Scientists think they’re so special
I said (somewhere, at some point) that I would write about Unscientific America as a whole, by way of following up on chapter 8. Here we go.
It starts with an account of some sort of populist revolt over – the demotion of Pluto. Yes, really.
People were aghast…On some fundamental level their sense of fair play had been violated, their love of the underdog provoked…Even many scientists were upset. ‘I’m embarrassed for astronomy,’ remarked Alan Stern, the chief scientist on NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto and beyond…[H]ow could this planetary crack-up happen in the first place? Didn’t the scientists involved foresee such a public outcry? Did they simply not care? [pp 2-3]
Bastards! Miserable heartless bastards! No, they didn’t care – the elitist swine. ‘The furor over Pluto,’ CM and SK solemnly inform us, ‘is just one particularly colorful example of the rift today between the world of science and the rest of society.’ Is it? Really? I would say no, I would say it’s just some random Thing that’s part of the great pageant of 21st century life and one that it’s risky to draw large conclusions from. Or maybe not so much risky as absurd.
And that’s a sample of one major problem with the book overall: it’s packed to the rafters with large claims for which the authors offer no evidence or argument. There are a great many assertions that just dangle there, unsupported.
Scientists know what advances are under way and debate them regularly at their conferences, but they’re talking far too much among themselves and far too little to everybody else. [p 10]
Are they? Too much for what? Too little for what? How do we know? How are the excess and the deficit measured? Who decides?
I don’t know, because the authors don’t say, and that kind of thing is all too typical. There’s the dreaded war between ‘the New Atheist movement’ and many religious believers:
The zealots on both sides generate unending polarization, squeeze out the middle ground, and leave all too many Americans convinced that science poses a threat to their values and the upbringing of their children. [p 7]
Do they? How do we know? How do the authors know? I can’t tell you, because they don’t tell us; they just make an announcement, and then move on. They truly seem not to realize that their claims are not self-evident – which seems surprising, since Mooney is a journalist and has done excellent work complete with evidence backing it up.
More later.
(p.2.)
They do realize that Bill Maher was making fun of the Bush administration by use of the mock, “cut and run” in response to an unpopular war (or by analogy sticking to an inferentially weak definition), right…? And that everything that Stephen Colbert says while in character is meant to be from the point of view of an idiot…?
When I heard about the demotion of Pluto I was gobsmacked. How could the arrogant bastards try something like this and then get away with it?
Then I became outraged. Seething.
Then the night sweats started.
I’m sorry OB, but this post of yours has brought it all back again.
And I thought I was over it.
Don’t you get it? Mooney et al. are the kind, benevolent, wise center ground. All who disagree with them are by definition radical extremists. Thus, there is no need for supporting argumentation. It’s definitional. Anybody who disagrees with them is being stridently militant, and too boot is doubting the self evident infallibility of their position. Bow to those who are infallible!
/end snark.
Actually I think I agree with the statement that “The furor over Pluto is just one particularly colorful example of the rift today between the world of science and the rest of society.”
But I wonder why this is always taken as a criticism of science. No-one ever blames “the rest of society”. That’s a pretty big category, couldn’t there be something wrong there as well maybe?
Let’s make Pluto a planet, then add all those other Kyper belt objects. People would love to have 12 or 15 planets. It’s progress, we should be adding planets. It shows that we’re advancing. Also it makes for good news for lazy reporters.
Well, my daughter for one refuses to accept Pluto’s demotion. And if it doesn’t make sense to a 9-yr-old, how can it be expected to make sense to the American public?
I was sad about Pluto.
Therefore God exists
Nope, can’t see the link.
I was sad about Pluto.
Therefore God exists
OK, there’s an enthymeme (I believe) here.
It should be…
P1. I was sad about Pluto(‘s demotion)
P2. Sadness without question demonstrates the existence of my particular God.
C. Therefore God exists.
The upset about Pluto just shows people put way too much importance on labels. Pluto doesn’t care what it’s called, and it’s still out there orbiting as ever before.
Otherwise, I agree with Neuroskeptic. Despite the success of the Mythbusters, I don’t exactly see the major TV networks lining up to produce popular science shows. Let alone that they are willing to produce shows that talk about the frontiers of science. And with an audience that thinks Fox News is a news channel, who can blame them?
Then what’s the use of so many end notes if they do not touch-on the authors conclusions? Are they window dressing?
No – there are references for the smaller more specific factual claims. It’s the big windy consequential generalizations that have no backup. That kind of backup has to be in the text, not just in a note. They don’t back up their own case on the page.
A reader named J. G. Schulze has an interesting review of the book on amazon.com. Here’s the bit that caught my attention:
“We take it for granted that the American populace is not terribly scientifically literate. For some reason, we imagine that the populace of other nations tends to have a better grasp of basic scientific principles. I have no reason to believe that it is necessarily the case, and apparently neither do the authors. They point out that citizens of other nations do not do much better on scientific literacy surveys than we do (305-309).”
What is 305-309 supposed to refer to, can you tell? The book has only 132 pages of text (and another 60 or so of endnotes).
OT, but Hari’s review of Does God
Hate Women? is on http://www.aldaily.com.
Wo! Really? That’s cool!
O, he seems to be referring to “Kindle locations”, not pages. I guess you’d have to go rummaging through the book to find the right pages.
Do they review any of the literature on learning – such as works by the National Academy (“How People Learn” and “Bio2010”)? Some ideas coming out of these and other literature on teaching science are the need to confront prior misconceptions and to teach science as it is done by scientists. It sounds as though M&K think nonscientists somehow learn differently and we should teach them as though they do. The goal of science education should not be get people to except evolution or any other theory, but to understand them and draw their own conclusions. I am currently reading Stephen Law’s “The War for Children’s Minds” and he makes a very good case for this.
Oh, I see; thanks Ben.
Michael – there’s nothing very specific or detailed about learning – but they may at least cite the literature. But yeah, mostly it is generalization about boredom and hand-holding rather than research on learning.
should be “accept evolution” not “except” – should stay away from phonetic writing.