Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future

By Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Basic Books. Posted August 21, 2009.


Science matters- to politics, the economy, and our future. But do Americans really understand and appreciate that?
unscientificamericacover
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

From Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.  Excerpted by arrangement with Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group.  Copyright © 2009.

Rethinking the Problem of Scientific Illiteracy

As Mark Twain put it, “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.” Take the army of aggrieved parents nationwide who swear vaccines are the reason their children developed autism and who seem impossible to convince otherwise. Scientific research has soundly refuted this contention, but every time a new study comes out on the subject, the parents and their supporters have a “scientific” answer that allows them to retain their beliefs. Where do they get their “science” from? From the Internet, celebrities, other parents, and a few non-mainstream researchers and doctors who continue to challenge the scientific consensus, all of which forms a self-reinforcing echo chamber of misinformation. 

The anti-vaccination advocates are scientifically incorrect; there’s little doubt of that at this point. But whether they could be called “ignorant” or “scientifically illiterate” is less clear. After all, they’ve probably done far more independent research about a scientific topic that interests and affects them than most Americans have.

The same goes for other highly informed, and deeply wrong, groups—the global warming deniers, anti-evolutionists, UFO obsessives, and so on. Ignorance isn’t their problem, and neither is a lack of intellectual engagement or motivation. Anyone who has ever discussed global warming on national radio—as Chris has done countless times—can expect to be besieged by callers who don’t accept the prevailing scientific consensus and have obviously done a great deal of research to back up their prejudices. If anything, such individuals want to make a show of their erudition and proceed to rattle off a mind-boggling string of scientific-sounding claims: Global warming isn’t happening on other planets; urban heat islands (cities) thwart global thermometer readings; the atmosphere’s lowest layer, the troposphere, isn’t warming at the rate predicted by climate models; and the like.

Or consider the late Michael Crichton. He was a brilliant science fiction novelist, screenwriter, and movie producer who backed up his best-selling narratives with considerable scientific research. Yet in his late-life novel State of Fear, he penned a wholly misleading and revisionist attack on the science of global warming. Faced with such people, intellectually driven and empowered as never before by the profusion of “science”—good, bad, and awful—on the Internet, one soon recognizes that the lack of scientific knowledge probably isn’t our real problem. 

Almost inevitably, improvements to our educational system are put forward as the primary solution to the problem of scientific illiteracy. It is a lofty goal, of course, and nobody is against improving K-12 science education. But to look to education alone as the silver bullet is to write off as unreachable anyone who has already graduated from the formal educational system. That includes vast stretches of the population, including most voters, our political and cultural leaders, and the gatekeepers of the media. 

The most troubling problem with the standard “scientific illiteracy” argument, however, is this: It has the effect, intended or otherwise, of exempting the smart people—the scientists—from any responsibility for ensuring that our society really does take their knowledge seriously and uses it wisely. It’s an educational problem, they can say, or a problem with the media (which doesn’t cover science accurately or pay it enough attention), and then go back to their labs. 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, science, scientific illiteracy

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
science overstretch
Posted by: willyyyy on Aug 21, 2009 2:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who object to vaccinations are no Luddites!
They consider the conclusions of studies on vaccination as scientific overstretch.
The science needed to build a bridge is sufficiently developed, the medico-pharmaceutical "science" still contains a lot of black magic. Some aspects can be investigated more or less scientifically (although with very limited access to controlled experiments), but the mechanisms of what vaccinations do is guesswork, and thus the possible long term and society wide effects are unknown and unknowable.
Adverse effects are all too real and observable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, you are. Posted by: EinMD
» RE: science overstretch Posted by: Spiritgirl
ProfBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Aug 21, 2009 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so much easier to listen to your mother, a minister or a neighbor to understand ultimate truth.
Much more difficult to read Newton, Einstein or any of the current scientific thinkers. Far too difficult to learn about geology, biology, physiology, archeology and the philosophy of science. A brief, but understandable, chapter on the varieties of evidence people believe in can be found in Book 4 of the free ebook series 'In Search of Utopia" at
http://andgulliverreturns.info

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ProfBob Posted by: tony_opmoc
The Author isn't a Scientist - He's a Journalist and Propaganda Merchant
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 21, 2009 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Physicists who wrote the Open Letter below are SCIENTISTS. The Political Propaganda merchants including Alternet itself, together with many of the contributors attempt to portray an image that anyone who disagrees on the publicised mainstream view of Global Warming is an anti-science nut. But the publicised mainstream view of Global Warming has been hi-jacked and totally corrupted by the same Propaganda Merchants - who ARE NOT SCIENTISTS.

Listen to The SCIENTISTS - Not The Corrupt Propaganda Merchants.

An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human --on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BULLSHIT Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: BULLSHIT Posted by: tony_opmoc
» lets debunk this a bit Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: lets debunk this a bit Posted by: madmac10
» Well said, Drclaw! Posted by: GuitarBill
» Gaia and earth religion... Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: Gaia and earth religion... Posted by: harryf200
» possibly Posted by: Drclaw
Science and 9/11
Posted by: whole2th on Aug 21, 2009 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political advantage is also taken of an unwitting (scientifically 'illiterate') public in the matter of 9/11 and how the buildings actually were demolished.

http://ae911truth.org lays out the science quite effectively and accurately. Then look how the pundits, mainstream media and those with an interest in the cover-up of what really happened did with the real science: they used ridicule, distraction and disinformation.

A return to science may be catalyzed by some simple lessons in the physics of falling bodies--and how this ignorance of obvious controlled demolitions of Building 7 and the Twin Towers have been distorted.

The phrase "7 in 7", referring to building 7's scientifically incredible "collapse" can be one entry point to returning the public to appreciate how important it is to know science--and how in being ignorant of science the public can be manipulated like cattle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Still Don't Get It! Posted by: D. Shenary
» More lies, dufus? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Keep UP the Good Work! Posted by: D. Shenary
» RE: A Rhetorical Question for You Posted by: D. Shenary
» Get your head out of your @$$. Posted by: GuitarBill
» GUTTERbill Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
» RE: Science and 9/11 Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Truth vs Fact
Posted by: crazyhag on Aug 21, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel the problem lies in the human capacity for story telling. We glean a lot of what we consider to be Truth from stories. Scientists deal in Facts and Theories. Facts of themselves may lead us to a better understanding of the material world, but don't inspire us in the way a powerful narrative can. A Fact or Theory that conflicts with our subjective Truth creates a doubt. Most people simply can't handle doubt. They would rather be certain and wrong than uncertain and open to change. No wonder the scientists think we're deficient as we struggle to adjust the narrative to the facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the problem...
Posted by: ellie on Aug 21, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that humans are slower to evolve then science and technology... the chasm between the un-ability to understand is what causes fear and rejection... it's emotionally painful to give up what you always believed to be fact for another paradigm...

Hawkings is right...

ps... need to get the Texas board of ed. out of the nation's textbooks... the books Texas buys are the standards for the entire country... 'nuff said...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is It My Imagination ... ?
Posted by: madmac10 on Aug 21, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is it just a result of reading Neal Stephenson's brilliant new novel Anathem ... that there seems to be an increased portrayal of scientists in the media these days with monstrous stereotypes? There's the doddering old fool in Fringe who, despite his best intentions, endangers the world with his pursuits. Then there's the Heinleinesque father figure in Warehouse 13. I know, back in our day, we had Spock—the cold, calculating outsider who needed so badly to rediscover his humanity, but I really think there has been a ramping up of scientific paranoia in our media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well shoot, you stumped me Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: well shoot, you stumped me Posted by: madmac10
Creationists, global warming deniers and good old Ned Ludd
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Aug 21, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creationists, global warming deniers and anti-vaccine activists can be forgiven for recoiling from "inconvenient truths" for at least one reason. "Mainstream" business interests, media ideologues and politicians have lied to them before - sometimes with catastrophic results. How much easier, then, is it to retreat into the warmth of simple virtues, reassuring mythologies and resistance to (and resentment of) sudden-onset paradigm shifts? Answer: it is very easy indeed!

Meanwhile, those pursuing scientific knowledge and urging its application to real-world problems need to realize that their confidence in the scientific method has too often been associated with the functioning of a political economy that has not, in fact, uniformly served humanity well. Much that is worrisome to environmentalists - from the proliferation of genetically modified organisms to the toxic by-products of industrial development itself - has been identified (rightly or wrongly) with a scientifically inspired faith in progress that has had unintended, sometimes disastrous consequences.

Think thalidomide babies; think Bhopol. Come to think of it, think global warming itself.

A measure of modesty among those who, like Ronald Reagan in his late-1950s work for General Electric, assured us that "at GE, progress is our most important product," would go far toward demonstrating to those whose wilfull ignorance undermines the genuine benefits of human understanding would help a little bit. So would a critical awareness of the history and economics of the scientific project.

Meanwhile, those who cheerfully condemn the preternaturally suspicious as "Luddites," would do well to undertake some homework of their own. The followers of the mythical General Ned Ludd (also known as "The Army of Redressers") did indeed engage in "machine breaking" and the destruction of some factories that displaced handloom weavers with steam-driven devices. They did not, however, do so in "irrational" opposition to nascent industrialism. They saw the sudden and devastating proliferation of what William Blake so nicely described as "dark satanic mills," in what we call "real time." Their opposition was not to change, but to disruptive and harmful changes made in the exclusive interests of capital. The responded as they did because they wanted the evident benefits and not just the costs of the new industrial machinery to be fairly shared among working people - a shorter work week, vocational retraining and the many benefits of liesure, prosperity and so on.

A certain amount of good old-fashioned Luddism would not go astray today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't dismiss Michael Crichton
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 21, 2009 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of the article seems just as guilty of the "sins" he condemns in others. Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" was an excellently researched and written book. Crichton himself was a thorough researcher and believed in science, and also was skeptical of extravagant and unproven claims. Which is why he wrote such a devastating book as "State of Fear" and why the global warming chicken-littles have been frothing at the mouth over it ever since.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry..not correct. Posted by: Drclaw
» nice post! Posted by: Drclaw
Always be able to explain your science to your grandmother...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 21, 2009 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is my basic rule of thumb.

No jargon, no codification, no enzyme names, no transcription factors--just what is being done, why its new and different, and what the potential or realized impact could be or has been.

That's rule number one to engage the public in your...'personal science'. If you can't tell your grandma what you're doing, you need to work on your delivery, or take a hard look at your attitude and decide whether arrogance is getting in the way of your communication with 'lay people', as the author hints at.

As for the country's attitude toward science, I have to agree with the author. Understanding science--at the most basic level--is an understanding between cause and effect, and employing a metric to measure outcomes. The same folks who make fun of creationists for closing their eyes and judging evolution by what they 'feel', are more than happy to vote for the same damn tools year after year, expecting different resluts.

That's one form of insanity, is it not?

If we applied the scientific method to politics, just imagine the outcome:

"I hypothesize if I vote for the guy who yells 'change' enough, and vote to cement his party in the legislature, we will withdraw from our perpetual war on Tara, do something about our Ponzi/Madoff medicare/medicaid and social security schemes, and perhaps help protect and raise the status of the most vulnerable of those amongst us."

We would then observe the results:

--perpetual war on Tara endorsed and continued

--trillions to crony bankers

--a number of proposals to expand medicare in defiance of basic math

--a country that is 'stimulating' itself with a national credit card, leveraged against working the working flesh of our unborn children...


And we would then conclude, scientifically, that nothing has changed, that the folks in absolute power are as bad as the big bad wolves on the so-called right, and then perhaps do something different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» O.M.G Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: That is how I look at it Posted by: Changling
P.O.V.
Posted by: magistre on Aug 21, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many good points raised and touched on:

(1) U.S. "schools" are a joke because instead of unbiased education what is really going on is "socialization" with a pronounced emphasis on NOT QUESTIONING AUTHORITY!

(2) Global Warming shows that scientists can be just as "Cycloptic" as anyone. They need to see the "gestalt". Yes, the climate is getting warmer and there will be changes-there's nothing that can be done to reverse climate change.

(3) The author of the article needs to learn that there are many people in this world that hold views HE doesn't accept. Some are "kooks" and "knee-jerkers" but others do approach subjects (that you find bizarre) with detachment and more un-bias than you do. (assassinations,U.F.O.s, et.al.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» quite false.. Posted by: Drclaw
He Didn't Do It - Though He Probably Does Have Prostrate Cancer Everyone Knows Except Americans
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 21, 2009 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is extremely rare for me to have a good word for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair - or any Scottish People for that matter...

And I'm not quite sure why Blair negotaited his release - maybe he was trying to achieve some forgiveness for His War Crimes Against Humanity

It had absolutely FUCK ALL To do with Libya - though they admitted Full Responsibility and Paid About 2 Billion Dollars (or was it Pounds in Compensation to the Victims Families) for the Deal.

I thought The Scottish Justice Minister Gave a Blinding Performance

Look its Quite Simple

If Americans Blow Up an Iranian Commercial Flight Out of The Air - Just Because One Of Their Nutters Got Trigger Happy, The Iranians are likely to Respond

Its got Fuck All To Do With Libya - and it Never Did Have

I probably shouldn't say this, but most men over a certain age have Prostate Cancer. My Father-In-Law has it.

He's had it for the last 20 years or so

He is now 86, and has just been given a clean bill of health

You see - You Do Not Know What The Fuck is Going On

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/777589.stm

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vaccines
Posted by: Johnism on Aug 21, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry I do not blindly accept the "science" that vaccines have no link to autism. Maybe its because the "science" comes from the same company that makes the drugs. "Our drugs have no link to autism so make sure you get your vaccines so our shareholders make more money."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vaccines Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Vaccines Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
» RE: Vaccines Posted by: Problem Is
If history is anything to go by
Posted by: richard0a37 on Aug 21, 2009 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is wrong to accord people any measure of scientific awareness or literacy, as if the mere reporting of the results of any scientific research should be greeted with enthusiasm and open arms by the public at large.

Millions, perhaps, billions of people across the planet now use computers, mobile phones, televisions, radios, DVDs etc, and watch movies displaying the most awesome of special effects without giving a moment’s thought to the vast accumulation of scientific endeavour that has made it all possible.

While it is true that education today has raised our awareness of the impact that science has undoubtedly made, go back 200 years to when Thomas Young announced the work he was doing on the wave theory of light, the vast majority of Londoners, who were illiterate and malnourished and two decades away from the Poor Law, would have greeted any forecasts and predictions of what those experiments might one day portend for the world at large with utter disdain and contempt, and would have quickly branded such ravings as lunacy.

In my view, it is the drive for profit that has thrust micro- and nano- electronics onto an unsuspecting public at large who have no concept of the genius behind all these inventions, but instead accept the use of these appliances as if it was their God given right to own them, even if they don’t have the faintest clue as to how they came about in the first place.

People rarely if ever acknowledge genius, mainly because they cannot recognise it. There are a handful of classical composers that have rightly been identified as genius, because they appear to be able to tap into the deepest regions of our emotions as if they knew something the rest of us didn’t. How, for instance, can one even begin to quantity a symphony of Tchaikovsky?

However, there are also geniuses working in other spheres. The same kind of science that is responsible for the mobile phone is the same kind of science that is employed to reach decisions about the fragility or otherwise of our eco-system, but to question it would be like questioning the fundamental principles behind telecommunications, something most of us are just not equipped to do.

But if Richard Turing and other physicists of the 1930s were to have predicted the modern day digital computer in all its awe inspiring forms, they too would likely have been labelled misfits who just have their noses stuck in too many books, and too many late nights alone with a test tube.

Probably the only thing we can say with absolute certainty is that by the year 2050, it will be just as the scientists are predicting now, and if history is anything to go by, we’d better damn well start listening to them now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No problem. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: No problem. Posted by: richard0a37
A glimpse into the future
Posted by: richard0a37 on Aug 21, 2009 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 80s and 90s, most computer software was written in 3rd generation computer languages such as C, Basic and Cobol. Computer monitors were character driven, disk space and memory capacity were low and expensive, and one took great pains to achieve optimal use of these precious commodities.

Then the graphical user interface came into being, and it wasn’t long before someone realised that bit-mapped terminals could utterly transform the way in which we use computers. This spawned the generation of a whole new set of objected oriented computer languages.

Back in the 80s, it was possible to send messages backwards and forwards between two unix computers, even if the computers were situated either side of the pond.

Then someone realised that you could send a message to your girl friend rather than in the computer laboratory or sitting at the desk in a software house.

Then someone had the bright idea, if I attached a camera to my computer, then I could send a moving image of myself to my girl friend, or better still, she could broadcast a moving image of herself to you; even better if the woman was a total stranger living in another country.

Not only that, but if you could get people to pay to do this, you could make a fortune.

And so was born the internet. But in order to achieve this required the injection of unlimited sums of money to finance the research and development into virtually every single stratum of digital communications.

Crazyhag, up above you write: Most people simply can't handle doubt. They would rather be certain and wrong than uncertain and open to change.

The innovators who determine what our lives are like, and what they will be like, couldn’t give a toss what the rest of us think. We are locked into, and driven by technological advance, but in order to realise this, you have to remember what life was like before it became this way.

The digital processor will ultimately become an extension of our own thought processes. Ultimately, it will become an implant in our brains installed at birth, and using our mouth, ears and eyes as input and output receptors.

We will need to do no more than think of connecting with someone and the microscopically minute divine ultimate mobile phone in our heads will burst into action passing what we see, hear and say to the person we have called, and vice versa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ekogaia
Posted by: redgreenbrown on Aug 21, 2009 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole issue of scientific literacy has become rather subjective. For instance when this author puts talks about 'science', then the implication is that what is really being discussed is pseudoscience, or selective science, or junk science. However the wave of scientism as an almost religous creed is being taken too far and claims that science and technology are going to save us from the mess that they have got us into is a naive hope.
We must also remember that much of what is taken to be science is actually corporate spin on science. The supposed science on genetically engineered plants and so on is based on an extremely narrow and demonstrably false assumption central dogma that has been shown to be an outdated, simplistic explanation for what is really going on. Sure, using science at this level may be be okay to explain to some people but it intentionally ignores the fact that science is very good at analysing facts one at a time and very often not in concert. When it comes to analysing and explaining complex interactions it is not nearly so accurate, and this is why the corporate lobby has been so able to turn this on its head and instill peoples heads with yet more simplistic junk science that global warming is nonsense, its just a trend or a blip in the system.
Fact is the coin of science has two sides - in fact its probably much more nuanced in that the coin is multidimensional and we cannot yet see all of the permutations available. Science is not just either/ or, yes/ no, right wrong. Its a tool to describe the inconceivable complexity in manageable chunks and as such its a pretty crude tool, as open to manipulation as any statistic.
Therein lies the rub my friends......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science and the public
Posted by: ezio on Aug 21, 2009 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just want to say that I disagree with most of the premise this article embraces. I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable person particularly when it comes to science and history. Scientists are usually more focused than the rest of us and they are less inclined to waste their time in order to explain or argue with an unreasonable person or group. I have personally found it very frustrating trying to discuss some of these subjects with many of the people I know. I find there is a large part of the public that believes what they believe simply because they choose to believe it and nothing else! They seek out only those studies/articles etc that support their position and ignore anything else. Their minds are completely closed to anything that would challenge or cast doubt on those beliefs. In the United States I would guess this is somewhere between 30% and 40% of the population, much higher than in Europe or Japan! As an example, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution, , only Turkey among modern nations, has a lower percentage of citizens who believe in this theory than the United States. This situation is not the fault of scientists! You need to look elsewhere!

The current health care debacle is a case in point! Talking facts or logic to these people is a waste of time. You cannot teach common sense and an open mind along with some capacity for critical thinking is a basic requirement for an intelligent discussion! These people are the same people that pointed to studies by the tobacco industry that indicated that smoking was not addictive and not harmful to your health! Today they point to studies done by or funded by the Oil and Coal industries to challenge climate change! They scream, “no Socialized Medicine in the USA, it does not work” being too ignorant to realized that is exactly what the VA Hospitals are? Or cry out against “single payer health care” and “keep government out of our health care” while their Medicare cards are in their wallets! They continue listening to the same experts no matter how many times they are proven wrong! No the scientists are not responsible for the “blind faith” factor and it is alive and doing well in the USA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A liberal education Posted by: suprmark
O.K. I Was Working For An Exceedingly Large Company But I Did Not Accept The Employee Discount Rates
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Aug 21, 2009 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew what they were like - and they were really Stressing The Engineers and Turning most of them into Salesmen...

The Engineers didn't want to be salesmen

They just wanted to fix the Problem

And I knew this was going on - and only used them once - which was only because it came with a guarantee

And sure he fixed the problem - but the cost of the part was 36 pence - and the insurance company got charged £127

So with regards to my own circumstances - if anything stopped working and I couldn't fix it myself - I phoned up the local company

And years later - it failed almost completely

And he looked at me - and have me a bit of bull - and realised I was skint and would much prefer a bill of £97 rather than one for £10,000 that the company I had worked for 5 years before would have charged

So he stripped it all down - it took him 1 hour and a30 minutes -and he showed me what was wrong

And he charged me £97

And I gave him a £3 tip

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blind leading the Blind
Posted by: stellabloo on Aug 21, 2009 1:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To argue that science is always pure and logical is to overlook the fact that science consists of research and research is almost always funded by special interests.

To elevate science to a supreme status of absolute certainty is to also overlook the fact that logic is often subject to both authority and peer pressure - as shown in the infamous experiments of Stanley Milgram and Solomon Asch. The white coat of the scientist has generally replaced the robes of the priest but scientists are, in turn, largely subject to the same frailties of human ego as anyone else.

Some reading just for fun: 5 Psychological Experiments That Prove Humanity is Doomed

The human psyche being what it is, certain people will imagine themselves to be outside the influence of authority and peer pressure, only to fall in with other non-conformists. "Independent thinkers" often end up as religious extremists or fringe theory conpiracists in the delusion that they are a) bucking the mainstream ideology of the "sheeple" and b) vindicated by the fact that other crackpots feel the same way.

One thing that EVERYONE can understand: Follow the money.

For example, do you not know that studies that refute global warming are invariably funded by groups that are themselves funded by Big Oil? Did you not know that drug research is organized and funded by Big Pharma and that hardly any funding goes to study, say, the long-term risks of the thousands of new chemicals we have introduced into the environment?

Michael Crichton is an author but did you not realize that Richard Dawkins is an author too? Or that Oprah is in the entertainment industry (obviously no one in her audience remembers the iron lung) and so is Alex Jones?

To overlook the role of money in science and society is to overlook the biggest "conspiracy" of them all: the conspiracy of greed. The bottom line has become the "bottom line".

Science? The original Model-T ran on hemp-derived ethanol, easy to produce, endlessly clean and renewable. Standard Oil, the oldest and largest american multinational and first supplier of gasoline fuel, was considered "too big to exist" by Theodore Roosevelt. In 2008, when the Exxon Valdez lawsuit was finally settled 20 years later for a fraction of the original settlement, Exxon-Mobil, one of the resultant splinter companies of Standard Oil, had the highest profit of any american company - ever. That's scientific progress for you.

We put our blind faith in preachers, politicians, celebrities and scientists because we are trained from birth to believe the biggest lie of them all: that our value is determined by our bank account and our circle of influential acquaintances. Consequently most of us do not value our own thoughts, our own experiences and conclusions - and emperically-based logic is the real foundation of good science. Despite everything you have ever been told, it is OK to ask questions. Just don't accept the first answer that you're handed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pointlessly slippery slope Posted by: Biflspud
Is following "science-for-fire" a form of literacy?
Posted by: artifax on Aug 21, 2009 4:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though the word may sound profound, "science" is not a monolith. There is good and bad science going on all the time.

Since Ronald Reagan effectively ended most government-sponsored scientific study in the public interest, most research and testing has been carried out or financed by industry. The outcry at the time was that this would often bias the results and result in "science for hire." What company wants to pay for a study that will shrink its profit margin and prove a well-heeled program was a waste of time. money and effort? The critics were not wrong.

When corporate interests hire scientists to produce "studies" whose sole purpose is to produce their desired outcomes (coincidentally supporting profits) is that science or non-science? Should we then follow it to avoid being deemed illiterate?

Regarding vaccinations, those who have actually spent the time to research the studies to confirm their safety and efficacy say they either don't exist or cover no more than a few weeks following administration of a single vaccine. No double-blind, randomized, long-term studies, including those that probe interactions between the various vaccines themselves, actually exist. Yes, it's hard to believe – it’s such “common knowledge” that vaccines are good for us – but they say it’s true.

So is that science? Are we ignorant not to just take as fact the oft-repeated assurances that vaccines are safe and do what they are designed to do that come from government and industry? Do governments and corporate entities not lie or sometimes act in the interest of those other than the public, especially where massive profits, campaign funding and liabilities are involved?

In the case of cigarettes and asbestos, where damning studies were hidden by industry from the public for decades, would one who distrusted the prevailing wisdom before their problems were exposed have been a fool? Knowing that, should we now just trust the current "science" that says genetically-modified foods and cloned animals are safe? I think not.

A couple of days back it was revealed in the NY Times that a prominent doctor was paid $750,000 to sign on to a ghost-written endorsement of Gardisil. This type of thing has occurred many times to reinforce pharmaceutical "science."

How naive do we have to be to not be labeled scientifically illiterate when we don't trust the many truisms publicly offered up as fact that often don't have real, objective science to back them up?

Sounds like you have some learning to do yourselves, writers, and some real research, before labeling those who don't rubber-stamp common modes of thought as ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» absolutely Posted by: Drclaw
Twain was right
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 21, 2009 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twain was right, which is about as far as I got into this article pretending that science will somehow save us from our sins. It would be refreshing if just once in a while, a liberal or two other than myself, pointed out the obvious, that it is science that is leaving our children global pollution and, it is science that is leaving them to deal with WMD's and worse. It's so easy these days, to blame the other guy, rather than to focus the blame for our problems where it obviously belongs, which is squarely on all of our own contradicting shoulders. Apparently, these authors forgot to mention that Twain referred to humanity in general as the "human ass" and, said that evolution couldn't be true because it does such a great dis-service to the ape.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some great sound bites from this one...
Posted by: doctorsquared on Aug 22, 2009 8:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that are sadly true.

write off as unreachable anyone who has already graduated from the formal educational system

All too often we find scientists saying things to their peers and colleagues, or even to the press, that sound something like this: “I can’t believe the public is so stupid that it believes X” or “I can’t believe people are so ignorant that they’ll accept Y.” At this point the scientist ceases to be a friendly instructor and becomes a condescending detractor and belittler.

Does it hurt the author's feelings that they think they are smarter than he? Well...they are smarter. People who live and breathe quantum mechanics, or general relativity, or partial differential equations, or molecular biology, etc. live on a different intellectual dimension than average people. Average people are unreachable, and they are exquisitely stupid enough to believe X and Y. They don't understand how to weigh evidence appropriately, and they don't realize the selective memory and myriad of logical fallacies that plague everyday human inference and pattern recognition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» disagree Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: disagree Posted by: doctorsquared
Article misses the point and the nature of the strife
Posted by: Problem Is on Aug 23, 2009 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not that people in science dismiss the American public. The strife does not come from academia or research.

The fact is science uncovers facts that are uncomfortable to the moneyed ruling elite and unprofitable to corporations.

When evidence of damaging pollution, unsafe drugs and products, poisoned ground water, bogus national security claims (i.e. dirty bombs that don't work), military industrial boondoggle projects at tax payer expense, are uncovered by factual research, it threatens the profits of US corporations and takes money out of Wall Street's pockets.

Since Wall Street and corporations own the media, they then use it to foster propaganda campaigns to discredit science and research to the American public. Just think of the constant ludicrous statements on Fox ridiculing science. O'Reilly portraying science as an attack on the Christian you...

As more and more evidence and research emerges indicating the practices and actions of US corporations are detrimental to the health, lives and economic well being of the American public, the level and viciousness of the attacks have increased. US corporate propaganda is highly skilled at the use of sacred and satanic symbolism to manufacture consent among the masses to change the argument from facts to emotional wedge issues.

This translates into Christians viewing all science as an attack on them where none exists and Joe six pack dismissing anything of science and education as stupid. This is a direct result of incessant propaganda by US corporations to defend their profits at the expense of the American people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Note on Christians
Posted by: Problem Is on Aug 23, 2009 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Science really is not an attack on Christian beliefs.

If you wish to believe that God created the earth in 4004 BC by counting generations in the Bible and evolution does not exist that is absolutely your right. Religious beliefs are not the realm of science.

That is why in America you can have private religious schools to teach what you see fit.

In the public schools, that serve the PUBLIC not just the religious minority, curriculum can only be evaluated and permitted based on fact and science. All curriculum must be evaluated solely on fact and science.

Public schools are supported by the facts and research of the PUBIC university systems that through research and discovery drive the curriculum of university institutions. Thus PUBLIC K-12 schools use the basis of fact and science to form their curriculum to prepare PUBLIC students to graduate and move on to the possibility of university work.

Thus the religious also have religious based universities to send their students with out any interference from the public.

We do not come to your religious schools and tell you what you can teach and the religious are not permitted to come to the secular public school and demand that anything but fact and science be taught.

If the religious wish to deny evolution in school curriculum then they will have to shut off their cars, tv's and computers as electron theory is on an equal scientific footing in terms of evidence and supported empirical fact with evolution...

Keep in mind, it is my right to believe in science as much as your right not to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nike Dunk
Posted by: Nike Dunk on Aug 23, 2009 10:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for your sharing. Maybe you are interested in Nike Dunk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nike Dunk
Posted by: Nike Dunk on Aug 23, 2009 11:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for your sharing. Maybe you are interested in Nike Dunk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

public engagement not the problem
Posted by: astrovouk on Aug 25, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The book proposes a very interesting hypothesis, however I think that the authors have made some errors in their argument. The biggest one, that I would like to discuss, is that the problem with 'scientific illeteracy' is not that scientists are condescending, looking down at the public. Rather the public has limited understadning of scientific methods. The kind of knowledge I am talking about, some scientists don't even have. It takes years or training and experience to begin to understand concepts about causality in statistical modelling for example to be able to evaluate the validity of using data to support an argument. Unfortunately most of this kind of knowledge is 'dry' and 'boring' but totally necessary to follow scientific arguments and make decisions. This is elitist but the non-scientifically trained public cannot be allowed to make decisions around scientific argument. Sure they can join the discussion. The relationship between the public and science can only ever be knowing a few interesting facts. Yes I agree it is elitist but it has to be to progress. No one would dream of allowing a passionate but otherwise untrained member of the public to be a part of a professional football or basketball team. Science is not a democratic process. One lone voice against millions should always win if they have the correct answer... eg, Galileo. Lets not get too concerned with the idea that the public should have the casting vote on scientific matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement