Comments on: Distrust of Science http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/ Explore science, nature and environment stories from Northern California and beyond with KQED’s multimedia series Thu, 24 May 2012 05:51:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10521 John Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:12:30 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10521 Your blog's informative is very rich in contents. I like your way of presentation. At times I disagree with your views but thinking about it who presents views that are acceptable to everyone. Keep posting your good blogs. Your blog's informative is very rich in contents. I like your way of
presentation. At times I disagree with your views but thinking about it who
presents views that are acceptable to everyone. Keep posting your good
blogs.

]]> By: QUEST Science Blog - KQED » Distrust of Science, part II http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10518 QUEST Science Blog - KQED » Distrust of Science, part II Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:09:05 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10518 [...] Last blog I talked about some of the reasons scientists are to blame for the public’s distrust of science. This week I want to look at what all of this means in the context of a concrete example–evolution. In the near future, I’ll talk about this topic with regard to genetically modified organisms [...] [...] Last blog I talked about some of the reasons scientists are to blame for the public’s distrust of science. This week I want to look at what all of this means in the context of a concrete example–evolution. In the near future, I'll talk about this topic with regard to genetically modified organisms [...]

]]> By: Barry Starr http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10519 Barry Starr Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:24:16 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10519 Thanks for the two responses, both blogs were an enjoyable read and I recommend them to the Quest audience. Jose mentions Christian dominionists in his piece. While it is true it can be difficult to discuss facts with people who ignore them, I think we need to dig a bit deeper and see why these folks question the facts (I'll be going into more detail on this in my next blog). A big reason may be that many scientists use these facts as weapons to show that there is no God. Of course a religious person will fight back if the issue is framed that way! Thanks for the two responses, both blogs were an enjoyable read and I recommend them to the Quest audience.

Jose mentions Christian dominionists in his piece. While it is true it can be difficult to discuss facts with people who ignore them, I think we need to dig a bit deeper and see why these folks question the facts (I'll be going into more detail on this in my next blog). A big reason may be that many scientists use these facts as weapons to show that there is no God. Of course a religious person will fight back if the issue is framed that way!

]]> By: Jose http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10520 Jose Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:03:45 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10520 You linked to two articles I co-authored on Meme Therapy and since I wrote them my thinking has changed a little on the issue. I've spent a lot of time reading hard right, christian dominionists blogs. This exposure has opened my eyes a little and I'm increasingly thinking that what we're seeing is a christian dominionist recoil to what they percieve as a growing threat to their worldview from science. Science to some is the enemy. There's a widespread sentiment that there are scientists seeking to undermine religion (evolutionary theory) and conservative values (global warming). In both instances I'm seeing a lot of out and out conspiracy theory being exposed. This isn't to say that religion itself is an "enemy" or diametricaly opposed to science. Religion is a big tent after all, but there are some strains, paticularly the christian dominionists who have their backs up. It isn't a mistake for that the villain in Battlestar Galactica is a european scientist. He's a ficitional character of course and no real resemblance to pretty much any scientist you're likely to meet but he's an a spot on reenactment of a certain perception of scientist. Nihilistic, politicaly and moraly bankrupt willing to advance his own agendas at the expense of the public good, elitist, condescending and ultimately an unholy fool. And we're not talking about beliefs which are held by a few oddballs. Creationists and intelligent design adherents are hardly a minority in a lot of societies. And these people don't just think that scientists are guilty of a minor error in judgement. A good chunk of these people actively believe that scientists are engaged in a coordinated and orchaestrated acts of deception. After all if you believe the world is 6,000 years old you can't rationaly explain away evolutionary theory on someone forgetting to carry the two. If you honestly believe that then the next logical step (and I use the term loosely here) is that the preponderence of evidence to the contrary has to be the results of an act of deception. The christian dominionist crowd has absolutely no problem with corporate scientists, Exxon climatologists, agribusiness, GM crops and the rest. You linked to two articles I co-authored on Meme Therapy and since I wrote them my thinking has changed a little on the issue. I've spent a lot of time reading hard right, christian dominionists blogs. This exposure has opened my eyes a little and I'm increasingly thinking that what we're seeing is a christian dominionist recoil to what they percieve as a growing threat to their worldview from science.

Science to some is the enemy. There's a widespread sentiment that there are scientists seeking to undermine religion (evolutionary theory) and conservative values (global warming). In both instances I'm seeing a lot of out and out conspiracy theory being exposed.

This isn't to say that religion itself is an "enemy" or diametricaly opposed to science. Religion is a big tent after all, but there are some strains, paticularly the christian dominionists who have their backs up. It isn't a mistake for that the villain in Battlestar Galactica is a european scientist. He's a ficitional character of course and no real resemblance to pretty much any scientist you're likely to meet but he's an a spot on reenactment of a certain perception of scientist. Nihilistic, politicaly and moraly bankrupt willing to advance his own agendas at the expense of the public good, elitist, condescending and ultimately an unholy fool.

And we're not talking about beliefs which are held by a few oddballs. Creationists and intelligent design adherents are hardly a minority in a lot of societies. And these people don't just think that scientists are guilty of a minor error in judgement. A good chunk of these people actively believe that scientists are engaged in a coordinated and orchaestrated acts of deception.

After all if you believe the world is 6,000 years old you can't rationaly explain away evolutionary theory on someone forgetting to carry the two. If you honestly believe that then the next logical step (and I use the term loosely here) is that the preponderence of evidence to the contrary has to be the results of an act of deception.

The christian dominionist crowd has absolutely no problem with corporate scientists, Exxon climatologists, agribusiness, GM crops and the rest.

]]> By: Jeremy Price http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10517 Jeremy Price Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:41:14 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/03/19/distrust-of-science/#comment-10517 Thank you for the interesting posts. Matthew Nesbit, in his interesting blog Framing Science, has recently written a related post, "Citizens...and Scientists Who 'Go Without Data'" (<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/03/citizensand_scientists_who_go.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/03/citizensand_scientists_who_go.php</a>). His research seems to support what you have written here, taking a slightly different perspective. The overarching message, that "doing science" and learning the skills necessary for public education and communication should be tightly coupled, is the same. Thank you for the interesting posts. Matthew Nesbit, in his interesting blog Framing Science, has recently written a related post, "Citizens…and Scientists Who 'Go Without Data'" (http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/03/citizensand_scientists_who_go.php). His research seems to support what you have written here, taking a slightly different perspective. The overarching message, that "doing science" and learning the skills necessary for public education and communication should be tightly coupled, is the same.

]]>