A Harrison College 2nd year A-level student delivers a seminar on centripetal force to fellow students. Mathematical facility as well as high level scientific literacy are expected of every HC student before graduation.
A recent Denver Post article ('Americans' Views Of Scientists Complicated', Aug. 4, p. 6A) highlighted Americans' confusion over science, and scientific research. The good news from the results of last Friday's Pew Research Center survey? Well 86 percent of Americans say they trust scientists at least "a fair amount". This is up from 70 percent 3 years ago.
The bad news? There is a split (between parties) reflecting the polarization across issues in the larger society. For example, 79 percent of Democrats say that scientists should be active in policy debates compared to 43 percent of Republicans. In terms of addressing a science -related policy problem (e.g. climate change, nuclear weapons) a majority of Democrats (54%) see scientific experts as better at decision making than most people, including politicos. Among Republicans only 34 % concur. In other words, to them Tucker Carlson's input on rising sea level may well be as sound as say, Bill Nye's.
According to the authors of the piece, the differences may be accounted for by how Republicans and Democrats view bias. In particular, the Republicans polled were more likely to say that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as other people.
But see, the difference is when a scientist seeks to make a claim or advance a new view of reality (theory) he needs to submit his work to a journal for peer review. This peer review ensures quality control and that the bias - if any - is a minimum. To the claim that climate change deniers' papers are rejected - as made by one Intertel member some three years ago- I pointed out in response:
"They are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of scientific authority - including: proper data selection, analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of authoritative science which is in fact pseudo-science."
In effect, the claims of bias by the Right arise precisely because they can't accept that propaganda or non-evidentiary material - such as deniers create - isn't the same as science.
There is also the broader issue of why Republicans generally have the beliefs they do, apart from whether they are highly educated deniers like Roger Pilke, Jr. These beliefs almost always assert severe doubts regarding the more controversial scientific findings, i.e. that rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations emphasize the need to cut carbon emissions. So what makes Republicans more susceptible to asserting (by 64%) that scientists are susceptible to bias?
I'd argue it is because they are victims of agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' i.e. the study of culturally constructed ignorance. We know this is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).
Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends. Since Republicans - conservatives are more committed to economic and political imperatives - say over scientific ones - then it stands to reason they'd trust economists and politicians more than scientists. More importantly, they'd trust economic and political solutions much more than purely scientifically-based ones, say like drastically cutting carbon emissions.
This distrustful faction often have attained high educational credentials - say in psychology or economics, perhaps even physics -- but their lens of perception is distorted by economic, political obsession. Hence they become convinced they can opine on issues outside their specialty fields - like global warming - without doing any hard work or proper research.. Their opposition to solutions that potentially affect the economy is sufficient, so they believe they can simply bloviate from their armchairs on what they are convinced the science ought to be. And the latter is generally in the guise of denier pseudo-science. (They also invoke the specious comeback that "Well, because the proponents -scientists can't put it into simple words" then it must be wrong or at least not compelling.)
This is probably why Cary Funk, director of science and society research at Pew, described respondents' attitudes toward scientific experts as having "soft support". That is, they aren't ready to wholeheartedly embrace actual scientific experts, and if the researcher' specialty veers into a "sensitive" area for the person (say affecting economic growth, higher stock valuations, 401(k) returns etc.) there will be a lot more skepticism and imputation of "bias". Again, this is most prominent in environmental science and climate science.
There is also the mystifying leaning toward "practical practitioners" as opposed to researchers in pure science, say astrophysicists and cosmologists. Thus, overall people are more likely to trust "dieticians or physicians" more than say, Neal deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking. According to Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton who studies trust:
"Trusting a group or profession comes from thinking about what their intentions and motives are. The motive of the research scientist can be murky. But with a doctor you assume the motive is to help people."
Yes, but that assumption could be wrong. The physician may only be that in order to pay off his/her student loan debt more expeditiously. Say as opposed to being a biology teacher, the actual calling. There may be little interest in actual "helping" but more in making money off your visit. Let's also bear in mind most physicians aren't their own persons but operate under the auspices of some business or corporate entity - say Centura Health - that dictates their patient flow, time allotted for each and so on. So the belief in any 'help" may well be a total illusion.
At the same time, the lack of trust in a pure researcher because his motive is "murky" is rather laughable. In fact, it usually isn't the research or its motive that is "murky" but the respondent's understanding of it. But the more disturbing aspect as revealed in the Denver Post piece is the caricature of the research scientist (often derived from the characters in "The Big Bang Theory') ensconced in too many brains of ordinary folk. As we learn:
"Shows such as the Big Bang Theory partially explains why experts who do research are seen as 'capable of immoral conduct'. Essentially, the study found that this attitude is less about thinking that scientists are bad people and more about seeing them as being so robot-like that no one could possibly know their motives."
Which is mind boggling. But at least Ms. Fiske did get to the central point:
"I think part of what's going on here is that the more people know the more they trust."
I touched on some of this in my July 26th post when I pointed out why so many ordinary folk exhibit impatience with theoretical physics and its researchers such as portrayed ( e.g. by the characters "Sheldon" and "Leonard") on the Big Bang Theory. E.g.
"Most of the public - even those who read Scientific American- probably halted their math courses at Calculus, if they even took that. And from what I've read in a few education journals, barely 1 in 1000 Americans ever see the inside of a physics lab in connection with a college level General Physics course. So it is little wonder there is an existing impatience with theoretical physics and its "gibberish" equations and material"
Anyone who's even seen a few episodes of BBT would have noted how the two fictional Caltech physicists peppered their boards with equations (which by the way are vetted by actual physicists in string theory etc for correctness). And since higher mathematics is the language of most theoretical physics, and most Americans probably didn't get past intermediate algebra, it makes sense they'd find the motives of pure physicists murky - because their own math ability is murky!
As is their basic understanding of science. The authors of the Denver Post piece argue much of the trust gap can be breached provided "scientists post candid stories of themselves doing scientific work". In other words, provide a personal insight or perspective into their research. But let's face it that only goes so far. Getting an insight into a scientist's personal life and approach to his or her work will not actually open the doors to understanding that work. That major step requires a commitment to learning and reading about it, as opposed to squandering time on Instagram or Twitter or playing video games. In other words, the choice to understand scientific research - including theoretical - rests with the choices of Americans themselves. Will they now finally really READ Neal deGrasse Tyson's 'Astrophysics for People In a Hurry' or Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History Of Time' or will they go back to some superficial distraction on TV or a streaming service?
Only by making this leap will they be able to put "two plus two" together. That is, graduating to the appreciation that pure theoretical work can lead directly to practical, technological manifestations. Thus, without the very abstract general theory of relativity your GPS navigation system wouldn't work. Without the abstract ideas of quantum mechanics we wouldn't have lasers and solid state electronics.
At issue then is basic scientific literacy which, alas, too many of our countrymen lack. Demonstrating that literacy would, at the very least, mean passing a basic physics test, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/10/basic-physics-test.html
Achieving that would at least show that citizens possess enough scientific competence to intelligently comment on major contentious issues of our time - whether global warming/climate change, or aspects of current defense spending- such as the advisability of replacing our nuclear arsenal. Or, making nuclear energy a component of any viable 'Green New Deal'.
In addition, a more uniform competence across multiple scientific disciplines would arguably close the gaps between Democrats and Republicans, especially in terms of whether scientists have the right to contribute to policy discussion, decisions.
The takeaway? Americans have inconsistent perceptions of the worth of scientific work (and motives of researchers) because they have inconsistent scientific backgrounds and knowledge themselves.
See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-state-of-us-high-school-physics.html
And:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-american-students-really-math.html
This is probably why Cary Funk, director of science and society research at Pew, described respondents' attitudes toward scientific experts as having "soft support". That is, they aren't ready to wholeheartedly embrace actual scientific experts, and if the researcher' specialty veers into a "sensitive" area for the person (say affecting economic growth, higher stock valuations, 401(k) returns etc.) there will be a lot more skepticism and imputation of "bias". Again, this is most prominent in environmental science and climate science.
There is also the mystifying leaning toward "practical practitioners" as opposed to researchers in pure science, say astrophysicists and cosmologists. Thus, overall people are more likely to trust "dieticians or physicians" more than say, Neal deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking. According to Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton who studies trust:
"Trusting a group or profession comes from thinking about what their intentions and motives are. The motive of the research scientist can be murky. But with a doctor you assume the motive is to help people."
Yes, but that assumption could be wrong. The physician may only be that in order to pay off his/her student loan debt more expeditiously. Say as opposed to being a biology teacher, the actual calling. There may be little interest in actual "helping" but more in making money off your visit. Let's also bear in mind most physicians aren't their own persons but operate under the auspices of some business or corporate entity - say Centura Health - that dictates their patient flow, time allotted for each and so on. So the belief in any 'help" may well be a total illusion.
At the same time, the lack of trust in a pure researcher because his motive is "murky" is rather laughable. In fact, it usually isn't the research or its motive that is "murky" but the respondent's understanding of it. But the more disturbing aspect as revealed in the Denver Post piece is the caricature of the research scientist (often derived from the characters in "The Big Bang Theory') ensconced in too many brains of ordinary folk. As we learn:
"Shows such as the Big Bang Theory partially explains why experts who do research are seen as 'capable of immoral conduct'. Essentially, the study found that this attitude is less about thinking that scientists are bad people and more about seeing them as being so robot-like that no one could possibly know their motives."
Which is mind boggling. But at least Ms. Fiske did get to the central point:
"I think part of what's going on here is that the more people know the more they trust."
I touched on some of this in my July 26th post when I pointed out why so many ordinary folk exhibit impatience with theoretical physics and its researchers such as portrayed ( e.g. by the characters "Sheldon" and "Leonard") on the Big Bang Theory. E.g.
"Most of the public - even those who read Scientific American- probably halted their math courses at Calculus, if they even took that. And from what I've read in a few education journals, barely 1 in 1000 Americans ever see the inside of a physics lab in connection with a college level General Physics course. So it is little wonder there is an existing impatience with theoretical physics and its "gibberish" equations and material"
Anyone who's even seen a few episodes of BBT would have noted how the two fictional Caltech physicists peppered their boards with equations (which by the way are vetted by actual physicists in string theory etc for correctness). And since higher mathematics is the language of most theoretical physics, and most Americans probably didn't get past intermediate algebra, it makes sense they'd find the motives of pure physicists murky - because their own math ability is murky!
As is their basic understanding of science. The authors of the Denver Post piece argue much of the trust gap can be breached provided "scientists post candid stories of themselves doing scientific work". In other words, provide a personal insight or perspective into their research. But let's face it that only goes so far. Getting an insight into a scientist's personal life and approach to his or her work will not actually open the doors to understanding that work. That major step requires a commitment to learning and reading about it, as opposed to squandering time on Instagram or Twitter or playing video games. In other words, the choice to understand scientific research - including theoretical - rests with the choices of Americans themselves. Will they now finally really READ Neal deGrasse Tyson's 'Astrophysics for People In a Hurry' or Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History Of Time' or will they go back to some superficial distraction on TV or a streaming service?
Only by making this leap will they be able to put "two plus two" together. That is, graduating to the appreciation that pure theoretical work can lead directly to practical, technological manifestations. Thus, without the very abstract general theory of relativity your GPS navigation system wouldn't work. Without the abstract ideas of quantum mechanics we wouldn't have lasers and solid state electronics.
At issue then is basic scientific literacy which, alas, too many of our countrymen lack. Demonstrating that literacy would, at the very least, mean passing a basic physics test, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/10/basic-physics-test.html
Achieving that would at least show that citizens possess enough scientific competence to intelligently comment on major contentious issues of our time - whether global warming/climate change, or aspects of current defense spending- such as the advisability of replacing our nuclear arsenal. Or, making nuclear energy a component of any viable 'Green New Deal'.
In addition, a more uniform competence across multiple scientific disciplines would arguably close the gaps between Democrats and Republicans, especially in terms of whether scientists have the right to contribute to policy discussion, decisions.
The takeaway? Americans have inconsistent perceptions of the worth of scientific work (and motives of researchers) because they have inconsistent scientific backgrounds and knowledge themselves.
See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-state-of-us-high-school-physics.html
And:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-american-students-really-math.html
No comments:
Post a Comment