Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[matthewgar]

Though I guess it's also partly to be blamed on the media, but I've discovered more interesting stuff about science watching youtube videos and checking science sites then on news or news papers or such.

And then when I check these new release notes on discoveries...you check the actual information and they were found the thing back in 2000, 1998 and such and only being announced now.

I wonder if the concept and idea of no transitional fossils, or other big discoveries being ignored or not known is that there just isn't a big deal made out of them. While Ida was a joke in how that was handled, to me thats how any big science discovery should be handled by announcing it, the fact checking should be better done. But science isn't a big deal for alot of people because it gets hidden, we rarly get to see the information out and front, it's usually kept either away from prying eyes, or where only people that are really big on science might find it.

Anyone else think this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone else think this?

I think the general public is getting tired of science's yellow journalism, and is starting to wake up.

A little late, I might add.

 

[matthewgar]

Got an actual reference, or you just talking out your anus?

Wow I in general like your posts, but being a little rude here arn't you? I was simply asking opinions, and it's something I've been noticing the more I get inerested science. That when I find some big discovery announced, it was first disocvered years ago but only now being brought up openly.

Examples I've seen, the single celled protozoa that are the size of gradefriuts Gromia sphaerica, first dsicovered back in 2000, first time it shows up on the internet that I can see from a google search was 2008. Among others, I would have to go back and check the ones that caught my eye recently, you have the whale evolution that was discovered a few years ago that showed it gave birth on the land, first time I see anything about it was in discover magazine or one of them as one of the many discoveries on whale evolution.

My point just is that it seems that there isn't enough fanfare and such on new discoveries, so the average person probably hasn't heard of half of the fossils. I wonder between Lucy and Ardi, and Ida, how many people could name half the fossils discovered, or that there was more then just one.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Wow I in general like your posts, but being a little rude here arn't you? I was simply asking opinions, and it's something I've been noticing the more I get inerested science. That when I find some big discovery announced, it was first disocvered years ago but only now being brought up openly.

Examples I've seen, the single celled protozoa that are the size of gradefriuts Gromia sphaerica, first dsicovered back in 2000, first time it shows up on the internet that I can see from a google search was 2008. Among others, I would have to go back and check the ones that caught my eye recently, you have the whale evolution that was discovered a few years ago that showed it gave birth on the land, first time I see anything about it was in discover magazine or one of them as one of the many discoveries on whale evolution.

My point just is that it seems that there isn't enough fanfare and such on new discoveries, so the average person probably hasn't heard of half of the fossils. I wonder between Lucy and Ardi, and Ida, how many people could name half the fossils discovered, or that there was more then just one.

I'm sorry. I apologize for being so brash.

Regarding your OP, IMO, the general public is just not that interested in 'new scientific discoveries.' If one knows where to look, they can pretty much find whatever it is they're looking for.

Again, my apologies.

 

[matthewgar]

I'm sorry. I apologize for being so brash.

Regarding your OP, IMO, the general public is just not that interested in 'new scientific discoveries.' If one knows where to look, they can pretty much find whatever it is they're looking for.

Again, my apologies.

heh np :> I find myself a bit short with people here, why I don't always post :> I probably get banned if i said half of what I thought.

I agree, but think maybe we should move towards more open discussions and such, we don't need to jump the gun like they did with Ida, but could announce a new fossil, show it, and update as more is known. The big gap between when something is discovered to when it's found kinda bothers me. WIth spherica, even Aronra, and TF and a few others that are big on sicence hadn't heard about them.

I find them interesting, because I wonder if they could be the prelude to multicelluar animals. You have something that size that if it were to act like a egg cell, it could easily create something it's size without growing given enough mutations.

I mean heck, how many know about the 2 billion year old possible multicellular creatures fossil's found recently?

 

[Cabal]

I think the general public is getting tired of science's yellow journalism, and is starting to wake up.

A little late, I might add.

I wish it was under the influence of scientists enough that it could be called "science's". No such luck.

 

[sandwiches]

Though I guess it's also partly to be blamed on the media, but I've discovered more interesting stuff about science watching youtube videos and checking science sites then on news or news papers or such.

And then when I check these new release notes on discoveries...you check the actual information and they were found the thing back in 2000, 1998 and such and only being announced now.

I wonder if the concept and idea of no transitional fossils, or other big discoveries being ignored or not known is that there just isn't a big deal made out of them. While Ida was a joke in how that was handled, to me thats how any big science discovery should be handled by announcing it, the fact checking should be better done. But science isn't a big deal for alot of people because it gets hidden, we rarly get to see the information out and front, it's usually kept either away from prying eyes, or where only people that are really big on science might find it.

Anyone else think this?

I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that scientists keep to themselves. What would be the benefit of publicizing all findings in the mainstream media? So, that journalists can sensationalize the information and people not knowledgeable in the fields, such as yourself or even myself, can misinterpret the findings even further and then make bare claims about conspiracies when scientists then have to deny what the media has published and the ignorant public already has distorted and swallowed even further?

No thanks. If you're seriously interested about this info, visit your local university or pay for a subscription to a reputable science journal or two.

 

[Delphiki]

Got an actual reference, or you just talking out your anus?

I will concede that if it's at all to be blamed on the science-minded people, it'd be on a lack of patience. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes, but to us, it's a matter of "why the heck can't you just understand that it's not a religious thing".

To me, I can't understand why the religious insist on seeing science as a religious thing when it's really just a method for understanding the universe they live in.

Please feel free to speak up if anyone has a different perspective.

 

[matthewgar]

I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that scientists keep to themselves. What would be the benefit of publicizing all findings in the mainstream media? So, that journalists can sensationalize the information and people not knowledgeable in the fields, such as yourself or even myself, can misinterpret the findings even further and then make bare claims about conspiracies when scientists then have to deny what the media has published and the ignorant public already has distorted and swallowed even further?

No thanks. If you're seriously interested about this info, visit your local university or pay for a subscription to a reputable science journal or two.

Well thats the point I think a bit, how can we expect the average joe to have any clue about science, if it's all something thats hidden away. New discoveries arn't really treated all that big a deal, and yes they need to be a bit careful, but when the average person says, "There are no transitional fossils." It's a large part to the fault of scientists and the news and such media that just don't make these things announced or show them. Science is never going to be a big part of society if it's something secretive that only those fully qualified to understand 100% can ever see it. I don't understand everything about physics, or evolution, but I can still appreciate and enjoy and learn about it.

Science isn't treated as something exciting and for everyone, sure you will get armchair scientists like creationists and such, but your just as likly to get people that might get into science or excited about it more then now. Science gets alot of news, but it tends to be bad press and news. Maybe by making science more, it will become more. It's like science has hidden itself in the cloest.

 

[Chesterton]

YouTube - Global Warming - Absolute Proof

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think the general public is getting tired of science's yellow journalism, and is starting to wake up.

A little late, I might add.

Science doesn't do journalism, journalists do.

Go back to sleep, AV.

 

[sfs]

I'm afraid I have no idea what the actual complaint about scientists is here. Scientists don't "keep things to themselves", at least not after they've analyzed them. They publish their results in publicly available journals -- that's the only way they get credit for them. If there's anything at all interesting about their findings, their university (or research institute) press office will also put out a press release, usually exaggerating the importance of the study. Important results will also be highlighted in other journals, like Science and Nature. What exactly are scientists supposed to do? Buy time for ads on Fox News?

 

[sandwiches]

Well thats the point I think a bit, how can we expect the average joe to have any clue about science, if it's all something thats hidden away. New discoveries arn't really treated all that big a deal, and yes they need to be a bit careful, but when the average person says, "There are no transitional fossils." It's a large part to the fault of scientists and the news and such media that just don't make these things announced or show them. Science is never going to be a big part of society if it's something secretive that only those fully qualified to understand 100% can ever see it. I don't understand everything about physics, or evolution, but I can still appreciate and enjoy and learn about it.

Let me ask you then: Imagine you're head of a biology department in a university or you're a paleontologist. What would you do to get the info to the common folk? Keep in mind that there are several magazines, museums, special events, websites, TV shows, and channels devoted to those subjects.

Science isn't treated as something exciting and for everyone, sure you will get armchair scientists like creationists and such, but your just as likly to get people that might get into science or excited about it more then now. Science gets alot of news, but it tends to be bad press and news. Maybe by making science more, it will become more. It's like science has hidden itself in the cloest.

I think it's not all scientists' fault. I think this kind of anti-science attitude starts early on in school. From personal experience, I've seen science, math, and art curricula shrunk to make sure they have enough money to build a new football stadium, buy uniforms, or other such things. Now, I disagree that science gets bad press for the most part, unless all you watch is Fox News.

 

[Nabobalis]

I think what needs to happen is a cloning facility that creates Carl Sagan that can go and lecture around the world and do TV shows and replace all science teachers in the world.

But there does need to be a shift in science teaching and how the media reports science stories as well. e.g in the UK there was a paper published on the gulf stream a few years back about how it might be weakening and all the newspapers reported, "ICE AGE FOR THE UK" etc. Then when 2 years later the same authors publish a new paper with more accurate results says that there seems to be no weakening in the gulf stream, several papers then had headlines like, "ICE AGE WAS A LIE BY SCIENTISTS".

 

[sandwiches]

I think what needs to happen is a cloning facility that creates Carl Sagan that can go and lecture around the world and do TV shows and replace all science teachers in the world.

But there does need to be a shift in science teaching and how the media reports science stories as well. e.g in the UK there was a paper published on the gulf stream a few years back about how it might be weakening and all the newspapers reported, "ICE AGE FOR THE UK" etc. Then when 2 years later the same authors publish a new paper with more accurate results says that there seems to be no weakening in the gulf stream, several papers then had headlines like, "ICE AGE WAS A LIE BY SCIENTISTS".

Precisely what I was talking about. Then we get people, like the OP, telling us there's some strange conspiracy to hide the truth or something.

 

[matthewgar]

Precisely what I was talking about. Then we get people, like the OP, telling us there's some strange conspiracy to hide the truth or something.

Now now, where did I say Conspiracy, it's nothing of the sort, it's partly to do with the problem of just that Scientists tend to just research, and arn't very good at public speaking and such. Or bringing out the information. The central issue is, sciene tends to get ignored alot by media, and the scientists arn't usually out there bringing out the new discoveries. And then we wonder why huge chunks of the states are completly clueless about the first thing about science.

It's as much their fault for not being interested, as it is scientists and the media for not putting science out there to be learnt or making it a big deal. I'm not sure if there is a simple solution or even a easy one. But People might not missunderstand how science works or it's announcements if the only time the news announces it, is when it's sensational, and then usually missunderstood and missrepersented. Maybe part of the problem is, scientists all too often rely on the unreliable media. Again Ida was a screw up but I think maybe thats a good direction to move in with new information, bring out the clear information on somethng from the scientists, not the media that warps it into something that sells.

 

[sandwiches]

Now now, where did I say Conspiracy, it's nothing of the sort, it's partly to do with the problem of just that Scientists tend to just research, and arn't very good at public speaking and such. Or bringing out the information. The central issue is, sciene tends to get ignored alot by media, and the scientists arn't usually out there bringing out the new discoveries. And then we wonder why huge chunks of the states are completly clueless about the first thing about science.

It's as much their fault for not being interested, as it is scientists and the media for not putting science out there to be learnt or making it a big deal. I'm not sure if there is a simple solution or even a easy one. But People might not missunderstand how science works or it's announcements if the only time the news announces it, is when it's sensational, and then usually missunderstood and missrepersented. Maybe part of the problem is, scientists all too often rely on the unreliable media. Again Ida was a screw up but I think maybe thats a good direction to move in with new information, bring out the clear information on somethng from the scientists, not the media that warps it into something that sells.

I'm sorry about the 'conspiracy' comment. I misunderstood you.

The problem is that with science, the discoveries are rarely ever like in the movies. There's rarely a 'eureka!' moment that, all of the sudden, gives the answer they were looking for. It's usually small, incremental discoveries that really wouldn't sound to appealing to most people. How do you make someone interested in a discovery of a new pathway for protein X under Y conditions when Z?

 

[keith99]

I'm sorry about the 'conspiracy' comment. I misunderstood you.

The problem is that with science, the discoveries are rarely ever like in the movies. There's rarely a 'eureka!' moment that, all of the sudden, gives the answer they were looking for. It's usually small, incremental discoveries that really wouldn't sound to appealing to most people. How do you make someone interested in a discovery of a new pathway for protein X under Y conditions when Z?

And if you get one that is sort of it gets overstated. Years ago one of my Rugby buddies was a research physiologist who had some preliminary results that were very promising (actually from the viewpoint of those working in that specific area a 'eureka' moment). But this was preliminary and very specific to one kind of epilepsy. It was made to sound like he was on the verge of having a cure for all forms. People would call and get upset when their loved ones could not get included in non-existant clinical trials.

He vowed to never talk to the press again.

 

[Darkness27]

And then when I check these new release notes on discoveries...you check the actual information and they were found the thing back in 2000, 1998 and such and only being announced now.

Well, I don't know any specifics, but it takes time to properly analyze data, get it through peer-review and spread it around the scientific community. Also, many things are only known by people who work in the specific field of study. For example, despite only being a sophomore I know just as much about the field of epigenetics as one of my biology professors because although the discoveries made are important, it is such a young topic that only a few understand it beyond the basics.

I wonder if the concept and idea of no transitional fossils, or other big discoveries being ignored or not known is that there just isn't a big deal made out of them. While Ida was a joke in how that was handled, to me thats how any big science discovery should be handled by announcing it, the fact checking should be better done. But science isn't a big deal for alot of people because it gets hidden, we rarly get to see the information out and front, it's usually kept either away from prying eyes, or where only people that are really big on science might find it.

Anyone else think this?

Not really. I know that there's an unwritten rule that unless you're a very successful scientist, like Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, Collins, Myers etc., it is very bad to write science stuff for laymen, like a stigmata. My dad, when he got his PhD, was offered by a publishing company to write an intro laymen's book about neurology but declined because he wanted to keep his reputation and be able to go out and do research.

So I do think the way scientists think about educating the public about basic science needs to change, and it is thankfully. However I don't think that they are hiding anything, most are just concerned about getting grants and publishing research. There are several sites that talk about recent discoveries at a level I would hope any high school graduate could understand or get the basics of the article down, like Sciencedaily.com.

And there are site Berkleye's evolution 101 series, or Georgia State University's HyperPhysics that gives a good overview of concepts. Then you have all the blogs and such by grad students and researchers that put up interesting research being conducted in their field. Most of that is pretty current.

So I think if people are willing to spend some time and energy learning this stuff and keep fairly up to date it is quite possible. I'm sure scientists could do more to get current research out into the general public, but I think the core problem is just a lack of basic knowledge and not willing to spend the time getting up to date from the general public itself.

 

[sfs]

Now now, where did I say Conspiracy, it's nothing of the sort, it's partly to do with the problem of just that Scientists tend to just research, and arn't very good at public speaking and such. Or bringing out the information. The central issue is, sciene tends to get ignored alot by media, and the scientists arn't usually out there bringing out the new discoveries. And then we wonder why huge chunks of the states are completly clueless about the first thing about science.

It's as much their fault for not being interested, as it is scientists and the media for not putting science out there to be learnt or making it a big deal. I'm not sure if there is a simple solution or even a easy one. But People might not missunderstand how science works or it's announcements if the only time the news announces it, is when it's sensational, and then usually missunderstood and missrepersented. Maybe part of the problem is, scientists all too often rely on the unreliable media. Again Ida was a screw up but I think maybe thats a good direction to move in with new information, bring out the clear information on somethng from the scientists, not the media that warps it into something that sells.

I'm still not getting it. You say the scientists aren't "out there" selling their science. Out where? Where are we supposed to be, and what are we supposed to be doing?

If you want to learn about scientific discoveries, information is out there. Subscribe to Science magazine, read the NY Times science section, read the Economist every week, get Scientific American.