Attitudes towards science in the U.S.

[chriscase]

Hi folks,
My impression over the last 20 years or so has been that a schism has developed between the scientific community and public policy / attitudes in the U.S. On the one hand, we have tremendous advances in many scientific fields; yet, on the other hand, we have an apparent backlash of fundamentalism. If I were to ask why this is the case, one simple answer might be that the two trends exist in dialectical opposition to each other. Thus, great steps forward in science trigger a greater backlash in the public sphere.

Yet, I wonder if there is not something else at work. My recollection of images of scientists in the media - mostly T.V. from the 60's and 70s - is not very far from an American version of the court magician. The media scientist was a benign, geeky guy in a white lab coat, hawking his latest invention.

The typical attitude toward this image of a scientist, it seems to me, has not been too different from an attitude toward some arcane practitioner of magic: we know he has all sorts of incomprehensible explanations for how he does it, but we don't really care as long as it works.

But lately the court magician has been giving us news we don't like: global warming, population overload, and oil production dropoff, to name a few. And now, we are all suddenly amateur skeptics. We're not so sure about all of this science any more, now that the news is something we don't want to hear.

What do you think? Am I way off in left field here or do you think there's anything to this?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

No I would say you are spot on with that analysis.

[Simetrical]

I wouldn't say people in the U.S. are anti-science. I think almost all Americans would agree that science is a valuable and important tool, and most would acknowledge that the scientific method is the best way to find out facts about the physical world.

The issue is that first of all, most people are ignorant of basic science. This is probably inevitable, and undoubtedly applies everywhere to a greater or lesser degree: not everyone can know everything.

Second of all, while people are fine with science when it gives them good things, they don't like anything that tells them things they dislike. This could be ideological, economic, or anything else. It's fairly easy to reject those you disagree with as not really being scientists in the first place, while still supporting science in principle. And of course, not everyone who calls himself a scientist is a scientist, by any account. Without a strong knowledge of both the principles of science and the particulars of the field in question, it's not always simple to tell apart the real scientists from the fakes. And see point one.

Not to derail the thread (so I'm not touching your mention of global warming with a ten-foot pole), but I'm not aware that scientists are seriously warning much of overpopulation these days, at least not in developed countries. I thought that fell out of favor a decade or two ago at least. Certainly many developed countries have birth rates barely above replacement or, in many cases, dramatically below it, and undeveloped countries' birth rates are dropping AFAIK.

[chriscase]

Not to derail the thread (so I'm not touching your mention of global warming with a ten-foot pole), but I'm not aware that scientists are seriously warning much of overpopulation these days, at least not in developed countries. I thought that fell out of favor a decade or two ago at least. Certainly many developed countries have birth rates barely above replacement or, in many cases, dramatically below it, and undeveloped countries' birth rates are dropping AFAIK.

I didn't say the scientist's claims had to be correct. The reaction would be the same whether specific claims are in error or not.

As far as population overload goes, this guy seems to think it's an issue. But maybe he's not a credible source.

[Squier]

now, we are all suddenly amateur skeptics.

i laughed when i read this because its so true, people seem willing to believe so fat moron who sets up a website (usually about global warming) making the most inane and ilogical remarks claiming to have 'debunked' a 'myth'. i would love to see such people do the same to game theory, semi conducters, the mathematics behind complex numbers etc.

[Simetrical]

In The Selfish Gene, yes, first published 1976. It was a popular attitude then, but the last 30 years have mostly killed it, as far as I know, at least in terms of your general point: things that Americans (along with other inhabitants of developed countries) are told to worry about. Nobody's been telling Americans that overpopulation is going to hurt them for at least a decade, because it's manifestly not true: American birth rates are only moderately above replacement and easily sustainable with our wealth.

[chriscase]

Ok, you got me there. I wonder if Dawkins isn't still concerned about it, but has other fish to fry. Actually, couldn't his attack on organized religion also serve as a means to address one of the causes of overpopulation in places like Latin America?

I think we are digressing, though.

Simetrical points out that my examples of "things we are told to worry about" are perhaps dubious. However, I think there is no doubt we have been told - by some scientists at least - to worry about global warming. Another example is oil depletion and the possibility of a global energy crisis. I am also not talking about genuine scientific disagreements regarding these topics, but rather a turning away from scientific methods entirely.

Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems to me that fundamentalism has made huge inroads into the public sphere in the last 10 years. These guys have engineered an entire subculture that puts kids straight into government without exposure to any sort of science other than Creationist doctrine. These guys go way beyond "ignorance of basic science." I just wonder why such an extreme group of people - with whom virtually no rational dialogue is possible - has been allowed to grab the ring.

[Simetrical]

Simetrical points out that my examples of "things we are told to worry about" are perhaps dubious. However, I think there is no doubt we have been told - by some scientists at least - to worry about global warming. Another example is oil depletion and the possibility of a global energy crisis. I am also not talking about genuine scientific disagreements regarding these topics, but rather a turning away from scientific methods entirely.

Well, to an average person, what the difference? The average person isn't competent to perform or even verify scientific experiments. Nobody's turning away from scientific methods so much as not believing that they're being followed, in particular cases.

Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems to me that fundamentalism has made huge inroads into the public sphere in the last 10 years. These guys have engineered an entire subculture that puts kids straight into government without exposure to any sort of science other than Creationist doctrine. These guys go way beyond "ignorance of basic science." I just wonder why such an extreme group of people - with whom virtually no rational dialogue is possible - has been allowed to grab the ring.

Allowed by whom? Scientists will always be a minority, and need to be. You can't have an economy operate where 50% of the labor force is scientists, or even 10%.

The problem is convincing people of who the real scientists are, I think. Things would be greatly helped if more dubious data-mining correlational studies weren't so prominent. People rightly grow skeptical of "scientists" who report conflicting or improbable results on a continuous basis. So I don't think scientists, as a group, are blameless. News media are also too quick to report on tentative hypotheses that should be of little interest to anyone but scientists in the particular field until they're proven. If scientists and journalists drew a clear distinction between real science and speculation, the situation might be better.

But really I don't think there's ever going to be a free society that accepts very many things it doesn't want to hear solely on the basis of anyone's authority. Not comfortably, anyway. You'd need a body whose dedication, qualification, and intent is completely above question. It's just not going to happen, I don't think, barring utopian computer-controlled futures or whatever.