General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThought provoking view of the Marches for Science - Slate
The Problem With the March for Science
Our cultures understanding of science is very, very broken, and on Saturday, it was impossible to ignore.
By Jeremy Samuel Faust
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/the_march_for_science_was_eerily_religious.html
Hundreds of thousands of self-professed science supporters turned out to over 600 iterations of the March for Science around the world this weekend. Thanks to the app Periscope, I attended half a dozen of them from the comfort of my apartment, thereby assiduously minimizing my carbon footprint.
Mainly, these marches appeared to be a pleasant excuse for liberals to write some really bad (and, OK, some truly superb) puns, and put them on cardboard signs. There were also some nicely stated slogans that roused support for important concepts such as reason and data and many that decried the defunding of scientific research and ignorance-driven policy.
Being pro-science has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art.
But heres the problem: Little of what I observed dissuades me from my baseline belief that, even among the sanctimonious elite who want to own science (and pwn anyone who questions it), most people have no idea how science actually works. The scientific method itself is already under constant attack from within the scientific community itself and is ceaselessly undermined by its so-called supporters, including during marches like those on Saturday. In the long run, such demonstrations will do little to resolve the myriad problems science faces and instead could continue to undermine our efforts to use science accurately and productively.
Lets start with my contention that most pro-science demonstrators have no idea what they were demonstrating about. Being pro-science has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it. On any given day, many of my most woke friends are quick to post and retweet viral content about the latest on what Science (and Im capitalizing this on purpose) says, or what some studies prove. But on closer look, much of what gets shared and bandied about is sheer bullshit and is diagnostic of one thing only: The state of science (and science literacy) in this country, and most of the planet for that matter, is woefully bad. For example, the blog IFLScience (IFL stands for I f---ing love) seems singularly committed to undermining legitimately good science half the time, while promoting it the other halfwhich, scientifically speaking, is a problem. Heres a neat one that relays news about a study that suggested that beer hops may protect against liver disease. Ill be sure to mention that to the next alcoholic with hepatitis and cirrhosis that I treat. To date that article has been shared 41,600 times. Very few of those readers, I should mention, were mice, though the research was carried out in, you guessed it, mice. (And of course, this type of coverage is not refined to cleverly named blogs.)
snip - long, provocative - worth reading (as a scientist, this is really an interesting point of view - and I don't agree with everything written - still - very interesting)
genxlib
(5,526 posts)But I have to disagree with the guy.
The bottom line is this. Peer reviewed science may be flawed but it is still worlds better than non-peer reviewed science. Which is in itself better than straight ideology. Which is still better than religious dogma based opinions.
Having a bunch of people pointing this out in the face of an alarming trend in the wrong direction is not a bad thing.
Even if those people don't truly understand the science that they support, at least they have the good sense to to have the right inclination. I dare say that many of them have some pet issues where they fall on the wrong side. All I can say is that science is a journey and not a destination. Keeping it moving in the right direction is progress. Ignoring it is not.
Having said that, he is right that the internet and the media is having a distorting effect. It is inevitable that a rising interest in science will attract click-bait material to try and grab attention.
All things being equal, I would rather have people who are fans of science even if they are imperfect in identifying what amounts to good science.
At the end of the day, a general science preference will drive policy intention but not necessarily specific policies. For that reason, it matters a great deal who the policy makers are. In an ideal world, you want your policy makers to respect science but also be savvy enough to know what good science is. That is why the gutting of the agencies worry me more than anything. Ignoring science is terrible. Not having the ability to assess the science at all is even worse.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)In terms of science, of course they are. They went to school to study it and they know a hell of a lot more about it than your average person on the street. It's what they do. With rare exceptions, the scientists I know are the furthest from elitist as one could get.
Should we consider plumbers elitist on the topic of plumbing? Electricians on electricity? Green grocers on produce? It's insane to consider the experts in a field to be on par with high school "finishers" who slept through most of their classes.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)have no idea what they were demonstrating about. "
All the participants I personally knew are practicing scientists and engineers who are extremely concerned about the huge cuts DT is pushing for scientific and medical research. I realize that that is only my experience -- there is no way to know how many participants were educated in the scientific method and how many were supporters.
This writer, on the other hand, is making his claim with no evidence -- not something most scientists would do.