Comments on: What Does It Profit Science to Gain the World?

By: Engineer-Poet

Engineer-Poet — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:18:31 +0000

That’s probably because most people focus on the trivial aspects. They’re not used to thinking about the bigger issues.

By: S

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:50:20 +0000

It interests me to see that attempts to popularize science have fallen into the same setbacks as attempts to popularize art or literature — focusing on the trivial, yet easily understood aspects, such as biography, rather than attempting to gain insight into what is actually said, and its implications. Very, very interesting.

By: Saint Gasoline

Saint Gasoline — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:20:42 +0000

Bytesmyth, I wasn’t trying to imply that the unwashed masses ever read War and Peace. I certainly agree it was an elitist sort of thing to be reading at all, let alone reading a book of that magnitude. My point is more that the media wasn’t so democratized that it became saturated with marketing aimed at attracting the worst (and unfortunately the largest) elements of society. This is basically the tyranny of the majority, reflected by media presentation.

As far as art goes, however, I must admit I’m partial to the nonclassics as well as the classics, if only because one can analyze them and put meaning into them by examining and interpreting them in various ways. (I’m a big fan of the literary criticism movement that basically allows the reader to become the artist by interpreting things in more meaningful ways, not unlike the way Tarantino interprets King Kong as an allegory for slavery in his most recent movie.)

By: bytesmythe

bytesmythe — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:23:20 +0000

The unwashed masses NEVER read “War and Peace” or anything remotely like it, so you can’t really say literature has somehow gone downhill. The explosion of the middle class and cheapness of printing has simply made it more easy to indulge their lousy tastes.

Also, they are never going to be interested in science because most people are more interested in social interaction, so they will be more easily swayed by presentation. They also do not understand abstract things such as epistemology, and as far as they are concerned, an “expert” seeming person making a claim about some pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo is on equal ground with a scientist making a legitimate statement. Add in the “likability” factor and the voodoo purveyor will win out more often than not.

Science and its practitioners are usually portrayed in a negative light (i.e., shown as “nerdy” or coldly logical). Most people want to have fun, they don’t want to think too hard, and they want to believe they know things without putting any effort into the process. When you’re up against those kinds of odds, you don’t really stand much of a chance.

Thank goodness for They Might Be Giants (http://www.theymightbegiants.com/shop/here-comes-science-dvd-cd-set/) and Jonathan Coulton (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/).

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:59:21 +0000

I think it’s based more on people simply not WANTING to be interested.

By: Engineer-Poet

Engineer-Poet — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:25:40 +0000

Why should scientists try to dumb down something complicated so any moron can understand it?

What the moron understands won't be the science, because the minutae are not optional.

I think skeptical/scientific thinking will only truly flourish when we form an ingroup, with idiots and pseudoscience as an outgroup that we ridicule constantly.

You need to get a PhD in biology, achieve tenure at some school which doesn't suck up all your time doing research, and develop some interesting gimmick like cepahlopods. Hey, it works!

By: Flavin

Flavin — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:03:54 +0000

I disagree in a few ways, but I don’t want to take the time to type out my points on my amazing future-technology device. If you show up to the BBQ this weekend, we can chat over it then.

By: Saint Gasoline

Saint Gasoline — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:42:26 +0000

Liew, identity politics usually is despicable, because it mostly centers on being offended over trivialities and then whining about it continuously.

By: Liew

Liew — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:56:11 +0000

I’ve always despised identity politics with a burning passion so it’s intriguing to see that stereotypes and prejudice can actually be used for good.

By: Saint Gasoline

Saint Gasoline — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:35:55 +0000

Lizz, I agree that something needs to be done about pseudoscience, naturally, I just don’t think the effort to popularize science is the correct route to take, or a route that can be taken without totally bastardizing what science already says. (I think the headline writer treatment of science to invoke interest pretty much solidifies this fact.)

My own stance, which I’ll probably outline in a future post, is that we basically need to create factions. People always talk about working together, trying to form coalitions, and so on, but I think skeptical/scientific thinking will only truly flourish when we form an ingroup, with idiots and pseudoscience as an outgroup that we ridicule constantly. Think of the love of team sports. People like to take sides, to be a part of a competition, to identify with a movement. I’d like to one day see the skeptical movement as the Yankees of our culture, rather than the Cubs (as is currently the case). I’m a thorough believer in the idea that, with enough constant ridicule, no one would want to identify as a woo-woo charlatan.