The Rise and Cultural Decline of American Science

Bravo brother!

I started my business buy not participating in any Government technology hand-out program. Grass roots! And by the way...no payback to some company, DOE program or some industry association. To tell you the truth, for the first time in my carear...technology for technology sake. Yes there is a focus and I have acquired the investment. I don't know what it is...I can't quite explain it...but all of a sudden...I FEEL LIKE AN AMERICAN!

At about year 1900 the education system wasn't broken but it had to be fixed, DUH!

How's that working for you?? Get those crack pots that have been overseeing education out!

Religion was dictating and antagonizing the scientific development in early history. Science and industrial revolutions made things better to the current level of social survival. The political leadership, if driven by broader and constructive goals in best co ordination with science, surely things will move in the right direction.

The ultimate responsibility lies on responsible scientific advisors and policy makers, who are supposed to have unity of goals, opinions, directions and responsible advice to politicians. Positive brain waves with common interest of the scientists could do magical wonders. Whereas politicized dis oriented groups will hinder progress and become anti elements within.

The leader, the vision and the mission goals count a lot.

I think you have things skewed don't you realize that since the cultural revolution of the nineteen sixties both science and culture have been devalued.

Use of the term religion as depicted above in phraseology is disingenuous to the extent that what you're attempting to describe is the influence of Christian values in American society; whereas Christianity is a faith not religion.

It can be substantiated as it were that all the great advancements of science and culture have occurred during the era of church state partnership inaugurated by Roman emporer Constantine. It is notable that the greatest advancements of science and culture occurred during a period of separation of church and state. The event characterized by the legal structures of European Christendom being removed in North America (separation of church and state). Effectually America was born under a functional Christendom that continued to shape public and private life until the last few decades of the twentieth century.

It has been noted that during the last few decades of the twentieth century to date culture generally has been observed as in contraction and science perceived in a similar way.

What is your point again?

BWIRE,

I don't mean to point out any particular religion in this discussion. Through out history false religious beliefs had hindered scientific invention developments that many scientists had to struggle to convince their findings. The same way constructive scientific pursuits had been diverted to arms races. A good will based collective scientific efforts can solve most of the planet's problems It is rather the moral responsibility of scientists and advisors to focus on constructive and generous cause missions.

Goverment has now replaced religion in hindering scientific invention developments through political/economical generated disinformation subjugating the public.

I have to disagree with you on this. It has been true that a few past administrations have had little interest in science and little use for scientists, but the Obama administration, whatever else you might think of them, has selected top tier scientists as advisors and administrators. The president himself has spoken and written to encourage students to pursue higher learning, and to choose careers in science, medicine, technology and engineering. He has asked them to avoid careers in law and business management, which in his opinion and in mine don't really contribute much to economic growth.

He also increased funding a lot and has more increases in the pipeline. I'm still not satisfied with the amounts being spent, but at least it's the right direction.

Roger:

Stephen Chu is an excellent example of a global warming Nazi and a green energy wing nut. The only credit I can give him is for his support of nuclear power, half-hearted and luke-warm though it is, at best.

As a physicist, he knows better.

But he has the political savvy to know that adhering to scientific truth won't get him any jobs in Washington. Therefore he is also a perfect example of the politicization of science.

And, sad to say, Nobel prizes aren't what they used to be. After all, Al Gore got one, didn't he?

The Guest's thread above is the real "perfect example of the politicization of science". Lots of name-calling ("Nazi" and "wing nut" and a requisite mention of Al Gore - but no SCIENCE behind the personal attacks.

Technically, nearly all constructive scientific discovery has occurred from programs originated through arms races through out history. Even NASA developed from programs related to the US/Soviet arms race of the 1950s, and thus all the related discoveries were tied to the original weapons research funding and the public perception of how important it was to beat the Russians before they put nuclear weapons in space or on the moon, etc.. Through out history governments and various organizations have funded scientific pursuits in an endeavor to obtain new technologies from such activities that would help them prevail or maintain a level of security against their enemies. Whenever there is a perceived serious threat there is an increase in public willingness to fund research to find a technological solution to defend against that threat. Even medical research is conducted as an arms race against another species, which itself is evolving. We use technology to offset the rapid rate of evolution in smaller single cell species or viruses. Additionally, science is meant to be questioned, that is the proper method to validating scientific theories, by questioning them and experimenting to disprove them, repeatedly in many different scenarios and conditions. theories unquestioned become faith, and are not science.

There is no decline in science. Science is doing fine. It's that nobody wants to listen to scientists, that's the problem.

So do you disagree with the authors of Unscientific America that scientists are partly to blame for the disconnect between the scientific community and the rest of society?

Part of the authors' critique is that scientists have become unable to explain what they do and why it matters. And when a scientist like Carl Sagan arrives and seeks to fill the role of a "Great Communicator", his peers tear him down for trying to bring science to the masses.

I agree with you that scientists should 'level idiots', but this is easier said than done. I've been involved in a debate in the local paper's editorial page with someone who knows a bit of scientific jargon but who has no understanding of even the most basic principles, methods, and findings of science. You can systematically trash his 'arguments' and then he writes back that these counter arguments prove he is right. He cites scientific papers to back up his 'points', but when you locate these papers and read them, they are in fact making arguments in direct contradiction to what he thinks they say. Stupidity is boundless.

Johnfotl,

What you are doing is precisely what we shouldn't be doing (though I commend your efforts).

We should be attacking as a group with overwhelming force, not individually where we can so easily be picked off. We have these stupid organizations that makes us pay dues and put us through the wringer anytime we want to publish, yet never come to our defense when we are attacked by the public. The only effort they make to engage the public are "educational initiatives". You know why? Because it's politically safe. Our scientific organizations are meek and scared when dealing with the outside world and general public and quite frankly, we're paying the price. When we say something about science as an organization, it should have the same weight as when the American Medical Association says something about health.

Imagine if in the midst of your debate the American Physical Society wrote a letter to the editor not only refuting these "facts" of the person you are debating, but also condemning the person as irresponsible for perpetuating misinformation.

Individually we don't have a chance, but our organizations have the power to drive back this ignorance, if only they weren't so political.

Roger,

I wish that would happen. I'd be more than happy to get out of the way in this debate. We have a fine university here in town, and I keep hoping to see a letter from professors X, Y and Z from the physics department weighing in on the issue. But it doesn't happen.

Johnfotl,

It never happens. The silence is deafening, and whats worse is they believe they are somehow being "dignified" or "above the fray" by not getting involved. We should be bringing the fight, not constantly on the defensive. Why aren't you funding science! How dare you not teach evolution! But we don't, and then we whine about how no one respects science. No one will respect science until it stands up for itself, and that's that.

Roger

Now I agree with you, but I think there is a problem. For a non-scientist listening to scientists talk, its like listening to Tolkein's 'Ents' talking. Defining terms, inserting the necessary qualifiers and caveats, phrases like 'recent experiments seem to confirm...', etc. And then the other side says 'you're just a fascist AND a communist, and you hate America!'. The public doesn't have the intellectual tools to sort out the science, but we all have the ability to respond to the crude emotional attack.

Scientists are poorly situated for this, because they are concerned about the truth and accuracy of what they say. They have to be concerned with making their point stongly, clearly, and succinctly, knowing that if they over-simplify something for public consumption, they'll take a pounding from other nit-picking (and I mean that in a good way) scientists. Meanwhile the opposition could care less about such niceties - they are concerned only with the effect of their language. If they were simply lying about the science, then they would craft an argument that fits the facts (sort of), while avoiding the facts that challenge their argument. But most of these people are not liars - they are bullshitters - they don't know or much care what the facts are - they care about the outcome.

So it seems like the 'science' world may have to do is what the other players do - hire PR firms to 'focus test' various arguments to find out what is both persuasive and accurate.

But as you have indicated above, science is not an organization. There is no standard for what qualifies as being science. Ecological biologists and sociologists believe they are conducting science in their work. However, the entirety of methods and practices they undertake in their speculations would not qualify if applied at that level in chemistry or physics. The APS, and similarly the ACS, would only be able to speak for american physicists with regards to the practice and principles of physics in america. Additionally, if they started to speak to what entails a scientific theory, using their standards they would alienate all the other "sciences", which all graduate in most of the majors individually more students in a semester than chemistry and physics combined probably in a decade at least. However, if you open the methods and practices to be more inclusive, you also open science to include a vast amount of speculation from people you believe are quacks. So the first thing you need to do is define a immutable standard for science and the mandatory methods that must be employed to qualify that everyone is willing to accept that excludes those questionable speculations until they can meet the standard and testing to rise to a status of a theory. Maybe this is a huge issue that cause the public distrust of "science", there are too many speculative ideas propigated that are claimed by these "sciences" to be theories, which later get disproven and have to be substantially revised. Revisionist "science" makes people wary, and distrustful. Why rush to call something a theory until it is well developed, a solid proof exists, and no major rational arguments/experiments exist that could have potential to disprove it. At this point cold fusion comes to mind.

As far as being put through the wringer goes, that is the scientific method to always allow theories to come under attack, and if they can not be disproven by any argument then they are valid. Let the biologists and psychologist publish untested speculations and claim them as profound scientific theories. Physics and chemistry are the cornerstones of what science should be. Don't fall to the other "sciences" level, this would just reduce the public perception further.

No, your perception of science is wrong and precisely what we need to fix, aggressively.

Geez...

Leveling an idiot is probably not the best approach, since you are not talking about two equally paired competitors like you might in football or MMA. It is more like a MMA heavy weight attacking a 6th grade girl. Consider how the public might respond then. If Oprah has some false beliefs, it would probably be characterized as a brutality for Stephen Hawking to attack here intellectually. As a general rule, most people are personally more sensitive to intellectual attacks, than say physical attacks, of average people, particularly those they characterize as charismatic, by those they recognize as substantially intellectually superior. Better to try to teach these people, rather than attack them, more flies with honey thing. Even though they might not learn, the public observers might learn something and be drawn away from such falsehood, eventually disavowing these idiots (at which point it is open season on them when they have no support, as long as the attacks are not perceived as brutalities).

FYI, I did not say remain silent. I said teach rather than attack. This is because teaching someone in the public eye, mean they information can be disseminated to those observing as well as the person you are teaching. Attacking is perceived differently, and sometimes as attack on the observers as well as the person specified. This is not cowardly fear, this is interpersonal skill. You do not attack a person in a stronger position, you bolster your own position and weakened his support before you attack. In this case the strength is the public perception. You dont charge a hugely fortified castle wall, you send in sappers and beat it with artillery or ballista or such, you send in special forces to sneak in and gain entry for your army, especially if it is substantially smaller then your enemy. Get the public to favor you, they are fickle anyways and make judgments based on simple short observations. Then you attack.

The reason teaching doesn't work well, is because of all the psuedo science and those people constantly promoting poorly developed speculations as scientific theories that must not be questioned. This makes people wary when your theories change constantly to accomodate new discoveries that seem to be contrary to the original theory within the specific conditions the theory was meant to be applied. Consider what science you are talking about people not understanding and what "science" they question, these tend to be different. They tend to accept physics theories almost on faith because they do not understand them, they question biological, archeological, or psychologic theories, because they tend to change constantly and never reach the level of being a scientific theory do to the lack of a theoretical proof. the lack of that which bolsters physics theories to the level of scientific theory and makes them nearly unquestioned and poorly understood by the common people, is exactly what they need to demonstrate other "sciences" theories are reasonably valid. So there are risks to teaching people that many "scientist" do not want. Teaching people an appropriate level of understanding of scientific methods would increase the level of questioning of theories like evolution, anthropogenic global warming, anything freud every wrote, etc.. In turn this could adversely effect the funding to those poorly developed "scientific" fields, as people would become less fearful of unknown consequences and more knowledgeable of the failings of the theories such fearmongering is based in.

Good Answer, Roger. You and I don't always agree on many subjects, but on this one: absolutely! Those who disseminate pseudo-science and false information just to get a personal point across need to be brought up short and have their inaccuracies explained to them in public to discourage others from doing the same thing.

Regards, Dragon

You left out part of what I said (what a surprise). I said it should be pointed out to them by scientific organizations, aggressively. Individually going back and forth is a waste of time. I also said that we shouldn't worry about the idiots that fell for it but the blowhards that promote it.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Regards Dragon

I think the attacks on Mr Sagan and the likes are a typical media hype knee jerk reaction that is so indicative of our society as a whole. We as a public have a thirst for the negative. If there is any flaw in something, even minute to the point that overall outcome is extremely beneficial there stands a good chance that the idea will be squelched. We as a a people need to overcome this flaw in our thinking. We need to focus on whether ideas and initiatives have a positive end result. While I am not saying not to question ideas, we need do that, we need to realize that even attempts of advancement need to be given a chance to prove themselves before being totally squashed.

just my thoughts

Blaming cable TV is overly simplistic. How do you explain the success of channels such as Discovery, Animal Planet, and History? Some people are hungry for knowledge. Now they have more choices than just PBS.

As one guest to another, have you noticed how poor the programing is getting on these channels? Plots by the Masons, Nostradomis, Ghosts, and all sorts of seafood hunting. I will stay with PBS.

Ironic that the gentlemen cited fled fascism, since "intersubjective rationality" (or cronyism) gives rise to all shades of that way of thinking.

What happened to Post #5 anyway? It was there one minute, and then a little while later it was gone.

Oh, wait! Just found it as Post #36.

Unfortunately the good times gone for ever.

Pessimist

Hi Moose - Fascinating review! I learned or re-learned only recently that it wasn't Ronald Reagan, but Jimmy Carter - our most recent engineer-president and a Democrat I have a lot of respect for - who first injected religion/religiosity into the national debate, when he ran for President in 1976.

Richard Nixon - a Republican - downplayed his Quaker roots. I suspect Nixon - as much as many folks disliked him - set a social standard for many 40-somethings like myself growing up in the early 70's, in keeping religion a personal matter. On this topic, I have to say I liked Tricky Dick's presidential behavior. :)

Dawkins is an internationally-respected expert on evolution, and so at least on this front, he deserves the attention of the science-focused "rationalist" community, whether religious or not. Of course, he likes to sell books, and so going public about his Atheism keeps the bank balance in London at a nice level. He was great on Bill Maher's program that aired within the past month.

- Larry

Hi APRIL05, actually the secret of the great success of America in the early days of its history was because of the Christian values on which America was built.

The Democratic party put the Christian values aside, that is why we have values decline and increasing corruption day after the other and the situation will go further bad into a complete disaster.

Thanks, april05. One of the points that Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirschenbaum make in their book (p. 44) is that pitting religion vs. science is "a false dichotomy". They blame the creationists for starting the "battle", but also atheist scientists like Dawkins who "welcomed and inflamed" matters.

It should also be noted (and the authors make this point elsewhere in their book) that not all Christian religions dismiss evolution. According to Mooney and Kirschenbaum, the Roman Catholic Church and some mainstream Protestant faiths have very different views about evolution than do the sects whose followers comprise much of the so-called "Religious Right".

Guest,

Very interesting stuff.

I can't take credit for the title of the blog entry, Guest. It's actually the subtitle to Part 1 of Unscientifc America. Apparently, however, it's generated a great deal of interest - and far more than if I had entitled this blog entry "Part 2" of a book review.

Wow Moose! Political Science!

Perhaps! So what are your thoughts on the part of the book review? Are the authors of Unscientific America spot-on or off-the-mark?

Many good points are alluded to and possibly more work from them will bring much to focus upon.

Certainly fertile conversation has ensued.

Meritorious contribution of science may be of greater influence in the public eye if the spectre of scientists being intellectual prostitutes diminished, that is the point?

I'd say they were on target in general.

I see that our other colleagues have concerns about educational practices, and Scientific organizational participation in the Mental Landscape.

I think a lot of Del the Cat, and he is like a building I have seen on Campuses titled the Arts and Sciences Building.

Unfortunately I have lost my money. I mean the Transcendian dollar bill design that I drew years ago, that had the tag line, "In Science Salvation", as opposed to "In God We Trust". I'd like to believe I can Trust in God, but there is a good enough amount of evidence that I might be better off trusting in science.

When I was a young very idealistic kid, I wanted to be above the fray, and not fight, but I found out that when my sisters were attacked, I had better make sure those that did such things knew I would hurt them, again. There are distasteful realities to life.

If you believe you ought to have power, you are going to have to fight for it.

You do not get things you don't fight for, or at least ask for.

Einstein apparently understood this sort of thing and was willing to suggest that building an Atomic Bomb was called for, and ethical in the day and time.

I myself fault myself for not making more speeches, for I know I really ought to.

P.S. During the Reagan years I wrote a Spy Story that was about the R&D impossibilities of Star Wars, at that time, 1985, UpState Mag, Rochester New York. Only fiction Cover Story they ever used. Sidebar said I was weird, but the facts were straight. Soon after my editor was fired, and it would appear I may have been blackballed. Facts came from Scientific American, and my study of Espionage.

Had a dog in this fight for awhile.

One only has to go back and reread "1984" to gain the insight as to why the politicians want the "dumbing down of America" in order to keep the masses amused and entertained and basically enslaved to the political parties. Like a magician the politicians are saying "watch my words, not my deeds because my words are quicker than your mind."

It therefore behooves the politicians to discredit the engineering and scientific community as much as possible since they have much more a "show me-prove to me" attitude and don't fall prey to the nonsensical jargon the politicians and their minions spew.

It will therefore our lot in life to live in the Dark Territory or whatever other coinage is evolved to describe those whose thinking is not in line with the political entities of the professional politicians who now inhabit our political process.

The view point mainly effecting character is science's apparent surgical attachment to the tax payers tit.

Unfortunately, scientists are proving that those entrenched in the first camp seem to be correct!

Only to the easily manipulated mob who has not even a basic understanding of statistics and misconstrues everything that contradicts their fanatical belief system as dictated by their radio host prophet.

So, you contend that the e-mails and other leaked data do not show evidence of political motivation?

(What does it have to do with radio?)

C'mon Roger...can't be bothered to give a straight answer to a straight question?

You mean simply questions like:

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

You guys would be less boring if you switched up your strategy once in the while, but you never do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Statistics predicts long term trends, not short term ones, by definition. If I flip a coin and demand you tell me whether to expect heads or tails, and you tell me you can't but you can tell me how many heads and tails I get if I flip 100 times, and I say that since you can't prove the short term trend the long term trend must be false, and you point out a trick called Bayesian Inference that can be used to demonstrate the larger trend, though with uncertainty, and I say "Aha, you're using a trick to fake data", then we have "coin-gate".

That's the whole "climate-gate" in a nutshell. Basically a bunch of dumb, biased , self righteous twits attacking the scientific community because we admit in our emails that we think you are a bunch of dumb, biased, self-righteous twits.

And the suggestion that I of all people can't give a straight answer should draw laughs even from my adversaries. If anything I should probably tone down my straight answers, but I don't bottle my contempt for your kind well.

Oh, Roger...you're such an easy target! Thank you for supplying such a predictably obtuse reply! You dissemble better than anyone I have ever come in contact with; you never cease to amuse me. I said straight question, not simple question...and you still did not answer it.

Roger,

I well understand the need to manipulate data in research (my use of the word manipulate is not meant to imply changing data for the sake of deception, but as part of processing the data to into a format that is easy to use and understand). What I do not understand is why the original data was not kept. The result of a careless mistake or intentional? At this point I don't know. In a previous thread you scoffed at me for referring to myself as a skeptic on the topic of man-made global warming. If the researchers who claim global warming are not willing to reveal their original data set to be reviewed, then I see even more reason to be skeptical.

You imply that statistics will predict the long term trend. What are those statistics based on? The data!! If the data has been compromised (whether nefariously or not), then it in the world's best interest that it's discovered sooner rather than later.

It seems that the scientific method is taking a back seat to politics IMHO.

The data was from the 80s. Why is the original data gone? I'm sure it was lost along the way. There is tons of data collected over the years, is it so surprising that data from 25 years ago is lost? (It shouldn't be, but I've lost data from 5 years ago so I know how it happens, computer crashes, misplaced zipf files, coffee spilled on zipf files).

Man-caused Global Warming is indisputable, for a decade now. There are literally tens of thousands of scientists that have done great work to prove it.

A world-wide conspiracy? Why do you guys allow yourselves to be so easily manipulated?

Basically the science is indisputable (APS Reiteration), so now you guys are attacking the scientists. I don't think you guys are evil, but I do think you are dumb for allowing yourselves to be manipulated so easily. These are the same tactics (conspiracy theories) used by the worst people in history to rile up the mob. You do realize you're the mob, right?

Science is a continuing search for the truth...you appear to have stopped searching Richard.

Richard?

Yes, science is a continuing search for the truth. For instance, we learned that the Earth travels around the Sun, then we learned it did so in an Ellipse. Similarly we first predicted (in the 60s and 70s) and verified in the 90s and 00s that carbon emissions would trap heat and raise global temperatures. Then we learned that there is a whole group of people who are willing to attack the scientists if the science doesn't fall in line with their politics. Geez....

Seriously, you guys are like 5 years away from wearing tinfoil hats.

Why haven't we been managing our resources or implementing methods to curb this condition such as adding plants th absorb the emissions as a gesture of regulatory aid to the oceans?

I never stated my position on your topic Roger, but I am an avid environmentalist who believes there is strong evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (along with many other factors) affects global temperatures. However, I was not attacking anyone for their political views or other motivations. I taught science for 35 years and was chairman of an engineering department before retiring, but I still do not consider myself a scientist. I do understand the scientific process though! You would have been a welcomed student in my class, for I admire many (but not all) of your characteristics and potential. However, the reasons and manner in which you attack others is very inappropriate. P.S. What made you assume I was a male?

You know, it's the lies that are the worst. It actually separates you guys into the misinformed and the ill intents (you guys doesn't designate gender).

You Wrote:"Science is a continuing search for the truth...you appear to have stopped searching Richard"

Again, who's Richard? Did you just mean to say Roger, because I do that stuff all the time and wouldn't blame the mix up.

If so, how did you mean I stopped searching for the truth?

I don't know that the 1996 Telecommunications Act is all that much to blame for the dumbing down of American culture. I'd be more inclined to blame the educational system. In particular reading and writing skills of US students have not been taught well since phonetics was generally withdrawn as the best method.

What methods for teaching math early on are not known to me.

You might want to ask yourself if the mental landscape on television is more a product of what the manufacturers know, than suppose it is a conspiracy.

Some experts who have studied education have said that a conspiracy intended to maintain a pliant work force of semi literate labor was instituted.

The culture of the US, is characterized by a strong streak of anti-intellectualism.

If Scientists of the US want to have power appropriate to their mission to what needs to be done to improve the Culture, they must emphasis the practical benefits.

Further they must find the emotional pivots necessary for human motivations to affect changes.

I am not a fan of frontal assaults, and am more inclined towards constant and persistent flanking moves.

When during the Cold War science was more respected in the halls of power, Heroes were made of Astronauts in the pages of Life Magazine. You gottah have them heroes out there actually doing something practical if you want the US mental landscape to change towards a greater regard for science.

The next part of this book review has been posted. Click here to read it and join the discussion.