Comments on: The Standing of Science in America http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/ Progressive approaches to science policy Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:33:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Michelle http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-4923 Michelle Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:58:20 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-4923 It's also why America is falling further and further behind the rest of the world in scientific discoveries, yet Americans still think they're 'ahead'. I currently live in Asia, and the everyday advances in science we see here that are then used for new technology still haven't reached the US. In just thinks like cell phones, Asia is far ahead when it comes to what's available in every cell phone shop. You couldn't pay me to leave Asia. American is so far behind much of the rest of the developed world, and I like living on a continent that truly values scientific and technological innovation. It’s also why America is falling further and further behind the rest of the world in scientific discoveries, yet Americans still think they’re ‘ahead’.

I currently live in Asia, and the everyday advances in science we see here that are then used for new technology still haven’t reached the US. In just thinks like cell phones, Asia is far ahead when it comes to what’s available in every cell phone shop.

You couldn’t pay me to leave Asia. American is so far behind much of the rest of the developed world, and I like living on a continent that truly values scientific and technological innovation.

]]> By: Theodore Brown http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2768 Theodore Brown Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:28:13 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-2768 Chris Mooney is certainly on to something important in his essay. As is clear from the comments sent in, there are many ways of approaching the question of why science does not weigh in as it often should in public affairs and in other sectors of peoples' lives. I like to think of this issue as one of contesting authorities. Science is one of many other sectors of society that compete with one another for attention, for support of its underlying motivations, and for influence in public affairs. Other sectors include religion, the law, legislative government, executive government, economics, and the like. In all these sectors, science (and I do not make a distinction between science and technology here because the two are so intimately intertwined) competes for authority, for the right to say how things are in the world, and for moral authority, the right to weigh in on how things ought to be in the world. How it fares in these contests does not depend as much on whether people actually know a lot of science, as many would like to think. Even most scientists are expert or even moderately well informed on only a small fraction of what is known in science. Rather, science's authority rests on what people think of science as a social entity, on what they think science has accomplished for the common good, their trust in science as a social force, the extent to which scientists themselves evidence any concern for the general public welfare. There is a lot more to this subject than just the point I am making here, but I do think that the nature of the scientific enterprise, that scientists' own images of their work and the community of which they are a part, tend to make for a rather closed community, one in which there is an ethos of "science says", and the rest of the world is supposed to act on that without the active participation of scientists themselves in all the social, political and economic processing that is needed for the science to find its way into practice in a sound and beneficial way. The question, then, is how can scientists become more involved in society, conveying the values of science, ensuring its integrity, demonstrating its capacity to help solve societal problems? This is something scientists need to work on. Chris Mooney is certainly on to something important in his essay. As is clear from the comments sent in, there are many ways of approaching the question of why science does not weigh in as it often should in public affairs and in other sectors of peoples’ lives. I like to think of this issue as one of contesting authorities. Science is one of many other sectors of society that compete with one another for attention, for support of its underlying motivations, and for influence in public affairs. Other sectors include religion, the law, legislative government, executive government, economics, and the like. In all these sectors, science (and I do not make a distinction between science and technology here because the two are so intimately intertwined) competes for authority, for the right to say how things are in the world, and for moral authority, the right to weigh in on how things ought to be in the world. How it fares in these contests does not depend as much on whether people actually know a lot of science, as many would like to think. Even most scientists are expert or even moderately well informed on only a small fraction of what is known in science. Rather, science’s authority rests on what people think of science as a social entity, on what they think science has accomplished for the common good, their trust in science as a social force, the extent to which scientists themselves evidence any concern for the general public welfare. There is a lot more to this subject than just the point I am making here, but I do think that the nature of the scientific enterprise, that scientists’ own images of their work and the community of which they are a part, tend to make for a rather closed community, one in which there is an ethos of “science says”, and the rest of the world is supposed to act on that without the active participation of scientists themselves in all the social, political and economic processing that is needed for the science to find its way into practice in a sound and beneficial way. The question, then, is how can scientists become more involved in society, conveying the values of science, ensuring its integrity, demonstrating its capacity to help solve societal problems? This is something scientists need to work on.

]]> By: Tom Nichols http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2764 Tom Nichols Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:42:17 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-2764 It never ceases to amaze me the way science is treated in this country. Science should be taught everyday in everything throughout our lives. The school systems and parents as well, should be teaching the scientific method as a way to keep our children safe from the various flim flam that goes throughout our society. It never ceases to amaze me the way science is treated in this country. Science should be taught everyday in everything throughout our lives. The school systems and parents as well, should be teaching the scientific method as a way to keep our children safe from the various flim flam that goes throughout our society.

]]> By: Donnie Berkholz http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2742 Donnie Berkholz Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:31:48 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-2742 I think scientific training needs to include a component of public education. Members of the general public aren't going to start caring on their own -- we have to convince them it matters, both directly and through journalists. I think scientific training needs to include a component of public education. Members of the general public aren’t going to start caring on their own — we have to convince them it matters, both directly and through journalists.

]]> By: Philip H. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2736 Philip H. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:41:32 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-2736 Chris, I think part of the problem lies in the disconnect between science and daily life. Taking your climate change analogy a bit further - how many Gulf Coast residents really know anything about hurricanes and use that information to make house purchase decisions? I know it because I grew up there. So do you. But far too many people either ignore the risk entirely, or buy the notion that there is something that humans can do to protect them by "controlling" nature. It's why the Corps of Engineers is running gung ho ahead with "strengthening" the levee system but not devoting the same amount of money to rebuilding marsh around New Orleans. Chris,
I think part of the problem lies in the disconnect between science and daily life. Taking your climate change analogy a bit further – how many Gulf Coast residents really know anything about hurricanes and use that information to make house purchase decisions? I know it because I grew up there. So do you. But far too many people either ignore the risk entirely, or buy the notion that there is something that humans can do to protect them by “controlling” nature. It’s why the Corps of Engineers is running gung ho ahead with “strengthening” the levee system but not devoting the same amount of money to rebuilding marsh around New Orleans.

]]> By: Andrei Kirilyuk http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2735 Andrei Kirilyuk Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:40:42 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-2735 Chris Mooney said: "That’s what’s missing. Americans might tune in to some science news, visit science museums, and even adjust their diets and prescriptions based upon the latest studies. But it’s not enough. Without anything beyond a surface-level appreciation of science, they stand far too blind when staring down something of paramount importance: The future." It's the same as you would say "hey, my fellow Americans, brothers and sisters, you should all become much more intelligent now, quickly people!" It's certainly a very good idea, becoming essentially more intelligent than one is, and it may even be feasible, but nobody knows how and why it happens, as well as the unfortunately much more real opposite process, qualitative decrease of effective intelligence. [E.g. "almost all children are clever, almost all adults are stupid" (scientists including!) - another "inconvenient truth"] Experience shows that your bold activism in unconditional support of science is missing the point at all levels. Those of us who remember the dominating spirit and attitudes in the 60s-70s of the last century would agree that at that time nobody would need to artificially "promote" (deep) science and its importance in society: (fundamental) physics was one of the most prestigious professions and any crazy sci-fi dream seemed near-future reality, to put it in a one-phrase summary. Since then science and its useful applications have only made (essential) progress, apparently, but (especially fundamental) science popularity has dropped down to effective zero. So everything is not so simple... On the level of "great living scientists" (not only American ones!), you are particularly unfair to your fellow Americans failing to name any. They can't just because there's no any! The fact that huge, always growing salaries are always paid to "officially prominent" scientists and Nobel (and many other) Prizes are routinely attributed every year to "officially truly great" ones doesn't mean that the actual level of RESULTS of OFFICIALLY so much praised and luxuriously remunerated research is indeed so great. The last "truly great" discovery in biology was the DNA code deciphering and we have celebrated its 50th anniversary already some years ago (in great pomp, but without much of equally great and always needed progress in the same direction!). In physics the last at least "truly impressive" discovery was probably that of high-temperature superconductivity in 1986 (although superconductivity as such was discovered much earlier), but let's not forget that it was a truly empirical, trial-and-error, intuitive experimentation and nothing more. And since then all your "officially great" scientists (in the whole world!) were absolutely unable to understand the origin of this particular phenomenon, despite the really uncounted billions fruitlessly wasted for the purpose (only this one!). We can also recall equally "great" and very "futuristic", ongoing endeavours of "artificial intelligence", "quantum computers", "nanotechnology", or thermo-nuclear fusion (let alone such evident disasters as "quantum field theory", the whole official cosmology or planetary ecology!), each of them eating a small state budget, but always without real, rather than only verbal progress. After which you're shouting pathetically "The future!". But SUCH "science" and civilisation stupidly investing all its resources exclusively into that evidently inefficient, openly destructive and fraudulent knowledge enterprise have NO future at all. Sorry for this very inconvenient truth, but you have the right to know it. It seems that in reality your fellow American taxpayers (1) tend to be as attentive as possible to their emerging scientific future (but they can't see any!) and (2) despite that, they continue to diligently contribute increasing amounts of their hard-earned profits to science development (but the latter only confirms its negative-efficiency operation, too often indistinguishable from evident financial fraud decorated with deceptive, "scientifically" looking but actually senseless terminology). So you too, Chris, don't be superficial in your scientific passions and estimates and try to look deeper into science details. Then it won't be too difficult for all of us to understand that we live today a very special "bifurcation" moment in knowledge (and humanity!) development, explaining very well the above (otherwise persisting) paradoxes and showing well-specified, provably bright perspectives for "The future" you care so much about (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4562 for details). As to how those "scientifically proven", "rigorously substantiated" and "multiply confirmed" perspectives can be practically realised at a suitable scale, with whose participation and support, I'm afraid somewhat extraordinary, "individually structured" and it seems almost "magic" efforts and occasions are needed, far beyond the banal, totally corrupt fuss of the official science establishment unfortunately poisoning also various private attempts. "The future" seems to be in personality, a single one or very few of them, as it has always been the case for essential science progress. So that if "The future", the real one finally emerges, your fellow Americans won't fail to cite the correct names, for their true merits... Chris Mooney said: “That’s what’s missing. Americans might tune in to some science news, visit science museums, and even adjust their diets and prescriptions based upon the latest studies. But it’s not enough. Without anything beyond a surface-level appreciation of science, they stand far too blind when staring down something of paramount importance: The future.”

It’s the same as you would say “hey, my fellow Americans, brothers and sisters, you should all become much more intelligent now, quickly people!” It’s certainly a very good idea, becoming essentially more intelligent than one is, and it may even be feasible, but nobody knows how and why it happens, as well as the unfortunately much more real opposite process, qualitative decrease of effective intelligence. [E.g. "almost all children are clever, almost all adults are stupid" (scientists including!) - another "inconvenient truth"]

Experience shows that your bold activism in unconditional support of science is missing the point at all levels. Those of us who remember the dominating spirit and attitudes in the 60s-70s of the last century would agree that at that time nobody would need to artificially “promote” (deep) science and its importance in society: (fundamental) physics was one of the most prestigious professions and any crazy sci-fi dream seemed near-future reality, to put it in a one-phrase summary. Since then science and its useful applications have only made (essential) progress, apparently, but (especially fundamental) science popularity has dropped down to effective zero. So everything is not so simple…

On the level of “great living scientists” (not only American ones!), you are particularly unfair to your fellow Americans failing to name any. They can’t just because there’s no any! The fact that huge, always growing salaries are always paid to “officially prominent” scientists and Nobel (and many other) Prizes are routinely attributed every year to “officially truly great” ones doesn’t mean that the actual level of RESULTS of OFFICIALLY so much praised and luxuriously remunerated research is indeed so great. The last “truly great” discovery in biology was the DNA code deciphering and we have celebrated its 50th anniversary already some years ago (in great pomp, but without much of equally great and always needed progress in the same direction!). In physics the last at least “truly impressive” discovery was probably that of high-temperature superconductivity in 1986 (although superconductivity as such was discovered much earlier), but let’s not forget that it was a truly empirical, trial-and-error, intuitive experimentation and nothing more. And since then all your “officially great” scientists (in the whole world!) were absolutely unable to understand the origin of this particular phenomenon, despite the really uncounted billions fruitlessly wasted for the purpose (only this one!). We can also recall equally “great” and very “futuristic”, ongoing endeavours of “artificial intelligence”, “quantum computers”, “nanotechnology”, or thermo-nuclear fusion (let alone such evident disasters as “quantum field theory”, the whole official cosmology or planetary ecology!), each of them eating a small state budget, but always without real, rather than only verbal progress. After which you’re shouting pathetically “The future!”. But SUCH “science” and civilisation stupidly investing all its resources exclusively into that evidently inefficient, openly destructive and fraudulent knowledge enterprise have NO future at all. Sorry for this very inconvenient truth, but you have the right to know it.

It seems that in reality your fellow American taxpayers (1) tend to be as attentive as possible to their emerging scientific future (but they can’t see any!) and (2) despite that, they continue to diligently contribute increasing amounts of their hard-earned profits to science development (but the latter only confirms its negative-efficiency operation, too often indistinguishable from evident financial fraud decorated with deceptive, “scientifically” looking but actually senseless terminology).

So you too, Chris, don’t be superficial in your scientific passions and estimates and try to look deeper into science details. Then it won’t be too difficult for all of us to understand that we live today a very special “bifurcation” moment in knowledge (and humanity!) development, explaining very well the above (otherwise persisting) paradoxes and showing well-specified, provably bright perspectives for “The future” you care so much about (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4562 for details). As to how those “scientifically proven”, “rigorously substantiated” and “multiply confirmed” perspectives can be practically realised at a suitable scale, with whose participation and support, I’m afraid somewhat extraordinary, “individually structured” and it seems almost “magic” efforts and occasions are needed, far beyond the banal, totally corrupt fuss of the official science establishment unfortunately poisoning also various private attempts. “The future” seems to be in personality, a single one or very few of them, as it has always been the case for essential science progress. So that if “The future”, the real one finally emerges, your fellow Americans won’t fail to cite the correct names, for their true merits…

]]> By: Marilyn Walker http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2730 Marilyn Walker Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:54:55 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/the-standing-of-science-in-america/#comment-2730 Einstein is the new Elvis. But seriously, there is absolutely a disconnect here... Einstein is the new Elvis.

But seriously, there is absolutely a disconnect here…

]]>