The Anti-Science Movement

[lowonthetotem]

I am sure that I am not the only one who has noticed this trend over the past decade.  During the Bush administration here in the US, it was obvious that many public servants were trying to subvert proven science for political reasons.  Now it seems that there is a "grassroots" movement (anything "grassroots" is very popular now) against science that generally serves the interests of large oil and gas companies, just as its more institutional predecessor did.

The bad astronomer discusses it often on his site, although he generally dismisses religious minded people, as many of us may be.  However, if you can deal with his acrimony towards religion with equanimity, I think there is much to learn from this.  Here is his latest installment on the subject.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/11/02/why-isnt-science-doing-better-under-obama/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I'd invite anyone to discuss the merits and/or follies of anti-scientific movements, especially those posing as science.  Do you find it scary, refreshing?  Do you think it poses a real threat to valid science?  Apparently the BA does.

[lowonthetotem]

Another article putting science into the context of the recent elections.

http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/11/03/tech_and_climate_change_denial/index.html

[Monkey Mind]

I struggle with the realization that a huge portion of the population here in the USA believes that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs were either a scam or short lived, and that anyone who believes in evolution is doing the work of the Devil. American politics seems all down hill from there....

[lowonthetotem]

I am not so concerned with the fact that people may believe that, mostly because I know it is a rather small portion of the population at large.  What concerns me more is how vocal they are and how they seem to motivate financial and political support.  It is hard for me to understand how someone can consider themselves well enough informed to be a politician or public leader and still be open to these ideas.  It makes me really consider their sencerity of purpose in advancing agendas associated with the anti-science perspective.  The other that I find concerning is the flagrant misrepresentation of evidence, data, and theory, although I think ignorance accounts for much of it, although it is often willful ignorance.

Still, I think it is important not to create a characterture of these people.  I think faith is a good thing and a redeeming quality for many people.  Like anything else, though, it can also be adused like a drug, as certain prominent philosophers have observed.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

It is also important not to create a caricature of science as scientism.

[lowonthetotem]

Yes, I agree.  I find it strange how many people seem to look to science to validate their religious beliefs.  That happens in this forum alot, like looking for the part of the brain that store karma, end of the world scenarios, and the like.  Still, I think that is a little off subject.

My point in this thread is to show that there is a concerted effort out there among a coalition of Christian fundementalists and large (mostly energy based) corporations that seek to undermine proven scientific data that does not improve their bottom line.  My use of the word characterture was meant more as a warning against thinking this folks are all slack jawed rubes.  In amny cases their use of half truths, unscientific "common sense" explanations, and outright falsehoods is well coordinated and often creates seemingly very plausible arguments at first glance.

No I don't think science answers all questions, especially with regard to spiritual pursuits.  However, it does expose some of the real nuts and bolts problems that arise out of the way we live our lives.  I don't see science and religion in opposition and tend to think that they compliment each other, as opposed to mirror each other.

[swampflower]

What I find scary is the application of science as promoted by large profit corporations.
Genetic engineering of foodstuff is one example.
Nano technology also has some scary aspects for potential toxic agents.
Use of nuclear (radioactive) materials is very scary.  It will take about a million years (1,000,000 years) for the waste from nuclear power plants to become"safe" ...ha ha.  That just means only low level radioactive.  There will still be very toxic metals and such even after millions of years.
Of course for the petrochemical and coal industries their tirades against the science of climate change is a very transparent drive to sell more carbon.  These industries also claim the jobs, jobs, jobs promise of the false carbon economy.
Anti-science movements such as the creationists are simply promoting their particular beliefs with a fundamentalist agenda.

In my eyes we have an obligation to protect and nurture our Mother Earth.
There is great danger in the mantra for never ending profit and growth.
The benefit of science is to enhance our understanding, not to augment our exploitation.

[Spiny le Norman]

I struggle with the realization that a huge portion of the population here in the USA believes that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs were either a scam or short lived, and that anyone who believes in evolution is doing the work of the Devil. American politics seems all down hill from there....

I heard they teach creationism in science lessons.  It really is scary how they brainwash children.

Spiny

[catmoon]

I heard they teach creationism in science lessons.  It really is scary how they brainwash children.

Spiny

Is that universal in the States?

[lowonthetotem]

It depends what state you are in.  Texas has developped a reputation for selecting text books with "revisionist" science (as well as "revisionist" history) in the name of giving voice to all parties.  I have respect for our freedom of speech as Americans, but I think that science is best left to scientists.  Creationism should be the same percentage of the curiculum as scientists, that is those with actual physical science post graduate degrees actively involved in research, who claim it is a viable biological theory, which is a fraction of a percent.  Why is it so hard to admit that a religious view point is a religious view point and a scientific one is a scientific one.  If faith is a cornerstone of religion, what is up with all this need for scientific validation to shore up one's beliefs.  Why are people afraid to say that they believe in something for religious reasons, while understanding that it may not precisely reflect physical law, simply because it helps them understand life and the world?  For all its religious fervor, creationism being pushed onto schools simply reflects an implied insecurity in one's own religious principles.  It is important to our spiritual health, in my opinion, to be able to judge facts and data from commentary and implications, while still be able to accept that the facts do not always represent what we may (or may not) consider to be the whole truth.

[Spiny le Norman]

For all its religious fervor, creationism being pushed onto schools simply reflects an implied insecurity in one's own religious principles. 

I think you're right, and telling children about evolution is bound to undermine the religious view.  I have long thought that religion should be kept completely out of education, but I know that's hoping for too much.

Spiny

[lowonthetotem]

Well, in the US people have the option to send their children to religious schools.  I don't see any problems with that, but the assault on the public school system seems problematic to me, although it seems to be met with a great deal of complacent indifference which ultimately gives the impression of support in the public at large.  Still, it is unsettling to me that the overt mythology of creationism would be taught as science even in a Catholic school.  Blurring the line between narrative and data would only seem to confuse children in my opinion, rather than help to prepare them for life.

Also, finding strictly facts within a religious text, especially a narrative or story oriented text, would seem to strip religion of its mythology, which seems rather tragic to me.  That may seem maudlin to many, but it is only an opinion, not a fact.

[humanitas]

Have they gone totally bonkers?!

[catmoon]

Isn't teaching creationism in the scholls a violation of the separation of church and state?

What would they do if the Buddhists launched a lawsuit, claiming that competing religions were being promoted in the schools?

[Spiny le Norman]

Isn't teaching creationism in the scholls a violation of the separation of church and state?

It's definitely unconstitutional!  Though I expect your Tea Party will rewrite the constitution to rectify this anomoly.
Ironically the UK is much more secular in this respect, despite the fact that traditionally church and state have been closely entwined.

Spiny