Science faces ‘dangerous times’
I was fortunate to be born in a time, in America, when science and religion were not considered to be at odds. There were a few cranks, on each side, making attacks on the other … but it certainly was not a broad war. That unfortunately has changed …
In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford will say scientists must speak out against the climate change “denial lobby”.
He will warn core scientific values are “under serious threat from resurgent fundamentalism, West and East”.
- more here
I think the old balance was somewhere between current extremes of “anti-intellectualism” and “paternal elitism” but as is so often the case today, balance is increasingly hard to find.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
You really touched a nerve with me on this post. I am on one end of this extreme. I like to think of myself as very level and mainstream in most things and it is a strange feeling to know that I am on an extreme edge in a social political issue. The even stranger part is that I am unwilling to give an inch. I am extraordinarily upset about our society’s way of absorbing scientific knowlege.
I have been a marine biologist for quite some time. I understand, through education, why evolution is solid science. I understand why any religion attempting to explain origins is fabricated out of whole cloth. I understand, through education in scientific processes and methods how climate change science works, what it does tell us, what it doesn’t tell us and how we arrive at our understanding. I understand these thing not because there is some huge brainwashing machine out there convincing me that science is infallible, but because I have conducted thousands of hours of research, analyzed millions and millions of data, built computer models, and designed hundreds of experiments.
The part that is the most frustrating is that most of my experience isn’t necessary to understand these kinds of things. It only takes a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method and a brief overview of the state of the various sciences to understand this stuff.
Understanding that the speed of light is a constant and knowing how the electromagnetic wavelength works is knowing a great deal about astronomy and physics and how we know how old the universe is.
Understanding plate tectonics and the rock cycle is knowing a great deal about how old the earth is and how life developed.
Understanding general marine biology or zoology is knowing a great deal about the speed of evolution, the method of evolution, the mechanics of evolution and the issues we, as a world must deal with regarding polution and ecosystems and genetic diversity.
Understanding basic History of civilizations or Anthropology/ Achaeology is knowing why there is no fundemental difference between the Mayan creation myth and the CHristian creation myth and belief in any specific god for that matter.
ANyway, it is frightening to me that our government is trying to fund bad science to refute good science. It is frightening to me that religion can play a role in deciding which candidate or social program gets instituted. ANd it is frightening to me that being in the “Center” of this debate means that you are not speaking out as loudly as possible about these issues. It means that you are accepting misinformation and saying “some” is ok.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I actually felt a condescension myself toward the fundamentalists when I wrote this, but for balance I tried to name something that was true about the other extreme. There are some out there (remember the “bright†movement?) who wear their atheism on their sleeve. Their position is pretty much “you are an atheist or you are stupid.â€
FWIW, I was raised as a Lutheran (a denomination that morphed into the current ELCA), and checking Wikipedia today for the official position of that church:
“Creationism/evolution: The ELCA does not have an official position on creation or evolution.â€
See, there you go. That’s what I see as middle ground. Religion should be about tools of faith, and science should be about tools of observation, logic, etc. I don’t even think they have to dovetail. Questions left unanswered are OK.
So I’m not sure you are on the extreme after all, unless you are using (as some do) tools of logic to deny faith itself, or tools of faith to deny logic itself.
[I came back with a spell checker]
November 30th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
BTW, I think modern evolutionary neurobiologists see a mechanism for faith. What would a modern atheist do with that brain hardware? Is it useful to campaign that it be left idle, or that it be used in a positive way?
[also spell checked]
November 30th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
No. I am not denying spirituality. A quick glance around ought to awe even the most steadfast athiest but I am definitely on the extreme in terms of being unwilling to give an inch regarding scientific methodology and conclusions based on evidence. I feel strongly that denying global warming because it is inconvenient, or teaching ID at all (or making a single religious claim other that one which claims ignorance, and I am not an atheist per se) or pushing through unsafe water or air standards using bogus science – these kinds of things are unconscionable and do not deserve respect and in fact deserve full disclosure to the public.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:00 am
I agree there, but I think it is a few wrong-headed (but nonetheless popular) religions that are out to deny observable truths, logical deduction, reason.
That might lead to the question of whether these popular fundemtalist religions are driving an anti-intellectual movement in America, or if the anti-intellectual movement movement came first, and the churches gained popularity as a result …
December 1st, 2005 at 7:20 am
There is also the situation where science is perverted into religiousity such as the environmentalists who extrapolate scientific measurements into precitors of catastrophy.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:35 am
Ralph,
Very well said but there is a danger in saying things like that. THere is much truth in your statement but it leads to a blurring of the line between scientific discovery and a political movement which is basically anti-civilization.
THe guys (and gals) who advocate for absolute minimalism in terms of society are obviously advocating an unworkable solution (what do you do with all those people in the cities?) but the science that they coopt to prove their case is generally reasonably sound.
For example, Climate change: the science of climate change is pretty darn good by t6his point. You would be far outside the mainstream to try to say that humans are not creating higher levels of greenhouse gasses than natural forces -volcanoes etc. produce. A recent ice core drilling went back around 650,000 years and the trapped atmosheres of the different years pretty clearly demonstrate that co2 and methane levels are radically higher since the advent of the industrial revolution. That is a son of a gun for political interests because it would seem to suggest that we should stop putting that much stuff into the air. It is foolish and ignorant to point to a few fringe scientists or exxon-mobile labs and say that that isn’t true. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the science is conducted. Likewise, saying that the models used by climatologists are faulty is utterly missing the point as well as being for the most part wrong.
THe problem with this issue is that the return to nature types coopt the data to say that we should abandon civilization while the industrialists obfuscate and – and this is the part that gets me – downright lie. Lie. THen they buy gov’t officials who promulgate the lie. THis creates the appearance of a purely political issue when in fact it is a real issue that needs to be addressed honestly or the consequenses WILL be catastrophic. Clear-headedness and honesty are crucial to the debate. Denying the science gives the back to nature folks the upper hand because at least they are telling the truth. So when educated people look around and have to choose sides, they are stuck with that group because they are the ones telling the truth. Not good for those of us who like Civilization.
Religion is sort of the same thing. No religious claim can be made with authority. Buddism comes close because it asks the user to perform the experiment and see if they come up with the same results. But a “Leap of Faith” is simply the human mind trying to ascribe magic as the cause of natural phenomena. The red sea didn’t part. Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. The Earth is aproximately 4.5 billion years old. The universe is aproximately 15 billion years old. God has never talked to anyone in a human language and when humans have honest religious experiences most of the experience gets lost in the translation and all it can really do is provide a guidepost for someone who is similarly inclined to religious experience. To claim knowledge of the afterlife or that there is an afterlife is rediculous. You don’t know and neither does anyone else.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:36 am
I think you’ve got to look honestly at who all the groups are. There are, within the broader environmental community, people who actually call themselves “pagans” and such. They’ve got their worldview, and probably pick from science for bits they like.
But remember, [science] is by definition about observation and reason.
It also might be amusing to note that “extrapolation” is a mathematical term, and not a theological one ;-)
December 1st, 2005 at 8:51 am
My above answer was written when I saw Ralph’s post, and BWE must have been typing at the same time. Consider it out of sequence.
I go a ways with BWE, but I think he might go too far. Basically [there] is “observation and reason” to support a 4.5 billion year old earth, but … at some point you start to mis-apply tools of science to the field of faith. In my opinion no one has to claim certainty of the afterlife. We do the best we can with tools on this earth, and then find out.
(I do understand though that one of the fundimentalist “pulls” is an offer of certainty.)
December 1st, 2005 at 9:17 am
I get that we do the best we can. I also get that science can answer questions within a very limited scope. But natural phenomena are definitionally the scope. THerefore, jesus didn’t rise, seas didn’t part, no noah, lot wasn’t made into salt, etc. Those are witch doctor things. I won’t make much of an issue about religion trying to establish our connection to the cosmos etc. but dammit, magic is magic and magical thinking leads us to believe that god will re4ward us with 27 virgins for blowing up buildings full of people. Boy wouldn’t the joke be on them. 27 virgins and your in heaven where there is no freakin sex.
THe bottom line is that I am horrified by our administrations twisting and outright falsifying of scienctific data for economic gain and I am revolted by the religions use of magical thinking as a cure for any damn thing at all. I tell you what. I’ve got a powder that will make everything in the world holy. It costs $7m an ounce and I have 14 oz. and that’s all there is. WHos the !@##$^%&*(**%$^*# buyer?
\!!!!!
December 1st, 2005 at 9:22 am
I posted that article on my blog. http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com
I know that this is what they call “shilling” over at panda’s thumb but, since there are only two to three of us in this discussion, I thought that it might be pertinant.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:30 am
I wasn’t there, on whataver day that Jesus is recorded (with the full technology of the day ;-) to have walked, so I can take it on faith, or not. I know that there isn’t conclusive evidence of anyone else rising from the dead in recent history (with more complete techogy available), but that isn’t required by my (possibly technology-adjusted) faith.
I think the core issue is that in simpler times religion filled the roles we now call “science” and “religion.” Some religions have evolved (and possibly yielded ground) to science as it grew. I think your argument is with (what I in my arrogance will call) throwback religions. Those are religions that want to deny science.
As far as the 27 virgins thing goes … my view is that if I put on my “atheist cap” I see an undeniable capacity for, and desire for, religion amongst human populations. We’re better off channelling that in the direction of Mother Theresas, and not in the direction of suicide bombers.
I mean, what are you going to do … demand genetic therapy of future generations to edit this part of their nature? Or are you just going to take the lunatics way out (if you’ll forgive me) that everyone is crazy but you?
December 1st, 2005 at 9:41 am
(if you’re not selling something, the most appropriate term is probably “blogwhoring”.)
December 1st, 2005 at 9:48 am
Point taken. And you’re right. I too need to explore my connection with the cosmos. Whether through meditations or the teachings from the bible. In one of my saner moments, I had an email echange with a guy who is very bright (also a phD in philosophy) and is headmaster of a christian school. Our long conversation (18 emails each way) was very civil and I think I expressed my beliefs well in this one so I will post it here with the names of the guilty removed for safety’s sake.
THis is maybe the 15th email exchange and we still hadn’t even opened the door to reason. THe guy was extraordinarily nice and I think he does an excellent job of running a christian school and teaching the christian ideal of tolerance but sheesh.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:49 am
I try to filter out real spam (well e-spam, the kind in can is ok), and everything else is fine.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:52 am
Very well then. Blogwhoring it is. Wow. THat’s kind of liberating.
“WHat were doing yesterday?”
“Blogwhoring”
December 1st, 2005 at 10:04 am
I’m not a theologian by any means, and don’t want to set myself up as an expert on that side of things. My comment on ID is that it was more attractive as a fuzzy idea, and that the more concrete it got, the more it got in competition with science. I don’t find a “formal ID” attractive at all.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:19 am
But ID is the same thing as all the other things I have mentioned: an attempt to use PR and advertising to convince people -in this case even teach kids grrrrrrr -that what they wish to be true, what would materially help them if it were true, was actually true which it isn’t. Maybe it’s just a case of the maturity of the PR industry. I dunno. THere are a lot of people who don’t like to hear things but scientific investigation almost never cares unless it depends on funding a la tobacco and energy company research.
I work with a team of 9 other scientists. We design experiments, test hypothoses, arrive at conclusions and funnel those conclusions up the pipe to the politicos at the FIsh and WIldlife. We are studying the fisheries off the oregon Washington and BC coasts. I can tell you stuff that would really piss off some industries. Some of it we have published, some of it we have had to keep secret for “political reasons”.
I can tell you from a purely objective viewpoint we are pretty darn close to collapse in some of our fisheries and not a one of them is “Healthy”. Collapse is a technical term for population when it reaches a critical point it collapses. If your into fractals, it works fractally, it’s kind of a pretty picture when you graph it a certain way using blue as your calorie input.
But what part of that info do you or anybody know? Most people would have to say “not much”. That’s because the science gets brushed aside in the debates as coming from environmental whackos. I am conducting research that our gov’t wants to have to help it formulate policy. That is why we are conducting it and it is not because we are environmental whackos. Unfortunately, most of our finding have been pretty bad news. THat is before the spin.
PR then goes into play. I can tell you that if you read science news, science or scientific american, you are not reading what whackos have to say. You are reading what scientists have to say about their research. If the news is mostly bad or mostly good, it is simply the news. We can have all the moral debates over the science we want but to sidesttep the moral debate by attacking the messenger is reprehensible.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:33 am
My terms probably don’t match anyone else’s. What I call a “fuzzy ID” doesn’t deny science or evolution. It just says there might be some guidence somewhere, probably where you can’t see it. What I call “formal ID” is a PR campaign against science and evolution, and probably one of the principle drivers of anti-intellectualism and anti-science.
I’m not the only observer to think that the evolution fight has spun off to affect the global warming fight. Whether fundimentalists/populists are just mad at “those scientists” or whether it is an effect of the fundimentalist-corporate Republican coalition might be an interesting discussion, but it is out there regardless.
I’ve been reading a few fisheries books, just popular stuff (”cod”, “founding fish”, “the doryman’s reflection”) and I’m aware at how messed up that is. Part of that might be a result of anti-intellectualism, but I think the bigger thing is that (like global warming) you are fighting the ingrained human expectation of a stable universe.
We would not (as a species) be as effective at living day to day if we constantly worried about all game vanishing. Now, being wired that way, we are ill-equiped when it actually starts to happen.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:34 am
Darn, wrong “principal” … I hate it when I do that.
And I don’t deny that some people come to “formal ID” honestly. They nonetheless end up aligned with the PR machine.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:50 am
BTW, I really liked The Doryman’s Reflection. It tells the “collapse” of a number of species in story form. Just like survival stories told around the neolithic camp fire.
People who don’t find science accessible might find this book accessible.
[edited]
December 1st, 2005 at 10:44 pm
I just did the “look inside this book” feature and bought it. Thanks.
Coming to ID honestly shows a lack of understanding which, though excusable (i guess by me, the judge), illustrates my point about education. It’s not that you can’t believe in god, it’s that you can’t deny the science. It wasn’t fabricated by heathens who want to hasten the rule of the antichrist. I can’t think of any science that has moved through the peer review system and has been used and modified by other scientists that is bogus. I’m sure there must be an example but I can’t think of it and I know that they are few and far between and I know they aren’t being used as mainstream political issues because real scientists would be on that like stink on , um , a skunk.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Thank you!