The March for Science: Some Perspectives
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2017, 02:25 PM
RE: The March for Science: Some Perspectives
(24-04-2017 06:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's kind of odd that many view Trump and his ilk as down to earth good old boys who can relate to them while the poor bastard grad student making $12K/year eating peanut butter and ramen sandwiches doing real science is viewed as elitist. Makes me think "Tell me what was wrong with eugenics again?"

Yeah, that is a bit of a puzzler -- the multibillionaire real estate baron as blue-collar man-of-the-people.

But then, he did spend time "pouring sheetrock" and hanging concrete, according to his son.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: The March for Science: Some Perspectives
(24-04-2017 07:46 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  There are pluses and minuses to everything. Only our enemies only see our faults.

In keeping with a scientific philosophy, we need to acknowledge those faults, and do what we can to correct them.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 03:05 PM
RE: The March for Science: Some Perspectives
(25-04-2017 01:12 AM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  I have mixed feelings on the last article. The article seemed to struggle to get to the main point, if there was one at all and seems circular at times: people do not understand science because if you see these examples, people don't understand science. What are the exogenous factors that lead to anti-science beliefs? Money? Religion? Human nature? All of them? Some of them? Does it vary from issue to issue? etc.

I feel the article barely scratched the surface on that. Sure, quasi-religious nature, p-hacking, and crappy scientific journalism are--granted--issues and while people are probably smarter--or at least more knowledgeable--practicing science broadly construed (i.e. something closer to freethought than the textbook scientific method), why people end up being wrong goes much deeper than a single article, let alone a single march, could explore. I should also add I felt Shawn Otto's book, The War on Science, actually *did* provide a very good answer to that question.
As you observe, the exogenous factors are many, complex, and beyond the scope of a single article with the ostensible purpose of reviewing essential a single event.

I think Otto does a decent job on the issue as well, at least from his particular perspective. I recommend also reading Dick Taverne's The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism, as a companion to Otto's book, from a slightly different perspective.

Quote:Regardless such questions such as what exogeneous features can lead to anti-science beliefs seem very distant when confronted with something as simple as how are we going to handle a president who doesn't believe in climate change and could potentially make nation-altering decision that will effect the next generation for years to come. Yes, there's a lot of work ahead, but I don't see any problem with starting with the elephant in the room. If Feynman is right and "The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool" then fact a march was led by fools who have fooled themselves was but inevitable, in which case Faust made a trite observation.
The issue is, I believe, not whether or not to do something, but to try to do something that matters.

If the point is to support the methods, ideas, and benefits of science to those who are suspicious of, or hostile to those methods, ideas, and benefits, then that is the audience that has to be played to. And you don't convince members of that audience to adopt your position by simply rubbing their noses in things that they already dislike and reject. Street activism has its place, but it's seldom very deeply educational.

I had a similar reaction to Dawkins' The God Delusion. The very title of the book is guaranteed to be off-putting to the precisely the group Dawkins himself says he was hoping to reach. Preaching to the choir can be ego-stoking, but it doesn't bring any new sinners into the congregation.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
25-04-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: The March for Science: Some Perspectives
Explain science? Simple, look at Girly's explanation in my signature.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 03:17 PM
RE: The March for Science: Some Perspectives
(25-04-2017 11:00 AM)pablo Wrote:  I think if a few popular singers would write some pro-science country songs, it would go a long way.

Thumbsup

Well, there is this . . .

Josh Ritter - Stuck To You

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: The March for Science: Some Perspectives
Yet another view:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...nce-march/

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: