.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: The Anti-Science
When 98% of scientists say leaded paint and drinking water is dangerous, we change our paint and pipes.
When 98% of scientists say smoking causes cancer, people accept this and promote anti-smoking campaigns.
When 98% of scientists say asbestos causes mesothelioma and lung cancer, we ban it from our buildings.
When 98% of scientists say CFC's are putting a hole in the ozone, we ban those too.
When 98% of scientists say pregnant women shouldn't consume alcohol, responsible women don't.
When 98% of scientists say CO2 emissions are causing climate change, it is a Bilderberg Illuminati conspiracy to rob humanity of its freedom? I cannot understand this viewpoint.
When 98% of scientists say smoking causes cancer, people accept this and promote anti-smoking campaigns.
When 98% of scientists say asbestos causes mesothelioma and lung cancer, we ban it from our buildings.
When 98% of scientists say CFC's are putting a hole in the ozone, we ban those too.
When 98% of scientists say pregnant women shouldn't consume alcohol, responsible women don't.
When 98% of scientists say CO2 emissions are causing climate change, it is a Bilderberg Illuminati conspiracy to rob humanity of its freedom? I cannot understand this viewpoint.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
doodle,
The right has done a fantastic job of making it seem like that 98% amount is much smaller. The best discussions I've had with people that stick to the science on the issue (and seem to care less about politics) have told me there is a "scientific concensus."
That's all I'll say... I'm fascinated by the topic, but I feel like I'm being told WILDLY different things from both sides.
The right has done a fantastic job of making it seem like that 98% amount is much smaller. The best discussions I've had with people that stick to the science on the issue (and seem to care less about politics) have told me there is a "scientific concensus."
That's all I'll say... I'm fascinated by the topic, but I feel like I'm being told WILDLY different things from both sides.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: The Anti-Science
Is it possible to have a conservative party that isn't at odds with science? From the time when enlightenment scientists were contradicting the church by saying the Earth was not at the center of the universe, to todays scientists confronting the conservatives on climate change, in almost every case there has been a conflict.
If free and open science is so important to advancing humanity, why do conservatives stand in opposition to that? It seems like the conservative party exists only to protect people with vested interests in the present system irrespective of whether this system operates to the benefit of peoples health and greater prosperity.
If free and open science is so important to advancing humanity, why do conservatives stand in opposition to that? It seems like the conservative party exists only to protect people with vested interests in the present system irrespective of whether this system operates to the benefit of peoples health and greater prosperity.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
This is going to get ugly.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: The Anti-Science
Doodle, let's take party affiliation out of the picture and just talk about religion for a minute:doodle wrote: Is it possible to have a conservative party that isn't at odds with science? From the time when enlightenment scientists were contradicting the church by saying the Earth was not at the center of the universe, to todays scientists confronting the conservatives on climate change, in almost every case there has been a conflict.
I would say there are three types of people in the world:
1. Those that hold no spiritual or religious beliefs, and only believe in science or the physical world that can be observed, measured, quantified, and defined by scientific analysis.
2. Those that hold spiritual or religious beliefs, and also believe that the physical world can be understood through science.
3. Those that hold spiritual or religious beliefs and denounce all science and believe that only god or a supreme being can define the physical world.
I would say the vast majority of people on this planet fall into category #2. There are only a small fringe number of people that fall into category #3, but they make the rest of us look bad.
Here are some questions that intelligent religious scholars often ask themselves, and should ask:
If God or a supreme being created the universe, why wouldn't they be subject to the same laws of physics that everything in the universe is bound to?
If God or a supreme being created the universe, isn't it very possible that they used commonly understood scientific and biological processes to do so, such as the big bang, evolution of species, etc?
In my opinion, a small lunatic fringe of religious leaders basically ruin it for the rest of us. There is no reason why religion and science cannot coexist. There is no reason why a supreme creator would not use commonly understood biological processes such as evolution to create the world we live in, as well as the universe that it resides in.
If anyone tells you that science has all the answers, they are wrong. If anyone tells you that religion has all the answers, they are wrong. But, the scientific method can be used to observe, quantify, and understand the beautiful world we live in, just as religion can help us to understand our own hearts and souls.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
Re: The Anti-Science
On the subject of climate change, here is a way of explaining it that I rarely hear. You might want to try it the next time you are explaining the issue to someone:
Way back in the days of dinosaurs, the world was a warmer place with higher sea levels and the world was covered with lush vegetation and there was a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere that helped to keep the world warmer than it is today. The lush vegetation thrived in this kind of world, absorbing the Co2 from the atmosphere, and then when the vegetation decayed it would send the Co2 back into the atmosphere.
Over time, much of this vegetation was compacted into various geological formations and the carbon that the vegetation had absorbed from the atmosphere was NOT re-inserted into the atmosphere, but instead remained trapped in geological formations, and some of this buried vegetation over millions of years went through chemical changes that resulted in what we know today as fossil fuels.
As the world cooled as a result of more sunlight being reflected back into space as a result of there being less Co2 in the atmosphere (due to so much of it being trapped underground in the form of incompletely decomposed vegetation), the world became a cooler place, with more favorable conditions for many mammals, including us.
All of that sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels just sat there underground for millions of years, and the earth's climate was basically perfect for our species to thrive. As our brains grew larger and we discovered what harnessing the power of fire and heat could do, our societies and knowledge became more and more complex.
Eventually, we discovered that heat could be VERY efficiently generated by burning fossil fuels. The more of these fossil fuels we burned, the more stuff we could do. We even took a few trips to the moon using these fossil fuels. What no one though to ask along the way, however, was whether the release of all this carbon BACK into the atmosphere after all those millions of years underground might not at some point begin to re-create the atmospheric conditions that existed when the carbon was initially sequestered underground.
When you think of the climate change discussion more along the lines of simply re-creating the conditions through the massive release of carbon BACK into the atmosphere that existed when the carbon was originally removed from the atmosphere, all of the sudden climate change begins to look a lot less speculative and a lot more like an obvious cause and effect relationship.
The analysis above doesn't necessarily create any inevitable conclusions (because there ARE a lot of other variables in play), but for me it sort of shifts the burden of proof so that the question becomes: "If we are re-creating the atmospheric conditions that existed millions of years ago through the release of naturally sequestered carbon via fossil fuel combustion, what would make us believe that this wouldn't lead to the re-creation of the climatic conditions that existed back then as well?"
People often act as if all of this Co2 has never been in the atmosphere before. When they begin to realize that ALL of this Co2 was previously in the atmosphere, it becomes a much easier discussion to have about what the earth was like back when that Co2 was LAST in the atmosphere.
One of the things about peak oil that is probably good news for humanity is that as oil production (and other fossil fuels eventually) declines, this process of atmospheric carbon release will decline, whether we want it to or not. The fact that there will always be large fossil fuel deposits that can't be economically produced means that a lot of that naturally sequestered carbon will remain undergrond and out of the atmosphere, which is probably a reason for optimism.
As for the idea that people in the current system would ever voluntarily reduce fossil fuel combustion in order to prevent atmospheric changes, I doubt that will ever happen on a large scale. It will probably eventually happen in certain wealthy nations, but there will always be the problem of shortsighted governments trying to keep their citizens from starving to death, and if it is necessary to burn coal, or oil, or trees they will...until they run out, of course.
Way back in the days of dinosaurs, the world was a warmer place with higher sea levels and the world was covered with lush vegetation and there was a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere that helped to keep the world warmer than it is today. The lush vegetation thrived in this kind of world, absorbing the Co2 from the atmosphere, and then when the vegetation decayed it would send the Co2 back into the atmosphere.
Over time, much of this vegetation was compacted into various geological formations and the carbon that the vegetation had absorbed from the atmosphere was NOT re-inserted into the atmosphere, but instead remained trapped in geological formations, and some of this buried vegetation over millions of years went through chemical changes that resulted in what we know today as fossil fuels.
As the world cooled as a result of more sunlight being reflected back into space as a result of there being less Co2 in the atmosphere (due to so much of it being trapped underground in the form of incompletely decomposed vegetation), the world became a cooler place, with more favorable conditions for many mammals, including us.
All of that sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels just sat there underground for millions of years, and the earth's climate was basically perfect for our species to thrive. As our brains grew larger and we discovered what harnessing the power of fire and heat could do, our societies and knowledge became more and more complex.
Eventually, we discovered that heat could be VERY efficiently generated by burning fossil fuels. The more of these fossil fuels we burned, the more stuff we could do. We even took a few trips to the moon using these fossil fuels. What no one though to ask along the way, however, was whether the release of all this carbon BACK into the atmosphere after all those millions of years underground might not at some point begin to re-create the atmospheric conditions that existed when the carbon was initially sequestered underground.
When you think of the climate change discussion more along the lines of simply re-creating the conditions through the massive release of carbon BACK into the atmosphere that existed when the carbon was originally removed from the atmosphere, all of the sudden climate change begins to look a lot less speculative and a lot more like an obvious cause and effect relationship.
The analysis above doesn't necessarily create any inevitable conclusions (because there ARE a lot of other variables in play), but for me it sort of shifts the burden of proof so that the question becomes: "If we are re-creating the atmospheric conditions that existed millions of years ago through the release of naturally sequestered carbon via fossil fuel combustion, what would make us believe that this wouldn't lead to the re-creation of the climatic conditions that existed back then as well?"
People often act as if all of this Co2 has never been in the atmosphere before. When they begin to realize that ALL of this Co2 was previously in the atmosphere, it becomes a much easier discussion to have about what the earth was like back when that Co2 was LAST in the atmosphere.
One of the things about peak oil that is probably good news for humanity is that as oil production (and other fossil fuels eventually) declines, this process of atmospheric carbon release will decline, whether we want it to or not. The fact that there will always be large fossil fuel deposits that can't be economically produced means that a lot of that naturally sequestered carbon will remain undergrond and out of the atmosphere, which is probably a reason for optimism.
As for the idea that people in the current system would ever voluntarily reduce fossil fuel combustion in order to prevent atmospheric changes, I doubt that will ever happen on a large scale. It will probably eventually happen in certain wealthy nations, but there will always be the problem of shortsighted governments trying to keep their citizens from starving to death, and if it is necessary to burn coal, or oil, or trees they will...until they run out, of course.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: The Anti-Science
I think we're long overdue for a global warming topic.
The thing is, once you get past the science (which seems impossible given all the wildly different views you tend to hear on whether there's a "consensus" or not), you're still left with the political implications... Carbon tax or carbon credit? Developing country exemption? International treaty or everyone on their own?
It's a huge topic, and to be hones I fall squarely in the "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" crowd, but I realize that's a concept that all political opportunists try to pander to (deficit hawks, war hawks, religious fundamentalists, etc).
I find it a bit telling, actually, that most conservative arguments (usually a right-wing radio talkshow host, maybe even with an "expert" on to help) seem to suggest worldwide conspiracy, but when actually getting down to percentages, it appears they never try to state that the "consensus" is any worse than 50%.... even if 50% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, I'd say that's a mandate for action, not a conspiracy (well, maybe both).
Maybe this should be a seperate thread so as to calm the side discussions aimed angrily at doodle for mocking religious people and conservatives (no offense here doodle... just saying you probably are annoying a few others that are more conservative and/or religious than I am).
The thing is, once you get past the science (which seems impossible given all the wildly different views you tend to hear on whether there's a "consensus" or not), you're still left with the political implications... Carbon tax or carbon credit? Developing country exemption? International treaty or everyone on their own?
It's a huge topic, and to be hones I fall squarely in the "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" crowd, but I realize that's a concept that all political opportunists try to pander to (deficit hawks, war hawks, religious fundamentalists, etc).
I find it a bit telling, actually, that most conservative arguments (usually a right-wing radio talkshow host, maybe even with an "expert" on to help) seem to suggest worldwide conspiracy, but when actually getting down to percentages, it appears they never try to state that the "consensus" is any worse than 50%.... even if 50% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, I'd say that's a mandate for action, not a conspiracy (well, maybe both).
Maybe this should be a seperate thread so as to calm the side discussions aimed angrily at doodle for mocking religious people and conservatives (no offense here doodle... just saying you probably are annoying a few others that are more conservative and/or religious than I am).
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: The Anti-Science
I don't think that religious people should ever be mocked.
If I happen to disagree with what someone believes, that doesn't give me the right to tell them they are wrong about what they believe (that is, of course, MY standard, but since I'm the moderator here that's the house rule we are going to use).
However well intentioned criticism of religious beliefs may be, it normally does nothing but hurt people's feelings and/or make them angry.
Let's steer clear of the religious mocking.
Talking about the tendency of some to reject certain scientific conclusions is, however, a great topic for conversation.
What would be even more interesting would be if we could connect some of the PP concepts to certain anti-scientific tendencies we are observing among certain populations. I think that part of what makes some people reject certain scientific concepts is the same thing that makes them think that the stock market always goes up. It's just a baseless but comforting hope-driven sort of human delusion.
If I happen to disagree with what someone believes, that doesn't give me the right to tell them they are wrong about what they believe (that is, of course, MY standard, but since I'm the moderator here that's the house rule we are going to use).
However well intentioned criticism of religious beliefs may be, it normally does nothing but hurt people's feelings and/or make them angry.
Let's steer clear of the religious mocking.
Talking about the tendency of some to reject certain scientific conclusions is, however, a great topic for conversation.
What would be even more interesting would be if we could connect some of the PP concepts to certain anti-scientific tendencies we are observing among certain populations. I think that part of what makes some people reject certain scientific concepts is the same thing that makes them think that the stock market always goes up. It's just a baseless but comforting hope-driven sort of human delusion.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: The Anti-Science
The term I used, "mocking," was probably a bit much...
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: The Anti-Science
moda0306 wrote: This is going to get ugly.
Moda, you sound battle weary.
Last edited by doodle on Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
Storm,
MT and Moda,
I definitely am not going to take a mocking tone towards religion; however, I cannot support the idea that all beliefs are valid. If I were to claim that lightning comes from the hand of Thor, you would probably use science to dispel this myth.
Currently, I feel there is a movement within a particular political group in our country to try to turn back scientific consensus. Now, I don't have an issue with debating scientific consensus....if you want to challenge the concepts of evolution, or global warming, or whatever that is fine. But, you must use scientific evidence to do so. You cannot trump empirical science with personal religious belief and call it a draw.
Both religion and science have a role to play. I feel that the realm of religion is to establish moral and ethical guidelines for human behavior. Therefore, most scientists would see it as improper to debate the moral and ethical tenets laid forth in the New Testament. In the same regard, religion shouldn't overstep its boundaries when it gets into the realm of trying to explain natural scientific phenomena that are governed by scientific laws. It isn't the role of religion to explain evolution, or where the earth came from.
Climate change is a topic that should fall squarely outside of the realm of religion. Therefore, you should find an equal number of politicians on the relgious right and the left that support creating solutions for this issue. This is not how it currently breaks down. In the majority of cases, the most vehement opposition to global climate change seems to be coming from the same group that strongly supports returning America to its religious foundations. Frankly, I don't understand why this group stands in opposition to global warming when it has nothing to do with the moral and ethical tenets of the Bible.
I can understand a candidate like Ron Paul when he criticizes abortion for religious reasons. I cannot understand however, why a doctor like he is would reject the scientific conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists.
6 Iron,
Apologies. I have removed offensive opening statement.
By the way, the 6 iron is my favorite club in the bag.
I would agree with you, except that category #3 has taken command of half of our political representatives. I worry that this groups general attitude towards science could hinder the economic competitiveness of our country in the information and scientific age. Vilifying or discrediting science is rarely good for society.I would say the vast majority of people on this planet fall into category #2. There are only a small fringe number of people that fall into category #3, but they make the rest of us look bad.
MT and Moda,
I definitely am not going to take a mocking tone towards religion; however, I cannot support the idea that all beliefs are valid. If I were to claim that lightning comes from the hand of Thor, you would probably use science to dispel this myth.
Currently, I feel there is a movement within a particular political group in our country to try to turn back scientific consensus. Now, I don't have an issue with debating scientific consensus....if you want to challenge the concepts of evolution, or global warming, or whatever that is fine. But, you must use scientific evidence to do so. You cannot trump empirical science with personal religious belief and call it a draw.
Both religion and science have a role to play. I feel that the realm of religion is to establish moral and ethical guidelines for human behavior. Therefore, most scientists would see it as improper to debate the moral and ethical tenets laid forth in the New Testament. In the same regard, religion shouldn't overstep its boundaries when it gets into the realm of trying to explain natural scientific phenomena that are governed by scientific laws. It isn't the role of religion to explain evolution, or where the earth came from.
Climate change is a topic that should fall squarely outside of the realm of religion. Therefore, you should find an equal number of politicians on the relgious right and the left that support creating solutions for this issue. This is not how it currently breaks down. In the majority of cases, the most vehement opposition to global climate change seems to be coming from the same group that strongly supports returning America to its religious foundations. Frankly, I don't understand why this group stands in opposition to global warming when it has nothing to do with the moral and ethical tenets of the Bible.
I can understand a candidate like Ron Paul when he criticizes abortion for religious reasons. I cannot understand however, why a doctor like he is would reject the scientific conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists.
6 Iron,
Apologies. I have removed offensive opening statement.
By the way, the 6 iron is my favorite club in the bag.
Last edited by doodle on Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
Friends, I fear that our forum can drift into troll-like behavior. A few pointers:
1) Starting a discussion by describing those that disagree with you as "knuckle-dragging troglodytes" is unlikely to create a meaningful conversation.
2) Write as if you were speaking in public, with mom in the room.
3) If you have a point, or points of disagreement, be as specific as you can, rather than employing ad hominem attacks. Let the argument speak for itself.
I think a discussion of the science behind global warming/climate change, and the economic effects of response or lack there of, would be a great topic for discussion. I just wish that the pool had not already been urinated in before I could jump in.
1) Starting a discussion by describing those that disagree with you as "knuckle-dragging troglodytes" is unlikely to create a meaningful conversation.
2) Write as if you were speaking in public, with mom in the room.
3) If you have a point, or points of disagreement, be as specific as you can, rather than employing ad hominem attacks. Let the argument speak for itself.
I think a discussion of the science behind global warming/climate change, and the economic effects of response or lack there of, would be a great topic for discussion. I just wish that the pool had not already been urinated in before I could jump in.
Re: The Anti-Science
Clive,
The methane from Siberia and Artic is truly a concern, as is the decrease in glacial ice resulting in less reflective Earth surface. There are many unknowns and variables happening that make predicting climate similarly complex to predicting market fluctuations. I do think that we currently find ourselves in a "global warming" secular bull market.
The methane from Siberia and Artic is truly a concern, as is the decrease in glacial ice resulting in less reflective Earth surface. There are many unknowns and variables happening that make predicting climate similarly complex to predicting market fluctuations. I do think that we currently find ourselves in a "global warming" secular bull market.
I don't know what "normal" levels imply. You can probably walk around much of the British Isles hundreds of miles inland and find evidence of ancient sea life. If "normal" implies that every coastal city in the world is going to be underwater, that will certainly be quite "abnormal".Mankind has thrived in an ice age. That ice age is coming to a close and the earth is reverting back to 'normal' levels. The transition might quicken once sea temperatures breach the methane entrapment levels.
Last edited by doodle on Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
Doodle,doodle wrote: I would agree with you, except that category #3 has taken command of half of our political representatives. I worry that this groups general attitude towards science could hinder the economic competitiveness of our country in the information and scientific age. Vilifying or discrediting science is rarely good for society.
MT and Moda,
I definitely am not going to take a mocking tone towards religion; however, I cannot support the idea that all beliefs are valid. If I were to claim that lightning comes from the hand of Thor, you would probably use science to dispel this myth.
Currently, I feel there is a movement within a particular political group in our country to try to turn back scientific consensus. Now, I don't have an issue with debating scientific consensus....if you want to challenge the concepts of evolution, or global warming, or whatever that is fine. But, you must use scientific evidence to do so. You cannot trump empirical science with personal religious belief and call it a draw.
Both religion and science have a role to play. I feel that the realm of religion is to establish moral and ethical guidelines for human behavior. Therefore, most scientists would see it as improper to debate the moral and ethical tenets laid forth in the New Testament. In the same regard, religion shouldn't overstep its boundaries when it gets into the realm of trying to explain natural scientific phenomena that are governed by scientific laws. It isn't the role of religion to explain evolution, or where the earth came from.
Climate change is a topic that should fall squarely outside of the realm of religion. Therefore, you should find an equal number of politicians on the relgious right and the left that support creating solutions for this issue. This is not how it currently breaks down. In the majority of cases, the most vehement opposition to global climate change seems to be coming from the same group that strongly supports returning America to its religious foundations. Frankly, I don't understand why this group stands in opposition to global warming when it has nothing to do with the moral and ethical tenets of the Bible.
I can understand a candidate like Ron Paul when he criticizes abortion for religious reasons. I cannot understand however, why a doctor like he is would reject the scientific conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists.
You may not realize you are doing it, but you cannot impose on others the mental framework you would like for them to use when sorting through these issues.
What is a logical dividing line between science and the supernatural for you may be very different for someone else.
To take your example of lightning coming from the hand of Thor, perhaps we could all agree that this is a fable and has no basis in what we think of as reality. To another person from another time the fact that lightning came from the hand of Thor might be a truth so obvious there would be no point in questioning it.
The point I am making is that if you dismiss what someone else believes to be objective reality you will often destroy the only possible bridge you might have for communicating with him about a whole host of things. I am not suggesting that you must validate every strange belief, but you must acknowledge the fact that there is a sentient being in whose world that belief is real if you hope to deal effectively with a person who holds that belief.
Imagine you are an anthropologist. If you walk into a village telling the natives how stupid their belief system is, no good is going to come from that.
I'm a big believer in trying to understand the internal logic of any belief system, since I know that no matter how primitive a person or set of ideas seem to me, at some point they were part of a rational and effective survival strategy, and thus they have SOME type of internal logic, no matter how foreign it may seem to me.
To a person ignorant about the unseen world of science, what we think of as obvious scientific truth might seem like nothing more than a strange mysticism to them.
If I were someone who strongly believed that climate change was a myth perpetrated by the Al Gore cult, nothing you are saying would be likely to change my views. If anything it would reinforce my views because I would be so defensive in the face of your dismissive attitude toward what I believed to be true.
It's a funny thing, but sometimes people can come to a more rational understanding of things on their own through the careful placement of rational clues than if they are put through a formal re-education program to make their thinking match the one who has taken responsibility for re-educating them.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: The Anti-Science
Very true. As someone who is occasionally required to teach evolution to college students in the deep south, this approach can be quite effective. At the very least, you often get people with disparate views engaging in constructive dialog...which is a success in it's own right.MediumTex wrote: It's a funny thing, but sometimes people can come to a more rational understanding of things on their own through the careful placement of rational clues than if they are put through a formal re-education program to make their thinking match the one who has taken responsibility for re-educating them.
Re: The Anti-Science
BigAmish... Teaching evolution... Now that makes one curious about the person behind the handle and avatar...bigamish wrote: ...As someone who is occasionally required to teach evolution to college students in the deep south,...
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
Re: The Anti-Science
This is the kind of thing that irritates me. I just don't get why advocating against pollution controls is such a politically popular position in the Republican party....or why it such a rallying point for conservatives. Polluted air and water! Yay!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/po ... 18epa.html
I don't think that religion needs to enter into the debate....in fact, I would prefer to keep it out. But, Mr. Perry somehow thinks concern for the environment is a secular sacrilegious cult led by "false prophets."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/po ... 18epa.html
I don't think that religion needs to enter into the debate....in fact, I would prefer to keep it out. But, Mr. Perry somehow thinks concern for the environment is a secular sacrilegious cult led by "false prophets."
MT, please defend your governor. What exactly is the Perry energy plan? A coal fired power plant in every neighborhood? Maybe we can get rid of catalytic convertors and go back to leaded gasoline? How exactly is this anti-environmental dialogue advancing our country forward into the 21st century and creating energy independence?In his book, “Fed Up, Our Fight to Save America from Washington,”? Mr. Perry described global-warming science as “one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight”? and a “secular carbon cult”? led by false prophets like Al Gore.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
You better pace yourself on your Perry exposure. You're going to be hearing a LOT of odd stuff come out of his mouth in coming months.doodle wrote: MT, please defend your governor. What exactly is the Perry energy plan? A coal fired power plant in every neighborhood? Maybe we can get rid of catalytic convertors and go back to leaded gasoline? How exactly is this anti-environmental dialogue advancing our country forward into the 21st century and creating energy independence?
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: The Anti-Science
Doodle, I want to go back to your original question.doodle wrote: Is America becoming anti-science? Does anyone get the impression that half of our country wants to turn its back on scientific progress? There seems to be a backlash against climate change, alternative energy tech, evolution, genetic research etc. in this country that doesn't permeate other western developed countries as deeply. Why is such a large segement of America (which has benefitted so much from the high tech sector) suddenly becoming so luddite?
I think it has something to do with what happens with science (and technology) after the scientific method has been put to use. The backlash is not just a right-wing phenom, as people on the left and center engage in it, and it's not entirely luddite, particularly if slowing down certain examples of "progress" means that legitimate questions have a chance to be asked and investigated.
Scientists, like many people, can be greedy, and when they become aware of the financial implications of scientific discoveries, conflicts and competing interests come to life. It's those conflicts of interest--which can make people with those conflicts, from scientists to financiers to marketers, do terrible things sometimes. Scientific fraud, bribery of Congress and Parliaments around the world, preemptive lawsuits against those individuals or groups whom the company's technology has harmed (to shut them up), suppression of non-favorable results, insider trading, intentional contamination of the research literature pool with an overwhelming number of studies designed to show a specific result, threats (physical and career) against scientists with competing theories, refusal to acknowledge the life-altering consequences of technology gone wrong, claiming credit for others' work, the list is long.
-A well-known company sues farmers when the company's genetically engineered seeds are spread by wind onto farmer's fields and combines with his crops--sometimes ruining the crop's potential for export. It's even worse if it's an organic farmer.
-There have been many drugs hastily approved for use in patients--then even more hastily removed from the market after people have died after using them.
-The cancer cells from Henrietta Lacks' body have been used for decades, without her or her family's consent or even knowledge, forming the foundation of modern anti-cancer treatments (from which billions of dollars have been made worldwide, while the Lacks family lives in poverty).
-Tobacco company execs told Congress in hearings that tobacco/nicotine/cigarettes do not cause cancer, even while they had the data hidden away in their vaults showing that it did.
-Scientists gave radioactive oatmeal to children in Tennessee orphanages, experiments that were revealed only in the 1990s and 2000s.
-Scientists say vaccines do not cause autism and discredit parents (and doctors) who say their child developed autism shortly after receiving a vaccination, while the US vaccine injury compensation fund pays damages to children and their families from such damage that has been proved. Meanwhile, the scientists cannot tell parents whether or not their child will have a predisposition for developing autism, refuse to figure this out, and then punish and discredit other scientists who conduct research to find that answer.
It's examples like the above which non-scientists learn about and experience, and in recent years there have been too many such examples to list them all. This type of anti-science reaction is separate from the anti-intellectual streak that has run through American culture since the 20th Century.
-
brick-house
- Full Member
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:25 am
Re: The Anti-Science
doodle wrote:
When 98% of financial scientists say the Permanent Portfolio is voodoo... I happily ignore themWhen 98% of scientists say leaded paint and drinking water is dangerous, we change our paint and pipes.
When 98% of scientists say smoking causes cancer, people accept this and promote anti-smoking campaigns.
When 98% of scientists say asbestos causes mesothelioma and lung cancer, we ban it from our buildings.
When 98% of scientists say CFC's are putting a hole in the ozone, we ban those too.
When 98% of scientists say pregnant women shouldn't consume alcohol, responsible women don't.
When 98% of scientists say CO2 emissions are causing climate change, it is a Bilderberg Illuminati conspiracy to rob humanity of its freedom? I cannot understand this viewpoint
Re: The Anti-Science
Climate change has become a very politicized issue.doodle wrote: When 98% of scientists say CO2 emissions are causing climate change, it is a Bilderberg Illuminati conspiracy to rob humanity of its freedom? I cannot understand this viewpoint.
There are a lot of scientists being paid a lot of money to investigate it. When money gets involved, scientific method gets clouded. The scientists need to put forward strong results. If those results are supportive of climate change, they get more money to do more research.
I'm not saying that there is intentional dishonesty that occurs, just that it's dangerous to underestimate the effect that this type of conflict of interest can have.
Scientists are no different than anyone else. They're subject to the same biases.
There is excellent evidence to support the health hazards of lead paint, smoking, asbestos, and alcohol consumption, and all of it can be observed empirically...that is to say, you barely need to study it to know it's true.
Climate change is much different. It's much more complex.
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."
Pascal
Pascal
Re: The Anti-Science
Personally I find the climate change story compelling but I'm under no illusions that trying to avoid climate change has massive implications for how people live. People who depend on the oil industry in Texas or Alaska etc can only be expected to carefully scrutinize the motives of those who are planning to take the rug from under them especially if they view proponents of climate change avoidance as being long standing political adversaries. I think it does immense damage to the climate change avoidance campaign when it falls back on tribalism to vilify doubters. It is a disaster that climate change has become part of a "liberal elite" package along with deficits, abortion and gun control or whatever.
Perhaps Federal support for alternative energy systems could be targeted to oil and coal rich areas. If laid off oil workers were getting jobs developing solar thermal power plants then things might be politically more conducive as well as making the best of the situation for everyone. Apparently the International Space Station got funded whilst the Super Conducting Super Collider did not because the Space Station lobby made sure it was built at the most politically expedient locations.
Medium Tex, if you go back far enough, the world was populated by bacteria that could not tolerate oxygen. When bacteria first started to photosynthesize to fix carbon from carbon dioxide, the oxygen they released made almost all of the planet uninhabitable for pre-existing life. Life (like us) that could use oxygen to release energy from hydrocarbons had to evolve to cope with the immense geochemical transformation that life had caused.
http://www.universetoday.com/1002/how-d ... us-oxygen/
Perhaps Federal support for alternative energy systems could be targeted to oil and coal rich areas. If laid off oil workers were getting jobs developing solar thermal power plants then things might be politically more conducive as well as making the best of the situation for everyone. Apparently the International Space Station got funded whilst the Super Conducting Super Collider did not because the Space Station lobby made sure it was built at the most politically expedient locations.
Medium Tex, if you go back far enough, the world was populated by bacteria that could not tolerate oxygen. When bacteria first started to photosynthesize to fix carbon from carbon dioxide, the oxygen they released made almost all of the planet uninhabitable for pre-existing life. Life (like us) that could use oxygen to release energy from hydrocarbons had to evolve to cope with the immense geochemical transformation that life had caused.
http://www.universetoday.com/1002/how-d ... us-oxygen/
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin