Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

[Yukon Cornelius]

SciAm: Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

Really? How did the Scopes generation defeat the Nazis and put a man on the moon?

This article puzzles me, in that America and the West in general have NEVER been more secular than they are at this moment. Run the clock back 50, 100, 150 years, and you're find more and more explicitly "religious" sentiments across the board -- if only in a nominalistic deism sort of way. Why, just 70 or so years ago, the president was claiming that God Almighty was on our side.

Today, every -ology we have (Psych, Anthro, Socio, etc.) is explicitly secular --- period. If you are working in those fields, you rely on unaided human reason --- that's doubly true for the hard sciences. Going back the social sciences, it's simply not possible to coherently fit a religious view of man with the materialistic conventions, it can only exist as a canard, or add-on. And of course that's far, far more true in the hard sciences.

Given the vocabulary provided, it's not possible to use it -- as such -- and be any threat whatsoever to "Science." The presuppositions are too rooted in the culture.

So, even granting the article's premise, that we are now at dangerous levels of antiscience, how the hell did we get here, with our predominately religious past? Accident?

[Enki]

It's bullshit psychodrama of one side fighting the other.

The Christian Right is more powerful than it was in the past as a coalition of political entities that can sway elections. Back in the day it wasn't really a unified coalition under a political party, it was just part of the ambient culture.

[Skin Job]

Something that was part of the ambient culture would have been more powerful in its own way than a political group, though this power would be impossible to quantify, as it had permeated virtually everything.

[Enki]

Something that was part of the ambient culture would have been more powerful in its own way than a political group, though this power would be impossible to quantify, as it had permeated virtually everything.

Precisely.

[Taboo]

SciAm: Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

Really? How did the Scopes generation defeat the Nazis and put a man on the moon?

This article puzzles me, in that America and the West in general have NEVER been more secular than they are at this moment. Run the clock back 50, 100, 150 years, and you're find more and more explicitly "religious" sentiments across the board -- if only in a nominalistic deism sort of way. Why, just 70 or so years ago, the president was claiming that God Almighty was on our side.

Today, every -ology we have (Psych, Anthro, Socio, etc.) is explicitly secular --- period. If you are working in those fields, you rely on unaided human reason --- that's doubly true for the hard sciences. Going back the social sciences, it's simply not possible to coherently fit a religious view of man with the materialistic conventions, it can only exist as a canard, or add-on. And of course that's far, far more true in the hard sciences.

Given the vocabulary provided, it's not possible to use it -- as such -- and be any threat whatsoever to "Science." The presuppositions are too rooted in the culture.

So, even granting the article's premise, that we are now at dangerous levels of antiscience, how the hell did we get here, with our predominately religious past? Accident?

I think the concern is about utterly ignorant politicians who might try to pander to religious audiences at home by taking a swing at fundamental science budgets. I recall in the US a few years back the Republicans were making a show of trying to defund social science research (because they're all godless leftie commies anyways). So it's not entirely implausible that politicians can have a powerful (negative) effect on scientific research.

Dunno how serious of a threat this is. I do know this: scientific (formal and informal) institutions take decades to build, but are easy to destroy. Look at Germany prior to WW2 - it was the scientific leader of mankind, and only now, 7 decades later, is it even starting to be globally competitive again. Scientists are globally mobile, they'll just go to Switzerland, China, Singapore, whatever. The US institutions would remain broken, and the scientists would have to deal with the less developed scientific infrastructure in their new homes. Science would lose globally, and the US would definitely lose out.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I kind of agree, but see a widespread lack of critical thinking and loss of the ability to hold nuanced opinions.
"Antiscience beliefs" are just one symptom of an over reliance on ideology, polarization and reactionary responses.

[Enki]

I kind of agree, but see a widespread lack of critical thinking and loss of the ability to hold nuanced opinions.
"Antiscience beliefs" are just one symptom of an over reliance on ideology, polarization and reactionary responses.

Loss implies that it was greater at some point in the past. I am orders of magnitude more educated than my family was at my age, and this is true for every single one of my cousins. There just isn't a comparison there. I come from salt of the earth pioneer, peasants, and I just cannot imagine that my family is less critical now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. I just don't see it.

This notion of a loss of intellect, is simply a fantasy that I don't find compelling. I see no evidence to support it even as a joke.

What I see are chattering classes that are more empowered than ever to put their ignorance on display in the public square on a national and international stage. This is to my mind only a good thing.

[Nonc Hilaire]

What I see are chattering classes that are more empowered than ever to put their ignorance on display in the public square on a national and international stage. This is to my mind only a good thing.

Would you please elaborate on that? Why is a public display of ignorance by empowered "chattering classes(?)" is a good thing?

[Yukon Cornelius]

But any "conversation" is in purely secular terms -- like talking about "christian" fiat monetary policy, or using chaplains/counselors as a therapeutic adjunct to a Prozac regimen. There's simply no way to formulate the questions outside of the secular landscape. Or look at public schools: they've been sterilized of any "religion." FOR DECADES. How is "antiscience" happening there? It's illegal -- but yet we rank 30ish place in the world. With that ranking, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there is some pretty serious "antiscience" happening in there somewhere?

The fundamentals are owned by secular ideology/epistemology/ontology, how is this not a secular problem?

[noddy]

the hyperbolic ranting of the various loony groups would have me believe that their are dark ages catholics desperate to bring back witch burning and wanting all women chained to the bed on one side and nihilist drug addled sexual perverts wanting us all to have sex with animals on the other.

in the meantime, most of us still just get on with life...

then again i might be a proper moderate and strap a catholic to the bed while the donkey watches .. hmm.

[Taboo]

But any "conversation" is in purely secular terms -- like talking about "christian" fiat monetary policy, or using chaplains/counselors as a therapeutic adjunct to a Prozac regimen. There's simply no way to formulate the questions outside of the secular landscape. Or look at public schools: they've been sterilized of any "religion." FOR DECADES. How is "antiscience" happening there? It's illegal -- but yet we rank 30ish place in the world. With that ranking, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there is some pretty serious "antiscience" happening in there somewhere?

The fundamentals are owned by secular ideology/epistemology/ontology, how is this not a secular problem?

A bit of an attribution problem there. Scandinavian schools are utterly secular too, and they usually rank 1,2,3 and 4 on educational achievement tables. Perhaps the problem is with the structure of education (i.e unionized teachers, with school spending and quality linked to local property values)

[noddy]

how bout the boring real world explanation that spending top dollar on student loans to get a science degree is a long winded and expensiveway of becoming a low paid school teacher.

their isnt alot of research jobs out there and universities themselves dont do alot of pure science anymore either, they are for profit entities that do on demand research for business and only require a tiny subset of the best graduates to slowly replace attrition.

getting into science and expecting a science job is about as reliable a career path as learning guitar to become a mega rock star and you dont get as many shags from it either.

plus the fact our society is long past the crazy invention stage - the conditions of the modern burbia wouldnt allow for the inspired creation that took place in small business and sheds around america that created what we now take as given.

if we moderns still used horse and cart imagine the uproar of unleashing a motor car in amongst it now.. the poor bugger would end up in jail.

to get science back and exciting again would require a risk taking culture that created and learnt for the sake of doing it and rewarded business with tax breaks for doing so.

cant see it myself and its got bugger all todo with secular vs religion - understanding science is about as relevant and useful as understanding ancient music to average joe

---

oh, and i just remembered i have seen this rant before recently in my country - it was a green lefty workin himself into a frenzy about the lack of belief in global warming and various other statistics based issues that he considered hard science we all must agree with because if we didnt, we dont believe in science.

[Taboo]

how bout the boring real world explanation that spending top dollar on student loans to get a science degree is a long winded and expensiveway of becoming a low paid school teacher.

Virtually everyone I know that has a biochem background is earning six figures. Biased sample, I know.

their isnt alot of research jobs out there and universities themselves dont do alot of pure science anymore either, they are for profit entities that do on demand research for business and only require a tiny subset of the best graduates to slowly replace attrition.

Again, in my experience, people with a solid math/computer science education can easily find employment. From election studies to finance to advertising.

getting into science and expecting a science job is about as reliable a career path as learning guitar to become a mega rock star and you dont get as many shags from it either.

Depends on your definition of a science job. If you think (bio)engineering as well as pure science, I think the outlook is a lot less gloomy than you portray it.

Link(pdf)

plus the fact our society is long past the crazy invention stage - the conditions of the modern burbia wouldnt allow for the inspired creation that took place in small business and sheds around america that created what we now take as given.

if we moderns still used horse and cart imagine the uproar of unleashing a motor car in amongst it now.. the poor bugger would end up in jail.

to get science back and exciting again would require a risk taking culture that created and learnt for the sake of doing it and rewarded business with tax breaks for doing so.

cant see it myself and its got bugger all todo with secular vs religion - understanding science is about as relevant and useful as understanding ancient music to average joe

---

oh, and i just remembered i have seen this rant before recently in my country - it was a green lefty workin himself into a frenzy about the lack of belief in global warming and various other statistics based issues that he considered hard science we all must agree with because if we didnt, we dont believe in science.

Noddy, I think that living in the Socialist Nanny Republic of Australia is getting to you.

[noddy]

how bout the boring real world explanation that spending top dollar on student loans to get a science degree is a long winded and expensiveway of becoming a low paid school teacher.

Virtually everyone I know that has a biochem background is earning six figures. Biased sample, I know.

their isnt alot of research jobs out there and universities themselves dont do alot of pure science anymore either, they are for profit entities that do on demand research for business and only require a tiny subset of the best graduates to slowly replace attrition.

Again, in my experience, people with a solid math/computer science education can easily find employment. From election studies to finance to advertising.

getting into science and expecting a science job is about as reliable a career path as learning guitar to become a mega rock star and you dont get as many shags from it either.

Depends on your definition of a science job. If you think (bio)engineering as well as pure science, I think the outlook is a lot less gloomy than you portray it.

does depend on definition of science job - computer programming is keeping me alive however its but a tiny subset of science degrees and the industry has as many self taught hackers as it does graduates in it.

structural engineering is a reasonably large employer.. its borderline a trade in my head they iz good at mixing concrete

you are quite right that in certain countries and regions which have established industries other fields like your bio engineering are possible.

i still dont particularly have reason to believe that my badly expressed rant is that off the mark for the bulk of the kids in the bulk of the burbs round america or australia when it comes to appreciating science or respecting science, let alone, living your life bowing before the wisdom of science and nor will it for the politicians that represent them.

its not a threat to democracy, its not new - the only aspect of that i could consider new is the death of the wasp high culture which used to generate the politcians.
im not sure the secular athiest greenies are going to want to think about that ! and im not sure i want them to either

Noddy, I think that living in the Socialist Nanny Republic of Australia is getting to you.

guilty as charged.

[Typhoon]

SciAm: Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

Really? How did the Scopes generation defeat the Nazis and put a man on the moon?

This article puzzles me, in that America and the West in general have NEVER been more secular than they are at this moment. Run the clock back 50, 100, 150 years, and you're find more and more explicitly "religious" sentiments across the board -- if only in a nominalistic deism sort of way. Why, just 70 or so years ago, the president was claiming that God Almighty was on our side.

Today, every -ology we have (Psych, Anthro, Socio, etc.) is explicitly secular --- period. If you are working in those fields, you rely on unaided human reason --- that's doubly true for the hard sciences. Going back the social sciences, it's simply not possible to coherently fit a religious view of man with the materialistic conventions, it can only exist as a canard, or add-on. And of course that's far, far more true in the hard sciences.

Given the vocabulary provided, it's not possible to use it -- as such -- and be any threat whatsoever to "Science." The presuppositions are too rooted in the culture.

So, even granting the article's premise, that we are now at dangerous levels of antiscience, how the hell did we get here, with our predominately religious past? Accident?

The original concern that the formerly Scientific American, now an agitprop rag, is going on about is the presence of anti-science Republicrats, so-called, on the US House Science Committee.

U.S. House Science Committee Set For Big Turnover

My minority view is that by uncritically embracing the junk pseudo-science of man-made climate change, the Demopublicans are also anti-science in their own way.

A more general point: if the US Budget falls off the Fiscal Cliff, science funding, which is entirely discretionary, is going to take a big hit.