Science Is Worthwhile
PBU Topic for the week: Hurricanes and Global Warming
I am constantly disheartened by the complete lack of understanding of science by an "average" US citizen. I am grossly stereotyping - just go with it. As someone who is in science, it makes me sick to my stomach to see government as well as individuals bastardize science concepts and studies.
Besides the ignorance of basic foundations in science, statistical data is often manipulated to make a dramatic point and people can't distinguish good statistical reporting with bad manipulation/mutilation. It's rampant in commercials. Four out of five doctors agree that... yeah, okay, that means 20% didn't think so. But people will buy into the product. Then a store offers a 20% sale and this is huge and earth shattering. Even more illuminating is the commercial (I forget the product it is endorsing) says something along the lines of saving you half your money. THEN, goes on to say, "that's 50%" . Um, yeah, got that. 50% means 1/2. Thanks for clarifying. But, then, I think about it. Does this mean that, on average, the u.s. consumer does not understand this simple math? We. Are. Doomed.
Anyway, back to basic foundations of science. If we ignore the inherent problem assumed when we consider statistics, which is "higher" math and not required at most schools for most programs at secondary or post-secondary curricula, we see that there are still problems. I like to use the example of the dihydrogen monoxide example. A few years ago a joke was put out on the email mass forwarding system that we should ban dihydrogen monoxide. I forget how exactly the email story goes but the core is that someone said it should be banned, wrote up a petition, then asked people sign it AND THEY DID. The petition stated all the bad things. Things such as it could kill you in large quantities, it could carry toxic materials, it caused reduced visibility in the air, blah, blah, blah. Okay folks. Water can make you die, it does have the ability to be a solvent for toxic chemicals, and it the major component of rain, snow, and fog. Good luck getting rid of it. But people just don't care to look under the surface. They want the easy way out. Did these people ask to hear an explanation about how dihydrogen monoxide "caused" all these problems? Of course, this is assuming they didn't have chemistry, oh, say, EVER.
Let's not even get into the issue of "organic". I would like to refer you to A Gentleman's C blog who posted a personal story about how some people have been brainwashed by the idea of "organic".
And finally, we arrive at the topic of today. After so much ranting on my own part about the general (seemingly embraced) ignorance of the u.s. citizens on the topic of math (particularly statistics) and science, I think it best to just give you another link to check out. I could not more eloquently state the argument than the feature author of "George Bush's 'Wager' "entry on the John Kerry For President 2008 blog.
This ranks right up there with forest fire suppression instead of controlled burns, never ending oil reserves, 'evil' genetic engineering, and "intelligent" design.
Oh, big sigh. Should we take bets how long it is until the world just completely falls apart? I give it another century... tops. Unless there are dramatic changes in politics and natural resource consumption by 2106 we will either be gone from WWIII or on an irrevocable path to total environmental destruction.
Gee, my posts have just been so light-hearted and happy lately.
I am constantly disheartened by the complete lack of understanding of science by an "average" US citizen. I am grossly stereotyping - just go with it. As someone who is in science, it makes me sick to my stomach to see government as well as individuals bastardize science concepts and studies.
Besides the ignorance of basic foundations in science, statistical data is often manipulated to make a dramatic point and people can't distinguish good statistical reporting with bad manipulation/mutilation. It's rampant in commercials. Four out of five doctors agree that... yeah, okay, that means 20% didn't think so. But people will buy into the product. Then a store offers a 20% sale and this is huge and earth shattering. Even more illuminating is the commercial (I forget the product it is endorsing) says something along the lines of saving you half your money. THEN, goes on to say, "that's 50%" . Um, yeah, got that. 50% means 1/2. Thanks for clarifying. But, then, I think about it. Does this mean that, on average, the u.s. consumer does not understand this simple math? We. Are. Doomed.
Anyway, back to basic foundations of science. If we ignore the inherent problem assumed when we consider statistics, which is "higher" math and not required at most schools for most programs at secondary or post-secondary curricula, we see that there are still problems. I like to use the example of the dihydrogen monoxide example. A few years ago a joke was put out on the email mass forwarding system that we should ban dihydrogen monoxide. I forget how exactly the email story goes but the core is that someone said it should be banned, wrote up a petition, then asked people sign it AND THEY DID. The petition stated all the bad things. Things such as it could kill you in large quantities, it could carry toxic materials, it caused reduced visibility in the air, blah, blah, blah. Okay folks. Water can make you die, it does have the ability to be a solvent for toxic chemicals, and it the major component of rain, snow, and fog. Good luck getting rid of it. But people just don't care to look under the surface. They want the easy way out. Did these people ask to hear an explanation about how dihydrogen monoxide "caused" all these problems? Of course, this is assuming they didn't have chemistry, oh, say, EVER.
Let's not even get into the issue of "organic". I would like to refer you to A Gentleman's C blog who posted a personal story about how some people have been brainwashed by the idea of "organic".
And finally, we arrive at the topic of today. After so much ranting on my own part about the general (seemingly embraced) ignorance of the u.s. citizens on the topic of math (particularly statistics) and science, I think it best to just give you another link to check out. I could not more eloquently state the argument than the feature author of "George Bush's 'Wager' "entry on the John Kerry For President 2008 blog.
This ranks right up there with forest fire suppression instead of controlled burns, never ending oil reserves, 'evil' genetic engineering, and "intelligent" design.
Oh, big sigh. Should we take bets how long it is until the world just completely falls apart? I give it another century... tops. Unless there are dramatic changes in politics and natural resource consumption by 2106 we will either be gone from WWIII or on an irrevocable path to total environmental destruction.
Gee, my posts have just been so light-hearted and happy lately.
2 Comments:
Unless there are dramatic changes in politics and natural resource consumption by 2106 we will either be gone from WWIII or on an irrevocable path to total environmental destruction.
I think it was the Malthusians who argued that humans would break their environment and famines would be rampant. They argued that many years ago. Those who murmur about science the most seem to have a rather myopic perspective when it comes to philosophy and history. Their glasses grow thicker and thicker as they see less and less. Those who believe in scientism have always believed that they have the answers, from phrenology to alchemy to the Malthusian doomsday types like yourself.
For example:
(Get Out the Ear Muffs: New Ice Age Forecast
The New York Times; Nov. 11, 1956, pg. 40)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 (AP)
And as late as 1988:
(New Ice Age by 1995?
By Larry Ephron
The New York Times; Jul. 1988, pg. A16)
1995 came and went, yet now the same fearmongering has seamlessly shifted over into global warming.
Take another example of the myopic perspective that seems to be drawn from psychological dynamics that draw some into science. (I.e., those more likely to be nerds. After all, is it not downright scientific to try to reduce them to the sum of their parts?) You disagree with intelligent design. Yet if your philosophy is true then all the text that you write here is nothing more than an artifact of the biochemical state of your brain events in a given moment. And would you just look at the science of being blinded by science!
By
mynym, at 4:40 PM
chemgoddess,
Thanks for the link. Mynym wants to take that wager! Mynym doesn't "believe" in science. I am not sure how one is supposed to go about one's life unless each of us takes into consideration the best facts and understanding of the situation and act as rationally as possible.
There is always the possibility of sticking one's head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.
By the way, an interesting article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm from the BBC showing how Arctic Ice is melting and smallest amount in a century.
So what's the big deal about that?
Keep on blogging!
Bob
By
BobsAdvice, at 3:48 PM
Post a Comment