Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[sjastro]

The astrophysicist Brian Koberlein was part of a TEDx talk on science education brought up in this thread.

In a conversation with Brian not only is how science taught an issue but science itself is under attack motivated by anti-intellectualism.

Hello Brian,

I came across your TEDx talk on science education and found it both informative and amusing.
I have to ask who is the guy with the puppet?

The other aspect which complicates science education further is that kids (and adults) also get their information on the Internet with the competing views of climate change denial, anti-vaccination and pseudoscience in general.
The worst aspect is the rise of anti-intellectualism which your previous president embraced.
In Australia anti-intellectualism has reached levels where climate scientists for example have been subjected to death threats.

Kind regards

Steven

Steven,
The puppeteer is Kevin Schoonover.

Yeah, anti-intellectualism is high here in the states as well. Climate change, vaccines, evolution, etc. I’ve even gotten threatening emails just for saying the Earth is round. There’s a long way we need to go to change things.

It's a sad state of affairs when climate scientists are subjected to death threats or a scientist is threatened by stating the Earth is round.

 

[SigurdReginson]

People often fear what they don't understand. That fear can subside in the perspective gained from understanding, or it can be fought against in the willful blindness of ignorance.

 

[timothyu]

Nothing wrong with science trying to reverse engineer God. What is bad is science shooting itself in the foot by rallying for (more often) or against that which is only theory and not established fact. Sometimes it is better to go back to the beginning and start fresh.

 

[SelfSim]

I think much of the extremes we've seen lately, (aka: Trumpism, QAnon, etc), such as Marjorie Taylor Greene's deliberate choice of: 'I was allowed to believe things that weren't true', is like a tactic designed to offend the assumption that everyone is actually interested in intellectual reasoning.

They clearly aren't .. (which is what her quote highlights to me).

And those who aren't, are not about to give up thinking in that non-intellectual way!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A lot of things don't require critical thought. Science often tries to solve a spiritual problem with a scientific solution. Most of our problems are of a spiritual nature, with physical ramifications. Scientific explanations are often sleight-of-hand distractions or diversions, often for the purpose of benefiting monetarily from the problems, with no intention of solving them.

 

[SkyWriting]

The astrophysicist Brian Koberlein was part of a TEDx talk on science education brought up in this thread.

In a conversation with Brian not only is how science taught an issue but science itself is under attack motivated by anti-intellectualism.





It's a sad state of affairs when climate scientists are subjected to death threats or a scientist is threatened by stating the Earth is round.

Scientists are 100% guilty of ridiculing people who question them.
They do this to the point of receiving threats from people they have ridiculed.

Scientists are also guilty of stretching past facts they know into ideas they believe that no questioner has the tools to question. For example, science presenters love to speak for hours on the age and size of the universe where no average person is capable of discovering the facts or refuting the fact themselves. Also one must consider the practical applications of these theories for the common man.

To illustrate: Why are we explaining the gravity of space dust to a puppet?
Why is the puppet supposed to be interested?

Scientist: Well, just because?

 

[SkyWriting]

Anti intellectualism directed against science.
.

Scientist Ridicules Religious Folk Who Don't Believe Him.

 

[Occams Barber]

A lot of things don't require critical thought.

I think this statement amounts to you shooting yourself in the foot.

Science often tries to solve a spiritual problem with a scientific solution. Most of our problems are of a spiritual nature, with physical ramifications.

Speak for yourself. The only spiritual solutions I apply come out of a bottle.

Scientific explanations are often slight-of-hand distractions or diversions, often for the purpose of benefiting monetarily from the problems, with no intention of solving them.

A wildly inaccurate and unsupportable insult to the scientific community

(PS - it's sleight-of-hand)

OB

 

[SkyWriting]

A lot of things don't require critical thought. Science often tries to solve a spiritual problem with a scientific solution. Most of our problems are of a spiritual nature, with physical ramifications. Scientific explanations are often slight-of-hand distractions or diversions, often for the purpose of benefiting monetarily from the problems, with no intention of solving them.

Like what things are you seeing?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

As our knowledge has gotten deeper it has also gotten more complex and harder to understand Some people simple do not want to do the work or do not have the ability. I certainly know my limitations. So I defer to majority scientific consensus. If that changes, I am comfortable changing with it.

 

[sjastro]

Scientists are 100% guilty of ridiculing people who question them.
They do this to the point of receiving threats from people they have ridiculed.

This is how anti-intellectualism like any other “ism” such as sexism or racism works; stereotype a subset of the population in order to justify one’s prejudices.
Even if your sweeping generalization of scientists was true (which it isn’t) there is no excuse to respond with threats of violence.

Scientists are also guilty of stretching past facts they know into ideas they believe that no questioner has the tools to question. For example, science presenters love to speak for hours on the age and size of the universe where no average person is capable of discovering the facts or refuting the fact themselves.

This is so pre-1990s.
These days the Internet provides so much information one can refer to, the opposite problem occurs in being able to separate fact from fiction.

Also one must consider the practical applications of these theories for the common man.

Inquisitive dudes circa 1900 questioned why a blackbody theoretically emits infinite amounts of energy at low wavelengths.
The answer was even more diabolically unrealistic in the form of quantum mechanics which revolutionized technology in the 20th century.
The moral of the story is what may not be practical today may become practical tomorrow.

To illustrate: Why are we explaining the gravity of space dust to a puppet?
Why is the puppet supposed to be interested?

Scientist: Well, just because?

Maybe that’s because the puppet is representative of an inquisitive person who is willing to learn and understand.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think this statement amounts to you shooting yourself in the foot.

I gave this statement a lot of thought.

Speak for yourself. The only spiritual solutions I apply come out of a bottle.

I hear ya.

A wildly inaccurate and unsupportable insult to the scientific community

Do you consider social scientists real scientists?

(PS - it's sleight-of-hand)

Thanks.

P.S. Sentences end with a period.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like what things are you seeing?

Our lakes are a weedy, algae filled, stinky mess. Scientist earn $billions 'studying' the lakes for the purpose of 'cleaning them up'. However, they get worse all the time, and the scientists laugh all the way to the bank.

Thanks to the social scientists our society is also a mess. Almost all of the recommendations they make worsen the problems.

Doctors make a fortune from the illnesses of society and have little desire to change that. There's also a rich harvest for them treating the side effects of the drugs they prescribe. The nation's health is in the toilet. I was in school for 12 years and never had a 'health lecture' from a doctor (school is where you go to learn useful things).

Law enforcement is a social science as well and it's a mess. No need to elaborate on that.

 

[Occams Barber]

Do you consider social scientists real scientists?

I used to supervise social workers and social science is part of my psych degree. As a result, my answer to your question is Yes/No/Maybe/I Don't Know

P.S. Sentences end with a period.

What can I say...

I'm a grammatical rebel.

OB

 

[timothyu]

Rebel without a pause

 

[SkyWriting]

Our lakes are a weedy, algae filled, stinky mess. Scientist earn $billions 'studying' the lakes for the purpose of 'cleaning them up'. However, they get worse all the time, and the scientists laugh all the way to the bank.

I think what they are trying to do is come up with solutions to pollutants, and eliminating all wastewater sources is not practical. The best they can do is document the damage. Here on Lake Michigan, the drinking water used to taste like fish. Now the fish are gone and sea muscles cover the lake bottom making the water clear. But they also clean all the nutrients from the water. So should we poison the sea muscles? Not a good plan either.

 

[SkyWriting]

Doctors make a fortune from the illnesses of society and have little desire to change that. There's also a rich harvest for them treating the side effects of the drugs they prescribe. The nation's health is in the toilet. I was in school for 12 years and never had a 'health lecture' from a doctor (school is where you go to learn useful things). Law enforcement is a social science as well and it's a mess. No need to elaborate on that.

I'd have to agree, there is no group that seems to have a solution to social problems. I have always abhorred the people who think internet access to the poor is a social right. As if the internet helped anyone get along better or fit into society.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think what they are trying to do is come up with solutions to pollutants, and eliminating all wastewater sources is not practical. The best they can do is document the damage. Here on Lake Michigan, the drinking water used to taste like fish. Now the fish are gone and sea muscles cover the lake bottom making the water clear. But they also clean all the nutrients from the water. So should we poison the sea muscles? Not a good plan either.

Interesting problem.
30 Years Later: Mussel invasion legacy reaches far beyond Great Lakes – Great
Lakes Now

Smaller bodies of water can be managed, however the scientists are using them as their own little petri dishes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'd have to agree, there is no group that seems to have a solution to social problems. I have always abhorred the people who think internet access to the poor is a social right. As if the internet helped anyone get along better or fit into society.

The solution to social problems is: Keep the Commandments.

 

[Speedwell]

As our knowledge has gotten deeper it has also gotten more complex and harder to understand Some people simple do not want to do the work or do not have the ability. I certainly know my limitations. So I defer to majority scientific consensus. If that changes, I am comfortable changing with it.

That's fine for those who do not regard anything which calls a literal Genesis into question as an existential threat.