Science and news media: It helps not to be an arrogant bastard

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From the recent Pew Report, we learn:

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media
Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago (July 9, 2009)

While the public holds scientists in high regard, many scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. Fully 85% see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and nearly half (49%) fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.

A substantial percentage of scientists also say that the news media have done a poor job educating the public. About three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not. And 48% say media oversimplification of scientific findings is a major problem. The scientists are particularly critical of television news coverage of science. Just 15% of scientists rate TV coverage as excellent or good, while 83% say it is only fair or poor. Newspaper coverage of science is rated somewhat better; still, barely a third (36%) of the scientists say it is excellent or good, while 63% rate it as only fair or poor.

Well, if it’s not their job to educate the public, it’s not the news media’s either. Story of my life: There is only so much you can do in 750 words. By the way, if news reports distinguished between findings that are well founded and findings that are not, all but 5% of everything written on evolutionary psychology could hit the recycler, bypassing the press.

It would suit me fine. There might be space for something more educational than “The gene that makes you want to shop” and “The brain module that makes you tip more.” But is that what the U.S. scientists really want? I’ve yet to get a straight answer out of many of them.

Overall, the American scientists come off as legends in their own minds, believing they are much better than anyone else worldwide – we heard it from them first, remember?

Comments

Mrs O'Leary, I’ve yet to get a straight answer out of many of them. I find this statement difficult to take at face value. I agree that scientists fail to give straight answers, especially answers that fit into 750 boxes. (Though there are some respondents here at UD who would have difficulty with that limit also! :) ) No, what I have real difficulty with is the idea that you have spoken with many scientists. Your items here at UD and on your other blogs are so often recycling someone else's reporting - you are usually working with secondary or teriary sources. Your recent quoting of Sharon Begeley from Newsweek comes to mind. Or what about that Wikipedian study? Did you call any research scientists working in the same field, but not involved in the study, to get their opinion of its significance (or not)? That would be straight on science journalism. I appreciated your reporting of the conference experiences you had recently. They were first hand accounts of your direct interaction with Lawrence Krauss and the working scientists of the neutrino experiment. The rest is either commentary on science or commentary on science journalism, not journalism itself.Nakashima_{July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

Lamarck, "Also there’s way too much emphasis on a twisted idea of falsification. That’s too impractical if you rally want to get something done." Agreed. I think falsification and required mechanisms are used as talking points for Darwinism. While valuable tools, the Darwinists have not learned to separate them from MN; theories based on "natural" phenomenon can be falsified, theories based on "supernatural" phenomenon can't. Yet they refuse to define what they mean by "supernatural." Is the Big Bang falsifiable? What's the required mechanism?CannuckianYankee_{July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

O'Leary: "Overall, the American scientists come off as legends in their own minds, believing they are much better than anyone else worldwide - we heard it from them first, remember?" There could be a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, it could be part of the phenomena known as "American Exceptionalism" - the idea that America occupies a special niche in the world. Of course this is not true, but in the minds of many Americans it certainly seems to be a reality to them at least. Perhaps if we were to poll Americans on other topics - sports, music, democratic values et we would find a similar trend. So maybe scientists are just reflecting a general trend in the American population to think of themselves better at something... Secondly, it's actually possible that American scientists are indeed better than the rest of the world, at least by some measures. Of course remember a large majority of "American" scientists are in fact immigrants from other countries who came here to study and then stayed (the Pew study doesn't distinguish here). I don't have the data, but it's likely that on several measures American leads the way in research investment and research institutions etc (although not in every field of course). Just by sheer might it wields an enormous influence in the scientific world, so it's inevitably that much good work is done in the U.S. And by one measure, the Noble prize, Americans do indeed win a larger share of prizes, and regularly win at least one prize every year. Certainly science needs to be better communicated and better understood - and scientists certainly own a big responsibility here. But I"m not sure calling scientists "arrogant bastards" is going to contribute much to a solution (or is Ms O'leary calling the media that name? - not clear from the title of the piece). I think actually it's a little ironic, because many ID supporters regularly complain that the mainstream media misunderstands and misrepresents ID - seems like Ms O'Leary wants it both ways here.JTaylor_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Also there's way too much emphasis on a twisted idea of falsification. That's too impractical if you really want to get something done.lamarck_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Paul Feyerabend said it best:
And a more detailed analysis of successful moves in the game of science ('successful' from the point of view of the scientists themselves) shows indeed that there is a wide range of freedom that demands a multiplicity of ideas and permits the application of democratic procedures (ballot-discussion-vote) but that is actually closed by power politics and propaganda. This is where the fairy-tale of a special method assumes its decisive function. It conceals the freedom of decision which creative scientists and the general public have even inside the most rigid and the most advanced parts of science by a recitation of 'objective' criteria and it thus protects the big-shots (Nobel Prize winners; heads of laboratories, of organizations such as the AMA, of special schools; 'educators'; etc.) from the masses (laymen; experts in non-scientific fields; experts in other fields of science): only those citizens count who were subjected to the pressures of scientific institutions (they have undergone a long process of education), who succumbed to these pressures (they have passed their examinations), and who are now firmly convinced of the truth of the fairy-tale. This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else about their business, but without any real disadvantage: they have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society.
Against Method by Paul Feyerabend (emphasis mine) The public does not understand science because scientists themselves do not understand science. If they did, they would have no trouble explaining it in simple terms that the average intelligent layperson can understand. So what do they do? They look down condescendingly at the public (the very public who ultimately pay their salaries) and tell us that we are too stupid to understand science. It's time for a rebellion, in my opinion.Mapou_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

They are probably concerned that the average jane and joe (being stupid like we are) doesn't have the updated red herrings, fallacies, and otherwise vain arguments to defend against the evil ID assault on the culture. So does that mean that now it's time to blame the Discovery Channel and the general media for their unsophisticated level of propaganda? Perhaps PBS should consider having, 'The News Hour with Richard Dawkins'. That would bring the public up to speed. More seriously, I must admit that most of the people I know get very glazed eyes over all of this. And it is a shame. But I personally put the blame on the lack of solid philosophical training in our culture. Generally speaking, we do not know how to think anymore. Therefore, how does one analyze the mass of information in the information age? One has to have a perspective (and that's hard in a pluralistic culture) with which to put the data into a coherent picture. The pluralistic philosophy (smuggled in btw) leaves one unable to trust anything. No one seems to distrust that perspective though. It is an easy sell in a lost culture. So in a round about way, I guess I agree with the assesment of our culture's new hallowed scientific priests.Lock_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply