Whew...that's awesome stuff. I should get my entire family a copy of this book for Christmas.
"Heretic!" they will cry. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-ignorance-greed-and-ideology-are-warping-science-and-hurting-democracy-20111115#ixzz1fgCiFxdc > > How Ignorance, Greed and Ideology Are Warping Science and Hurting Democracy > > RS Politics Daily > > by: Julian Brookes > > > 'Fool Me Twice: The Assault on Science in America' by Shawn Lawrence Otto > Rodale > "Whenever the people are well informed" an optimistic Thomas Jefferson > wrote, "they can be trusted with their own government." Sure but > what if the people have no clue? > > Most of the big challenges facing America and the world today from > climate change to disease to population growth revolve around > science and technology. If we We, the People are going to make > smart decisions on what to do about these problems, we need to have at > least a rough understanding of the basic science involved. Problem is, > we don't. > > As science writer Shawn Lawrence Otto points out in a tough-minded new > book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, too > many Americans are either plain ignorant of science or actively > hostile to it, or both. And that's as true of political leaders and > journalists as it is of ordinary citizens (to say nothing of corporate > leaders who see action on climate change, say, as a threat to the > bottom line). We think climate change is a hoax; we're convinced > vaccines cause autism; we truly believe as Newt Gingrich claims to > that embryonic stem cell research involves killing children. > > To go back to Jefferson's point, how can we be trusted with our own > government how can we take on the huge challenges we face if we're > so poorly informed? Or, as Otto puts it: "How can democracy continue > to function in a century dominated by complex science, where science > affects every aspect of life?" His short answer: it can't unless we > make some big changes, changes in how students learn science, in how > journalists describe science, in how scientists explain themselves to > the public, in how money functions in politics. > > We recently got Otto on the phone to talk about America's > dysfunctional relationship with science. Some highlights below. > > How it's harder to be "well informed" than it was in Jefferson's time > > Jefferson believed it required no degree of education for people to be > able to do this, but science has vastly expanded our knowledge now and > most of our big policy problems do require a great deal of education > to understand. This is going to be a problem that we are going to be > dealing with more and more as the century unfolds. > > Scientific illiteracy in Congress > > Look at the 94 of 100 newly elected GOP members of Congress who have > either said flat-out that they believe climate change is a vast hoax > or that they have signed pledges to oppose any mitigation efforts. And > this goes against all the evidence presented to every government > around the world, including our own. This also extends to people like > John Boehner, who has advocated in the past for teaching creationism > in science classes, and who claims to believe that climate scientists > are saying that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen. > > Obama's science record > > As a candidate he didnt seem to really know very much about it, and > in fact he turned down an invitation to do science debates that would > have been broadcast nationally on PBS, in exchange for faith forums in > which he debated religion. But he seems to have changed his > perspective and he realized that science is central to most of the > major unsolved problems that the United States is facing. He's been > stymied in some of his ideas by the recession as well. He made a > political decision between climate change and health care, and he went > for health care and put climate change off until after the 2010 > elections. I think that was a strategic miscalculation that has > allowed opponents of the number one science issue to coalesce in their > opposition. > > Anti-science liberals > > Democrats arent exempt from anti-science views at all. For instance, > a couple of months ago the all-Democrat San Francisco Board of > Supervisors voted 10 to 1 to require cell phone shops to post warnings > that cell phones may cause brain cancer, even though theres no > scientific evidence whatsoever to show. Also on the Left, you see the > idea that maybe vaccines cause autism, which is not supported by any > science that we know of. > > Key differences between anti-science views on the left and right > > Largely on the left it seems to focus on mind-body purity. On the > right they tend to focus on either beginning of life and issues around > contraception and evolutionthe things fundamentalists get all upset > aboutor on climate change, particularly environmental and regulatory > issues. > > The role of vested interests in promoting anti-science views > > Take climate change. Simple scientific observations and scientific > evidence are challenging the vested economic interests that have grown > around the internal combustion engine and hydrocarbons. They are > looking at their entire business model being threatened by this new > knowledge we have. And as a result, in the last ten years theyve > invested about $2 billion setting up phony think tanks, doing bogus > science, and spending money on lobbying and advertising efforts trying > to set up a smoke screen to confuse the public. > > The (unhelpful) role of the news media > > Something has happened with the last generation of journalists, who > have been taught the postmodern idea that there is no such thing as > objective reality. But there is such a thing as objective reality > and we can measure it, and by measuring it weve doubled our lifespan, > multiplied the productivity of our farms by 35 times, and totally > changed the world. By not acknowledging that, reporters end up > creating something called, "false balance," essentially reporting on > two sides of a story and letting the audience decide what they think > is the objective truth or who is right. Thats really shirking their > responsibility to dig and inform people whats really going on. > > The difference between theory and opinion > > Science is always provisional, that is just the nature of inductive > reasoning. Scientists are very, very careful not to say that something > is absolutely true. But, its a mistake to think that provisional > scientific knowledge is on the same level as opinion and to put > someone who is telling you real knowledge that has been measured and > tested and gone through peer review on par with somebody who is just > giving an opinion. > > How to mend America's fractured relationship with science > > First of all, scientists really need to reengage in our public > conversation. Most Americans, when polled, dont even know a living > scientist. Thats got to change. Scientists need to get back out there > and talk to their neighbors, speak in churches and talk to people > where they go. People need to hear that voice in our political > discussion again. The voice of values and religion those are an > important part of our conversation; but we need a plurality of voices > and we also need the voice of facts, and reason, and knowledge. > > The other thing people can do is support an organization, a grass > roots movement started by scientists and others called > Sciencedebate.org, which is a call to get candidates for public office > to debate these issues that they dont want to talk about, and base > their points in debates on reason and knowledge and not talking points > that they pull out of their rear end. > > Why the book's titled Fool Me Twice > > Theres an old saying that president Bush humorously flubbed up but > that is critically important to all of us as Americans: Fool me once, > shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Most people dont have time > to study the science of things and find out whos telling the truth > and whos blowing smoke. And antiscience vested interests from > megachurch evangelists to oil and gas companies to antivaccine > activists are taking advantage of that to try to fool us while our > scientists have been busy doing science. It's our responsibility to > not let that happen, not to let them fool us twice, but to be the > tough, hard-headed, critically minded, pro-science Americans that kept > the world safe for democracy and put a man on the moon. Our own > economy, our own environment, our own moral legacy, and the quality of > the lives of our own children are depending on no one else but us. > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-ignorance-greed-and-ideology-are-warping-science-and-hurting-democracy-20111115 > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons > > There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always > has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant > thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, > nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance > is just as good as yo > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:344295 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
