I'm tempted to do the same with some of my relations as well.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:01 PM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 didn’t 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 aren’t 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 there’s 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 evolution—the things fundamentalists get all upset
>> about—or 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 they’ve
>> 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 we’ve 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. That’s really shirking their
>> responsibility to dig and inform people what’s 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, it’s 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, don’t even know a living
>> scientist. That’s 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 don’t 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
>>
>> There’s 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 don’t have time
>> to study the science of things and find out who’s telling the truth
>> and who’s 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:344296
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to