At 199 I am a little old to drink large volumes of continental lager and fight in kebab shop doorways as you young things do, so I often spend Friday evenings at home with a small sherry and Any Questions on BBC radio 4.
Last Friday it was broadcast from the delightfully named Ottery St Mary in the county of Devon. The panelists were Sarah Sands who writes in the popular prints, Mary Beard a classicist from my alma mater Cambridge, Tim Smit of the Eden Project in Cornwall and Iain Dale, a blogger and commentator in the Tory interest.
Inevitably the matter of climate change was raised and Mr. Dale expressed doubts about the causes:
IAIN DALE
‘Well I just don’t agree with that. But the original question was about comparing this apocalypse to the global warming apocalypse now I am going to say something heretical which you can almost get struck out of public life for saying now but I am not convinced by all the arguments on man made global warming but you are not allowed to say that in polite society any more. (APPLAUSE) As some of the audience have just demonstrated.’
The vigour of the audience applause prompted the presenter Mr Dimbleby to ask the audience whether or not they were convinced of the veracity of curent scientific opinion on climate change:
DIMBLEBY
_Well we will ask the audience. We will come back to you. We will ask the audience. There were some claps there who thinks that the catastrophic potential of global warming is over stated would you put your hands up?
Who thinks it is not? Well it is pretty even. There is a small majority who believe it isn’t overstated._
So slightly fewer than half of the self-selected (but obviously articulate) audience doubt what climate scientists assert about climate change, probably entirely based on what they read and watch in the media rather than any familiarity with the literature.
My readings of the popular prints suggest that there is a growing mood of public skepticism about science and its practitioners. Climate change, the efficacy of vaccines and the recent public furore over genetic modification of crops spring to mind. They may be discrete areas in the vast field, but it requires little (and the perception does not have to be correct) for a stereotype to form and be fixed in the public imagination.That scientists may distort or exaggerate findings for their own sinister, ill-defined ends is a perception that we must not allow to grow in the media. I fear we may arrive at a time when the public (for media purposes London) finds itself up to its armpits in water and turns on the scientists and asks ‘why didn’t you warn us this might happen?’
When we point to an Alp of peer-reviewed climate science and frustrated scientists trying to condense complex issues into TV news soundbites, they will say, ‘Why didn’t you warn us better?’
150 years after I published the Origin of Species, 40% of the British public still doubt the validity of evolution. Possibly there is a section of the population simply resistant to what science has to say.
The transcript of the Any Questions under discussion is here and Mr Dale’s readable and colourful account of the evening is here
It is indeed amazing how aggressive people can become in the whole climate debate regarding science and scientists. In recent discussions I was left with the impression that all climate scientists are corrupt, being paid generous amounts of bribes, and that they are in the bait of falsifying their data in order to sell the ‘ludicrous’ message that man-made global warming could be a reality.
Spreading this ‘insane’ message is just means of getting money of course. You get the impression that the public things scientists will say anything to get funding.
It’s almost understandable from their viewpoint I guess. They are lied to on a daily basis by authority figures, and hence why would the authority of science be any different? Maybe they see us as a sort of politician?
I caught part of that Any Questions programme; when the ‘Mr Angry from Mayfair’-type phoned in to state his considered position, based on… Nigel Lawson’s book. Well, can’t argue with that kind of, er, scientific research!
I guess we could look at this as suggesting a need for more of the kind of thing on which you blogged recently, but which might be better headed, ‘Government calls on society to be equipped to have its say on science.’
A colleague of mine was recently asked about what she does at work. When she replied that she works in the stem cell field, the response was, ‘Oh, so you kill babies, then?’ The inquisitor: her dentist!
The inquisitor: her dentist!
Inquisitor indeed. Both were/are paid to inflict pain.
Currently, trust in science is being undermined from two main sources: creationists are on one side and global warming deniers on the other. The first is resistance to scientific knowledge, definitely a major factor. The second factor may be that it’s a positive trait to challenge authorities. We value that in our society – and for a good reason. I guess it’s not trivial for a society to find out which authority is questionable and which isn’t, so we err on the side of caution and question all authority. Maybe that’s better than the other way around?
I also think the intellectual distance between scientists and the lay public might have something to do with it. Gone are the days when a dilletante like myself could board a ship, return five ears later with scales removed from eyes and (after some work) produce the theory of natural selection.
Science now requires many years of general education then increasingly specialized training. Scientists them speck in a language which laypeople fnd hard to understand, have a literature which most cannot access, for a less comprehend and are judged by shallow reports of science and by the sometimes regrettable applications of the science. According to Mr Dale in Any Questions, “I think Mary has got it right when she asks do we trust the science. I am not a scientist. I don’t feel qualified to say that I can trust the science the same kind of science I guess that gave BSE all those years ago I think Prince Charles has been quite brave in what he said”
Mr Dale is an educated, well-read man and he falls readily into the trap that “science” somehow gave us BSE.
Currently, trust in science is being undermined from two main sources: creationists are on one side and global warming deniers on the other.
There is a third source — aggressive scientists such as He Who Must Not Be Named, who makes inflated claims that the scientific method can explain everything, such that anything that remains inexplicable in terms of reductionism or the scientific method — such as spirituality, common humanity or even free inquiry that is not mandated in the approved manner — is therefore evil and/or the province of fools.
Of course, this confrontational attitude is a travesty of the genuinely scientific stance, which is to refine possibilities, not to expound on absolutes.
Given that such an attitude is what the public sees of science — the arrogant, patronizing and (dare I say it) holier-than-thou posture — it’s no wonder that the public has no time for science. After all, is it any surprise that people don’t like being told that they are fools? If that’s the way scientists behave — and those, I might add, who are specifically charged with public engagement — then I’m not surprised people react with hostility.
‘He Who Must Not Be Named’ ???? Eh?
Dawkins! Dawkins! Dawkins!
So there! :0)
You said it Lee, not me.