Standing up for Science
Paul Browne
Friday, 06 July 2007 12:24 UTC
It seems that science is constantly under attack from a huge variety of pseudo-science, on topics ranging from global warming to HIV/AIDS to the use of animals in medical research. In recent years the internet has provided a whole new medium that cranks and anti-scientists can use to spread their ideas, often backed by quite convincing if entirely misleading “scientific” evidence. I wonder if the scientific community, if there is such a thing, is dealing with this adequately.
Do we do enough to present our ideas and opinions in ways that will be understood by the lay public?
When communicating with the public do we tend to oversimplify our arguments to the extent that they may appear weak in comparison to the often detailed and apparently well referenced arguments of those opposed to science or pseudoscientists? Do we underestimate the lay public?
Do scientists now rely too much on Blogs that tend to be just read by those on “our” side? Do we need to make more detailed debunking of pseudoscience available in properly organized websites that can be more easily searched by interested members of the public (and scientists who need to rebut an argument that falls outside their own area of expertise)?
Do we do enough to stand up for and publicly support fellow scientists and institutions which find themselves the victim campaigns of intimidation or terror (many of which are driven or justified in part by misrepresentation of science)?
Do scientific organizations do enough to encourage and support individual scientists who may wish to engage in public debate on scientific issues?
Is our ability to engage in public debate being stifled by security concerns about attracting the “wrong” type of attention?
-
Replies
-
When reading this post I was reminded of Snopes.com a website dedicated to determining whether the origin of a story was a real event/a true finding. Perhaps we should start a similar website where (invited??) experts can give their opinion on scientific stories/assertions. Perhaps this website exists! What is its address?
[This Snopes article on bottled water would be one of the types of things covered.]
-
Well, maybe this Nature Network forum could evolve into such a space.
Post each new bit of dubious science as a seperate forum topic, and we can discuss.
-
My favourite controversial websites are this one about AIDS (it has not been updated in some years), and this one related to the Fomenko theory for a new chronology.
Those two websites really cought my attention. I believe they help at least to incentivate skepticism in general… Either skepticism for the “mainstream theories” or for the “alternative” ones. Hopefully not bringing citizens to the edge of paranoia. But again, isn’t science itself a form of controlled paranoia? :)
-
I dont believe in “Science” as a dogmatic doctrine, but I love science as an “andventure of mind”, where even new breaking ideas can look like a “pseudoscience”. Nonconformism, open mind and playfulnes are, in my view, conditio sine qua non for any genuine research :). Like (reputedly) Bohr used to say: more mad is the better :).
-
Hence the stereotype of the ‘mad scientist’.
=)
-