Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription, Not too long ago, I wrote a sarcastic post in which I detailed how skeptics and scientists could better communicate with the lay public. I noted that skeptics need only utilize the same shoddy, lame arguments that are so effectively used by proponents of pseudoscience. People are more convinced by rhetorical skill than reasoned argument, so it stands to reason that people would accept skepticism more readily if it were supported by the same fallacious reasoning of pseudoscientific nonsense. Naturally, when I made this suggestion I was being facetious, but it seems that some skeptics and scientists are unwittingly advocating such a stance, apparently not realizing that advocating the popularization of skepticism and science would inevitably lead to such nonsense. Diclofenac in uk, Take, for instance, Diclofenac tablets, Buy no prescription Diclofenac online, this recent post from the Science-Based Medicine blog, in which Val Jones writes about his attempt to convince a committee to not publish misleading information concerning the treatment of autism. He ended up making a presentation alongside an opposing doctor who advocated alternative treatments for autism. Val writes:
The committee ended up siding with my opponent, order Diclofenac online c.o.d. Order Diclofenac no prescription, I was flabbergasted and asked one of the committee members what on earth they were thinking. She simply shrugged and said that my opponent was more likable than I was.
He concludes from this experience, buy Diclofenac from mexico, Purchase Diclofenac online, as well as from his review of Randy Olson's latest book about science communication, that scientists need to be more likeable, buy Diclofenac without prescription, Diclofenac in mexico, to learn how to tell better stories, and so on. If scientists do not do so, where can i buy cheapest Diclofenac online, Cod online Diclofenac, they will eventually lose the culture wars to the forces of pseudoscience.
The prospects of training scientists in such rhetoric, Diclofenac in japan, Where can i buy Diclofenac online, though, worries me. For whatever reason, Diclofenac in usa, Diclofenac over the counter, people enjoy mindless speculation about the paranormal. These are the kinds of stories people want to hear. It isn't that these stories are told particularly well or with any sort of special flair. Indeed, watching any number of the incredulous ghost hunter, Diclofenac to buy, Buy generic Diclofenac, psychic children, or mysteries of the Bible shows on television has revealed to me that, online buy Diclofenac without a prescription, Online buying Diclofenac hcl, if anything, the purveyors of such woo tend to be horribly daft when it comes to good story-telling. Are we supposed to believe that a show about ghost hunters traipsing about in a dark basement with an unsteady camera and bad lighting, where can i order Diclofenac without prescription, Free Diclofenac samples, blandly commenting about electromagnetism and cold spots, with nary a trace of plot development or narrative, Diclofenac from canadian pharmacy, Buy cheap Diclofenac no rx, is somehow compelling story-telling? And yet these types of shows regularly outperform any program with even a hint of real science in it.
The fact is, we live in a culture that has seen the production of classic movies wittled away into the production of cliched and recycled romantic comedies, banal action movies steeped with inane one-liners, and farcical comedies in which the only "joke" is the fact that you've just paid $12 to watch a movie whose plot is essentially an extended case of flatulence. We've seen literature go from Pride and Prejudice, War and Peace, and Crime and Punishment to Twilight (essentially vampire pornography) and Goosebumps. We've seen science documentaries go from the Cosmos series to What the Bleep Do We Know. We've seen political discourse devolve into isolated, partisan polemics from both sides, both steeped in ridiculous conspiracy and paranoia, whether it be baseless tirades about government-led death panels and Obama being the antichrist or Republican-orchestrated attacks on the World Trade Center staged as terrorist attacks. And what passes for TV nowadays is often little more than so-called reality television, in which cameras follow around the stupidest men and women in America to watch them get drunk, bicker, and sometimes have sex with each other. People would sooner watch Flavor of Love (and who wouldn't want to watch an aging rap icon who resembles a malnourished ET make out with beautiful women who engage in silly athletic competitions to win his heart?) than a compelling drama with an actual plot and real character development. Are these the types of stories scientists should be telling? If we wish to popularize science, these are the models of popularity, after all, Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription.
Because the masses are so easily swayed by nonsensical, order Diclofenac from mexican pharmacy, Diclofenac overseas, mindless horseshit---as well as by logical fallacies of all stripes---it worries me when scientists are exhorted to appeal to the masses. The masses are fucking idiots. They don't like good story-telling. They like simplistic cliches that appeal to their prejudices and superstitions. The fact is, these people simply don't like science. Science has had and continues to have masterful story-tellers, buy Diclofenac no prescription, Buy Diclofenac online without prescription, from Carl Sagan to George Gamow to Neil Degrasse Tyson to Stephen Pinker to Richard Dawkins, and not even these masters have made much of a difference. It is overly simplistic and foolish to think we can repackage scientific content and somehow make it marketable to the same people who derive pleasure from American Idol and True Blood and who think Glenn Beck makes compelling arguments. Most people are blustering retards who only appreciate the most outrageous sophistry as argument and the most appalling, order Diclofenac online overnight delivery no prescription, Buy cheap Diclofenac, bland pablum as art. We should not sully science in a way that truly popularizes it. For to truly popularize science, we would have to totally bastardize it and transform it into a mere shadow or husk of its former self, buy Diclofenac online no prescription. Where to buy Diclofenac, As an example, consider Mary Roach's best-selling science/skepticism books. These are what science books would trend toward in order to become more popular. For instance, next day Diclofenac, Diclofenac craiglist, in Roach's book Bonk, a book exploring sex and sexuality research, Diclofenac paypal, Buy Diclofenac online with no prescription, she focuses heavily not on the actual science, but on the personalities behind the science and on trivial but funny anecdotes throughout the book, purchase Diclofenac, Diclofenac to buy, and she even includes herself as a participant in studies for anecdotal purposes and narrative effect. The problem is that the science becomes very watered down. Most of the text is devoted to describing locales and people, and not the actual sexual research. What research is provided is often glossed over very quickly and superficially. As an example, where can i buy cheapest Diclofenac online, Buy Diclofenac online without a prescription, Roach only briefly mentions the controversy surrounding the existence of the G-spot in women, yet spends pages talking about various scientists' eccentricities or describing how to masturbate pigs. What is worse is that in her other book, online buying Diclofenac hcl, Diclofenac to buy online, Spook, Roach exemplifies the problem with trying to popularize skepticism: it simply can't be done. Spook is a book about pseudoscientific and scientific research concerning the afterlife and other such paranormal phenomenon. Throughout its pages, Diclofenac craiglist, Buy Diclofenac online without prescription, Roach admits to being skeptical but only in a hand-waving, "but maybe there's something really out there" kind of way. Skepticism simply doesn't sell, order Diclofenac no prescription, Diclofenac in usa, and Roach knows this. People want to believe in mystical claptrap. They like to hear about people and places, but not so much about science or research. And, real brand Diclofenac online, Diclofenac in japan, unfortunately, anyone who tries to popularize science for the masses would have to end up sacrificing the real scientific and skeptical content, Diclofenac in mexico, Buy Diclofenac without prescription, as Mary Roach does in her own books. And while Roach's books have actual scientific content, imagine the depths to which they'd have to further sink to become truly popular, delivered overnight Diclofenac. Diclofenac in canada, What would truly popularized scientific content---as popular as The Left Behind series or The Da Vinci Code---look like? I believe it would contain the most bland and trivial of scientific content, nearly stripped bare of anything meaningful and souped up with irrelevant anecdotes and incidental biography, order Diclofenac from United States pharmacy, Diclofenac over the counter, perhaps even rendered in the style of reality television so as to be so completely inane as to induce projectile vomiting in those of us with sensitive aesthetic palates. Truly popularized science would resemble the type of "science" we see advertised in newspaper headlines: exagerrated, distorted, Diclofenac in uk, Buy Diclofenac online no prescription, chopped short, and frequently wrong. It would tout miracle cures, Diclofenac pills, Diclofenac trusted pharmacy reviews, unexplainable mysteries that "baffle" scientists, and so on. The media already knows how to sell science; they've been doing it for longer than the skeptical movement. And they know that incredulous mystery-mongering and fear-inducing sound bytes sell. They know that fancy rhetoric, buy no prescription Diclofenac online, Order Diclofenac online c.o.d, even if it is indeed logically fallacious, is more convincing than reasoned argument and actual fact. Thus I find it laughable when skeptics try to argue that scientists need to learn how to sell science. The newspapers and the popularizers have been selling science for ages, buy Diclofenac without a prescription, Diclofenac tablets, long before us, and they've already worked out the formula---and it doesn't include skepticism or the legitimate, Diclofenac san diego, Saturday delivery Diclofenac, careful use of the scientific method. I can't reiterate this enough: most people are idiots and have poor taste, and they enjoy mysterious paranormal mumbo jumbo and accept logical fallacies as gospel truth, Diclofenac in australia. Diclofenac prescriptions, We don't need to popularize science and skepticism to such a degree. Such popularization is impossible without bastardizing science of any legitimate content. Scientists should refuse to dumb down the science to reach a wider audience. They should refuse to pander to the ignorant and the silly, even if they do exist in droves of large market shares. Why should we demand that scientists become poets and reality television stars? Instead, we should demand of the public that they become educated. Science doesn't need to change; the idiots of the world convinced by non sequiturs, who decide arguments based on likeability and stage presence, are those that need to change. Science simply can't be marketed to such a population without making serious intellectual sacrifices---sacrifices that simply aren't worth the effort. In order to reach the heights of popularity, science would have to forsake reasonable conclusions for exagerrations, it would have to report biography and anecdote over actual data, and it would have to refrain from any skepticism and appear to remain open to, and endorse, the most inane of pseudoscientific possibilities. In short, we can't really hope to popularize science and skepticism to a public that is willfully uneducated and stone-dumb; nor should we want to popularize science in a manner that would appeal to such imbeciles. For what does it profit science to gain the whole world if it loses its scientific soul in the process? All we can do is continue reporting the actual science, and do so with passion and enjoyment, constantly ridiculing those who don't understand it, and hope that our passion and ridicule will win over the future generations.
Similar posts: Buy Avodart Without Prescription. Buy Trileptal without a prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Diclofenac Without Prescription. Buy Prinivil Without Prescription. Buy Luvox Without Prescription. Buy Reosto Without Prescription. Buy Picrolax Without Prescription. Buy Parlodel Without Prescription. Buy Alphagan Without Prescription. Buy Wellbutrin SR Without Prescription. Buy Serevent Without Prescription. Buy Zopiclone Without Prescription. Buy Prometrium Without Prescription. Buy Lodine Without Prescription. Buy Rifampicin cap. Without Prescription. Buy Cloxacillin Without Prescription. Pristiq in mexico.
15 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Hugh
10 September, 2009 at 3:53 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hey, I like True Blood. That doesn’t mean a superstition-minded jackass
Hugh
10 September, 2009 at 3:53 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Er, that I’m a superstition-minded jackass.
Saint Gasoline
10 September, 2009 at 7:08 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Haha, I was hoping I’d insult some True Blood fans. But no, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are a superstitious jackass. Just a jackass with bad taste. Haha, I’m kidding. Sort of.
Jo
10 September, 2009 at 11:05 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I totally agree with everything you’ve said here, particularly the last paragraph. Why should scientists try to dumb down something complicated so any moron can understand it? Some things are just too hard for most people to understand, and I think that’s fine. I don’t understand the vast majority of the the sports section in the news, or the business/economics section – they’re not dumbed down as they assume only the people who will understand it will/can read it. Why can’t science be the same? Not everyone is a scientist so it’s literally impossible for everyone to understand everything.
Lizz
10 September, 2009 at 4:29 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You have ranted beautifully my friend, but the fact remains that in the public arena (where policy that has far-reaching effects on science is made), true science is rather often being overruled by more entertainingly phrased pseudo-science. We don’t have to make the world love science, but we do have to take the time to occasionally put science in the world’s terms so that we don’t end up teaching our children that pre-historic cave paintings of monsters indicate that people and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Saint Gasoline
10 September, 2009 at 4:35 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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.
Liew
10 September, 2009 at 5:56 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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.
Saint Gasoline
10 September, 2009 at 6:42 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Liew, identity politics usually is despicable, because it mostly centers on being offended over trivialities and then whining about it continuously.
Flavin
11 September, 2009 at 9:03 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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.
Engineer-Poet
11 September, 2009 at 9:25 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What the moron understands won’t be the science, because the minutae are not optional.
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!
Hugh
11 September, 2009 at 12:59 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I think it’s based more on people simply not WANTING to be interested.
bytesmythe
11 September, 2009 at 7:23 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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/).
Saint Gasoline
12 September, 2009 at 11:20 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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.)
S
15 September, 2009 at 6:50 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
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.
Engineer-Poet
18 September, 2009 at 7:18 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
That’s probably because most people focus on the trivial aspects. They’re not used to thinking about the bigger issues.