Difference between revisions of "War on science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→attacks on science: inconsistency even on the jacket blurb) |
(conclusions) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* [[evolution by natural selection]] (re-branded as "[[Darwinism]]", i.e. just another ideology): overwhelmingly agreed upon by scientists (especially those in relevant fields such as biology, geology, and psychology) but now disbelieved by a majority of Americans | * [[evolution by natural selection]] (re-branded as "[[Darwinism]]", i.e. just another ideology): overwhelmingly agreed upon by scientists (especially those in relevant fields such as biology, geology, and psychology) but now disbelieved by a majority of Americans | ||
* [[global warming]] (see [[global warming denial]]): agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists, but "controversial" in the US | * [[global warming]] (see [[global warming denial]]): agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists, but "controversial" in the US | ||
| + | * [[anti-vaccination activism]] | ||
===Usage=== | ===Usage=== | ||
The [[war on science]] refers specifically to initiatives which appear to be organized and widespread; individual or unorganized attacks on science are merely [[anti-science]]. | The [[war on science]] refers specifically to initiatives which appear to be organized and widespread; individual or unorganized attacks on science are merely [[anti-science]]. | ||
| + | ==Conclusions== | ||
| + | [[Science]] has been attacked from both ends of the producer-consumer relationship. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On one end we have the no-nothing [[denier]]s who convince others that all medicine is invasive and harmful, or at least not to be trusted. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the other, we have pharmaceutical companies who exploit the unthinking [[faith in science]] that many people, especially the well-educated, still have (and which many understandably dig into in the face of the no-nothing assault) by conflating "science" with "pharmaceuticals", people in lab coats or with science degrees, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===solutions=== | ||
| + | # Better citizen access to raw data, and tools for understanding that data; the [[open science]] movement should help with this | ||
| + | # An [[actuarial yardstick]] -- analogous to [http://xkcd.com/radiation XKCD's radiation dosage chart], but applied to odds of various events ranging from near-certainty to near-impossibility | ||
==Related Pages== | ==Related Pages== | ||
* [[religion vs. science]] | * [[religion vs. science]] | ||
** It is often argued or claimed, mainly in [[religious]] circles, that [[science destroys morality]] | ** It is often argued or claimed, mainly in [[religious]] circles, that [[science destroys morality]] | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
| + | ===Books=== | ||
| + | * ''[[The Republican War on Science]]'' by [[Chris Mooney]] ([http://www.waronscience.com/ official web site]) | ||
===Filed Links=== | ===Filed Links=== | ||
{{links.tagged}} | {{links.tagged}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:08, 26 March 2012
Overview
Persistent attempts to attack and undermine the credibility of science have been coming from the Bush II administration and the American political right in general.
These attacks have been most notable in the areas of:
- evolution by natural selection (re-branded as "Darwinism", i.e. just another ideology): overwhelmingly agreed upon by scientists (especially those in relevant fields such as biology, geology, and psychology) but now disbelieved by a majority of Americans
- global warming (see global warming denial): agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists, but "controversial" in the US
- anti-vaccination activism
Usage
The war on science refers specifically to initiatives which appear to be organized and widespread; individual or unorganized attacks on science are merely anti-science.
Conclusions
Science has been attacked from both ends of the producer-consumer relationship.
On one end we have the no-nothing deniers who convince others that all medicine is invasive and harmful, or at least not to be trusted.
On the other, we have pharmaceutical companies who exploit the unthinking faith in science that many people, especially the well-educated, still have (and which many understandably dig into in the face of the no-nothing assault) by conflating "science" with "pharmaceuticals", people in lab coats or with science degrees, etc.
solutions
- Better citizen access to raw data, and tools for understanding that data; the open science movement should help with this
- An actuarial yardstick -- analogous to XKCD's radiation dosage chart, but applied to odds of various events ranging from near-certainty to near-impossibility
Related Pages
- religion vs. science
- It is often argued or claimed, mainly in religious circles, that science destroys morality
Links
Books
Filed Links
- redirect template:links/smw
Humor
Books
reports on the war
attacks on science
- The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Science by Tom Bethell. If the jacket blurb quoted here (comment by John Wilkins, 27 Aug 2006 at 8:02 pm) is accurate, then this book contradicts itself: how can the number species be increasing if Darwinism (including the core idea that evolution by natural selection causes speciation) "is crumbling"?