Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
leicsmac

March For Science

Recommended Posts

Wasn't sure what particular thread this could go in but thought it deserved a mention, so started a new one.

 

On Earth Day, lots of marches going on to both highlight political interference in the scientific fields and to highlight the need for better science communication.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-39679629

 

Obviously, this is a topic pretty close to my heart (not everyone will share that sentiment), but the topics under discussion are really important in a lot of ways. The current swing towards anti-intellectualism and distrust of science (not totally unfounded) is a dangerous thing going into the future, and questions really do need to be asked both about politicians blocking key scientific progress for the sake of their own ambition and power (and reinforcing the status quo/appealing to ideology to appeal to their voter base) as well as making scientific communication better in a way that makes it more accessible to everyone, leading to less fear through misunderstanding the exact nature of various scientific projects.

 

The world is always changing, and we need to use science and the developments research produces to change with it and guarantee a decent future.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Wasn't sure what particular thread this could go in but thought it deserved a mention, so started a new one.

 

On Earth Day, lots of marches going on to both highlight political interference in the scientific fields and to highlight the need for better science communication.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-39679629

 

Obviously, this is a topic pretty close to my heart (not everyone will share that sentiment), but the topics under discussion are really important in a lot of ways. The current swing towards anti-intellectualism and distrust of science (not totally unfounded) is a dangerous thing going into the future, and questions really do need to be asked both about politicians blocking key scientific progress for the sake of their own ambition and power (and reinforcing the status quo/appealing to ideology to appeal to their voter base) as well as making scientific communication better in a way that makes it more accessible to everyone, leading to less fear through misunderstanding the exact nature of various scientific projects.

 

The world is always changing, and we need to use science and the developments research produces to change with it and guarantee a decent future.

 

 

Wholeheartedly agree. However, although the lack of political will is concerning, I am nonetheless always reminded of Ester Boserup's famous contention,  'necessity is the mother of invention'.

 

In academia, the era of post modernism era ushered in the subjectivity of community oriented truth. Although this paradigm clearly has substantial epistemological and ethnographic worth, it favours the primacy of individual perception over universal truth - anti-realism and the construction of reality and has in my opinion become as damaging as it was once enlightening. 

 

Such metanarrative has burgeoned with the growth of the internet. The proliferation of pseudoscience, New Age quacktitioners and general woo-****ery which people willingly and uncritically accommodate as 'fact' because they read it online or it was shared on social media, is truly terrifying. The growth of popular belief and disillusionment with 'expertise' is something that politicians (often scientifically illiterate themselves), have cynically exploited, particularly in the US pandering to creationism, climate change denial and even the anti-vax movement. 

 

This is why I particularly like the placard featuring the Neil Degrasse Tyson quote...

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you agree with it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we march for science when it's invented cars, bikes, planes, hovercraft and mobility scooters?

 

You can walk if you want to, but I'm using science!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Why should we march for science when it's invented cars, bikes, planes, hovercraft and mobility scooters?

 

You can walk if you want to, but I'm using science!

 

If you'd seen my missus drive, you wouldn't ask..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Line-X said:

Wholeheartedly agree. However, although the lack of political will is concerning, I am nonetheless always reminded of Ester Boserup's famous contention,  'necessity is the mother of invention'.

 

In academia, the era of post modernism era ushered in the subjectivity of community oriented truth. Although this paradigm clearly has substantial epistemological and ethnographic worth, it favours the primacy of individual perception over universal truth - anti-realism and the construction of reality and has in my opinion become as damaging as it was once enlightening. 

 

Such metanarrative has burgeoned with the growth of the internet. The proliferation of pseudoscience, New Age quacktitioners and general woo-****ery which people willingly and uncritically accommodate as 'fact' because they read it online or it was shared on social media, is truly terrifying. The growth of popular belief and disillusionment with 'expertise' is something that politicians (often scientifically illiterate themselves), have cynically exploited, particularly in the US pandering to creationism, climate change denial and even the anti-vax movement. 

 

This is why I particularly like the placard featuring the Neil Degrasse Tyson quote...

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you agree with it"

I'll get my dictionary out and let you know if I agree with you in a couple of hours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Line-X said:

Wholeheartedly agree. However, although the lack of political will is concerning, I am nonetheless always reminded of Ester Boserup's famous contention,  'necessity is the mother of invention'.

 

In academia, the era of post modernism era ushered in the subjectivity of community oriented truth. Although this paradigm clearly has substantial epistemological and ethnographic worth, it favours the primacy of individual perception over universal truth - anti-realism and the construction of reality and has in my opinion become as damaging as it was once enlightening. 

 

Such metanarrative has burgeoned with the growth of the internet. The proliferation of pseudoscience, New Age quacktitioners and general woo-****ery which people willingly and uncritically accommodate as 'fact' because they read it online or it was shared on social media, is truly terrifying. The growth of popular belief and disillusionment with 'expertise' is something that politicians (often scientifically illiterate themselves), have cynically exploited, particularly in the US pandering to creationism, climate change denial and even the anti-vax movement. 

 

This is why I particularly like the placard featuring the Neil Degrasse Tyson quote...

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you agree with it"

 If ever an example of verbosity was required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Floyd said:

 If ever an example of verbosity was required.

You may well be right. Ironically, I can probably illustrate my point more effective by deployment of an internet meme...y'know, the kind favoured by social media and football forums. 

 

imgur.jpg.c6ad768537a70ad12fc1a443f9e7ee0e.jpg

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Line-X said:

Wholeheartedly agree. However, although the lack of political will is concerning, I am nonetheless always reminded of Ester Boserup's famous contention,  'necessity is the mother of invention'.

 

In academia, the era of post modernism era ushered in the subjectivity of community oriented truth. Although this paradigm clearly has substantial epistemological and ethnographic worth, it favours the primacy of individual perception over universal truth - anti-realism and the construction of reality and has in my opinion become as damaging as it was once enlightening. 

 

Such metanarrative has burgeoned with the growth of the internet. The proliferation of pseudoscience, New Age quacktitioners and general woo-****ery which people willingly and uncritically accommodate as 'fact' because they read it online or it was shared on social media, is truly terrifying. The growth of popular belief and disillusionment with 'expertise' is something that politicians (often scientifically illiterate themselves), have cynically exploited, particularly in the US pandering to creationism, climate change denial and even the anti-vax movement. 

 

This is why I particularly like the placard featuring the Neil Degrasse Tyson quote...

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you agree with it"

 

 

Man after my own heart. :D


It is true that perception has grown in place of scientific method - what you "feel" or "think" is the truth, even if it clashes with data (though such perception in lieu of empirical evidence forms the cornerstone of religious faith, so it's been around for quite some time I guess.) And that has been used very well recently by both politicians looking to reinforce their power base (again, not really a new trick) and the new wave of YouTube "experts" looking to make a quick buck. It is rather scary and dangerous, especially when it encourages action that is potentially damaging to the future in order to keep the status quo running today, either because it's "ours to do with as we wish" or because "we don't have much of an effect so it doesn't matter" or even "let the ball roll and future generations die - I'll be dead anyway!"

 

It's really really easy to think that the world is never going to change and that tomorrow is going to be very much like today. That way you don't have to think about it much and you can focus on stuff like "should we offer Shakey a permanent post"? But, that's also a really easy to sleepwalk a species - multiple species in fact - into real trouble.

 

But it's also a difficult problem to deal with. People simply don't want to hear that their lives are going to get more difficult either because things are going to change or because we should prepare for that change, and as well as that most scientists are hardly the most charismatic nor the most effective communicators in the same way politicians and the like are...so that's a double disadvantage right from the start. It's easier, much much easier, to just dismiss those experts, often using derogatory terms (particularly if you feel that they've "cried wolf" in the past - anyone remember how that ends?) And to be honest...I'm not sure what the best way to get the message across even is - not at least until the bad stuff does start happening and it becomes clear, by which time it may be too late to help.

 

That brings me what you said about "necessity being the mother of invention". If this were a normal, smaller issue I would agree with you - humanity would be able to adapt, use their smarts and get the job done as they have many times in the past. But given the degree of change that would eventually happen...if we wait until it actually starts happening, I'm not sure we'd be able to adapt to that change in the limited time we would have - not without extreme cost, anyway. As a result of that, I would think that at least a little planning and groundwork should be done.

 

It has really come to something where scientists - who normally go out of their way to be apolitical simply because they don't like power (another failing of those who judge them: when you're obsessed with power you assume that everyone else is too) are having to march to put across the point that they're trying to help, no matter how bad the communication.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather march for science than religion. in science you are always discovering new things and what you once thought about something, you may discover something totally different about it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Global Warming is the biggest con of all time. 

Why?

 

The point of a conspiracy is the party running the conspiracy have something to gain.

These scientists have had no such gain, nor desire one - indeed, they would gain more materially from pushing the narrative of the various nonrenewable energy companies instead - they're the ones with the dough, after all.

So...where's the pork?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Line-X said:

You may well be right. Ironically, I can probably illustrate my point more effective by deployment of an internet meme...y'know, the kind favoured by social media and football forums. 

 

imgur.jpg.c6ad768537a70ad12fc1a443f9e7ee0e.jpg

 

 

 

bah humbug, ive heard this causes autism etc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

 

bah humbug, ive heard this causes autism etc

 

Yeah.

 

But virus free autism..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...