Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

Just now, marbles said:

There will always be those who refuse to believe, no matter how convincing the evidence or how easy it is to understand - that's not the real problem. 

The real problem is racking your brain trying to figure out how to convince them - you are never going to.  Give it up and stop worrying about them.  They are the minority.

Worry about the ones you can reach.  There's a lot more of them, than the hard headed trolls.

 

 

A minority still capable of hindering necessary progress in significant fashion, it would seem. Which is a problem IMO.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

However, I would submit that this take overlooks the very deliberate ignorance and denial displayed by many because they fear the changes action based on that knowledge will bring. And that is the real problem here.

To put forward a possible defence (of a kind) of some of these people, it may also be that they simply fear the potential consequences of the science, and therefore deliberate ignorance and denial is easier. I don't agree with this choice, but I can understand it, because the potential consequences are bloody terrifying.

I guess this would mean the important thing is to focus on what can still be done, rather than just on what might happen if it isn't.

[marbles]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A minority still capable of hindering necessary progress in significant fashion, it would seem. Which is a problem IMO.

If you spend all your time on the minority - whom you will never, ever change - you are ignoring the majority.  What do you think happens to them?  They see the minority getting all the attention, and decide that there must be something to it. 

A minority is only capable of hindering progress, if you allow them to. 

If you spend all your time trying to counter their arguments, the only thing you are doing is validating them. 

[grobyfox1990]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I am both, which is why I'm coming at this from a more personal angle.

 

This all just seems like heaping more responsibility on the shoulders of those already trying to guarantee a future while handing out none to those completely apathetic to it.

 

Believe me, in an ideal world there would be buttons to push for everyone, we would know what they were and we'd be able to tailor the message to everyone's motivations and thus inspire people in the exact way you describe. It would make what I try to do a hell of a lot easier, too. But this isn't an ideal world, and there is only so much that can be done to communicate and inspire before such communicators, like any of human, simply run out of resources and spoons.

 

It is deeply frustrating to put in as much effort as possible, see other folks putting in next to none to meet halfway, and then be blamed for it. And believe me, there are times when it is very, very tempting for that frustration to become outright resentment and a desire rather than to save the future, instead to make sure whoever is left afterwards is damned aware of who killed the world. But that's highly counterproductive too.

 

Yeah, this is SciComm 101. Einstein said that if your scientific idea can't be understood by a six-year old, then you don't really understand it yourself. And most of the time, directly relating to the audience is the best way to get them learning.

 

However, I would submit that this take overlooks the very deliberate ignorance and denial displayed by many because they fear the changes action based on that knowledge will bring. And that is the real problem here.

You are both? I thought you were a heating engineer?! 

 

R.e 'put in as much effort as possible, other folks putting in next to none' is the mildly derogatory speak of a proper scientist. Andrew tate, donald trump, random twitter weirdos are clearly putting in a hell of a lot of effort to do what they are doing. They understand people, what makes them tick and how to build a base, that requires huge effort. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

I've played Half-Life, I know where this ends up. Don't come running to me when you need a face-crab peeling off you

[samlcfc]

 

Worth listening to if you can get past the somewhat cringey nationalist angle. I guess they've got to stroke the egos of the people funding it.

 

Confirmed about 2mj energy in, and 3mj out, with an additional 100mj from the grid. - Proof of concept for a reaction that could potentially produce 100's mj out.

 

30-40 years for a commercial power plant.

Still science and engineering work to be done in order to scale it up.

 

Their research involving 'laser confinement fusion' will inform 'magnetic confinement fusion', which is the form generally accepted to be closer to commercialisation in terms of technology, but I'm guessing without the actual completion of a net gain experiment having happened yet.

 

 

[samlcfc]

20 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

You are both? I thought you were a heating engineer?! 

 

R.e 'put in as much effort as possible, other folks putting in next to none' is the mildly derogatory speak of a proper scientist. Andrew tate, donald trump, random twitter weirdos are clearly putting in a hell of a lot of effort to do what they are doing. They understand people, what makes them tick and how to build a base, that requires huge effort. 

 

I think it's probably a much easier task to manipulate people than it is to constructively inform them.

 

Andrew Tate generally just plays on preconceived stereotypes in society in order to make ill-gotten gains for himself. There's a chance he doesn't even believe what he says, but just doesn't worry about any damage he causes to make some money. Basically a scam artist. 

 

Donald Trump isn't any different really. Just on a larger scale.

 

There's definitely a difference in effort between communicating scientific research, and stirring up puddle-deep opinions to make yourself some money. 

[grobyfox1990]

1 minute ago, samlcfc said:

 

I think it's probably a much easier task to manipulate people than it is to constructively inform them.

 

Andrew Tate generally just plays on preconceived stereotypes in society in order to make ill-gotten gains for himself. There's a chance he doesn't even believe what he says, but just doesn't worry about any damage he causes to make some money. Basically a scam artist. 

 

Donald Trump isn't any different really. Just on a larger scale.

 

There's definitely a difference in effort between communicating scientific research, and stirring up puddle-deep opinions to make yourself some money. 

Personally not buying it and as i said in a previous post, i don't know how this attitude of shrugging off responsibility manifests itself. 'What we do is hard and what they do is easy' is a nonsense. leicsmac suggests 'science connector/communicator' is someones actual full time job. How can you then go into your end of year review and say' yeh mate but there's just loads of people who don't want to be communicated to in the exact way i'm doing it, to so nothing more i can do tbf'

 

Twitter bods don't believe what they are saying but they know how to work a room. So learn from them and stop arrogantly playing down what they are doing and demeaning their fanbase. I'm not saying lab rats need to become prime time entertainers but f4ck me if your entire job is communication, learn some new skills and think about your messaging and why people aren't listening. If not hire me, i can get on with working in an environment where you can blame the general public for your own lack of performance. 

[samlcfc]

58 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Personally not buying it and as i said in a previous post, i don't know how this attitude of shrugging off responsibility manifests itself. 'What we do is hard and what they do is easy' is a nonsense. leicsmac suggests 'science connector/communicator' is someones actual full time job. How can you then go into your end of year review and say' yeh mate but there's just loads of people who don't want to be communicated to in the exact way i'm doing it, to so nothing more i can do tbf'

 

Twitter bods don't believe what they are saying but they know how to work a room. So learn from them and stop arrogantly playing down what they are doing and demeaning their fanbase. I'm not saying lab rats need to become prime time entertainers but f4ck me if your entire job is communication, learn some new skills and think about your messaging and why people aren't listening. If not hire me, i can get on with working in an environment where you can blame the general public for your own lack of performance. 

I wasn't trying to have a go.

 

Just considering that if I didn't have any morals and was going to be 'successful' giving something a go as a Layman, I'd probably choose to become a figurehead by playing off of age-old stereotypes rather than trying and to teach something new to the masses.

 

I'm sure things can be done better with regards to communicating science and you may have a better window into that than me, but I wouldn't say I'm demeaning anyone by suggesting some of those following Andrew Tate or Donald Trump haven't learnt anything new from them. Teaching isn't what those and their ilk are trying to do.

 

We could definitely find common ground with regards to communication. I'm not so authoritative that I'm opposed to people having their own opinions I've just found, admittedly anecdotally, that those examples specifically leave a lot to be desired where communicating constructively is concerned. Andrew Tate for example, has been raised supportively with me in passing during conversation, before the stance is developed and often dropped significantly after a bit of consideration. Maybe something to be found in there about how to communicate sciences.

 

In my opinion, I'd probably suggest that receptiveness to science, particularly around Climate Change has been impacted by societal beliefs constructed over a few decades. It seems generally accepted that humans could have whatever they wanted, when they wanted, as long as they worked hard enough. That doesn't actually seem to have ever been the case, but it's a hard thing for society to look at introspectively considering it's been the mantra for so long.

 

I think some science must be hard to communicate, when it's about challenging our beliefs rather than rolling with them.

 

Again, not trying to have a dig. I have these challenges as much as anyone else.

Edited 13 December 2022 by samlcfc

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, samlcfc said:

I wasn't trying to have a go.

 

Just considering that if I didn't have any morals and was going to be 'successful' giving something a go as a Layman, I'd probably choose to become a figurehead by playing off of age-old stereotypes rather than trying and to teach something new to the masses.

 

I'm sure things can be done better with regards to communicating science and you may have a better window into that than me, but I wouldn't say I'm demeaning anyone by suggesting some of those following Andrew Tate or Donald Trump haven't learnt anything new from them. Teaching isn't what those and their ilk are trying to do.

 

We could definitely find common ground with regards to communication. I'm not so authoritative that I'm opposed to people having their own opinions I've just found, admittedly anecdotally, that those examples specifically leave a lot to be desired where communicating constructively is concerned. Andrew Tate for example, has been raised supportively with me in passing during conversation, before the stance is developed and often dropped significantly after a bit of consideration. Maybe something to be found in there about how to communicate sciences.

 

In my opinion, I'd probably suggest that receptiveness to science, particularly around Climate Change has been impacted by societal beliefs constructed over a few decades. It seems generally accepted that humans could have whatever they wanted, when they wanted, as long as they worked hard enough. That doesn't actually seem to have ever been the case, but it's a hard thing for society to look at introspectively considering it's been the mantra for so long.

 

I think some science must be hard to communicate, when it's about challenging our beliefs rather than rolling with them.

 

Again, not trying to have a dig. I have these challenges as much as anyone else.

Good post and hard to disagree with what you are saying overall. Ps I’m not sure who Andrew tate is and what his method of climate denial is, just hear his name mentioned loads 

[Vacamion]

 

Useful fusion technology has been "just two or three decades away" since before I was a nipper in the 70s.

 

I mean, crack on with the research, lads, but in the meantime those who make the decisions need to get on with less fossil fuel burning, more wind turbines, fission power and a whole lot of new insulation.  

 

 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

To put forward a possible defence (of a kind) of some of these people, it may also be that they simply fear the potential consequences of the science, and therefore deliberate ignorance and denial is easier. I don't agree with this choice, but I can understand it, because the potential consequences are bloody terrifying.

I guess this would mean the important thing is to focus on what can still be done, rather than just on what might happen if it isn't.

I think this is spot on wrt taking the easier route, and I do understand the choice too. However, we must go on regardless, yes.

 

9 hours ago, marbles said:

If you spend all your time on the minority - whom you will never, ever change - you are ignoring the majority.  What do you think happens to them?  They see the minority getting all the attention, and decide that there must be something to it. 

A minority is only capable of hindering progress, if you allow them to. 

If you spend all your time trying to counter their arguments, the only thing you are doing is validating them. 

Simply ignoring them would be a lot easier which would be very nice....but is there any categorical proof in this day and age (as opposed to a few decades ago) that it would be effective and that the necessary stuff would get done if communicators simply ignored all the misinformation on science that these folks were putting forth?

 

8 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

You are both? I thought you were a heating engineer?! 

 

R.e 'put in as much effort as possible, other folks putting in next to none' is the mildly derogatory speak of a proper scientist. Andrew tate, donald trump, random twitter weirdos are clearly putting in a hell of a lot of effort to do what they are doing. They understand people, what makes them tick and how to build a base, that requires huge effort. 

Nope, I am not.

 

WRT the bolded here, I was not really referring to the professional con artists making bank from misinformation, but more on a lot of people who buy into this misinformation simply because it's an easier sell for them, without taking the effort to actually gauge the truth of the matter. Now, for a lot of people, that's justifiable as they don't have the time or the spoons in their everyday life to parse in that way...but it would be nice to have a little help on a very difficult and very important topic from time to time.

 

WRT the overall matter, @samlcfc has pretty much said what I wanted to say in their last post, what with me having had a pretty long day yesterday and all. Especially the part about science being bloody hard to communicate when it conflicts with pre-existing beliefs rather than supplying a convenient narrative that supports them.

 

3 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

Useful fusion technology has been "just two or three decades away" since before I was a nipper in the 70s.

 

I mean, crack on with the research, lads, but in the meantime those who make the decisions need to get on with less fossil fuel burning, more wind turbines, fission power and a whole lot of new insulation.  

 

 

That's pretty much right tbh. Though we are getting closer. The last ten years have seen more progress than the previous 50.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221212-how-national-border-walls-are-splitting-ecosystems-apart

 

Considering that many of the people who put up these walls don't even consider other humans to be human, I'm not sure how much they care about biodiversity, sadly.

[SpacedX]

15 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Andrew tate, donald trump, random twitter weirdos are clearly putting in a hell of a lot of effort to do what they are doing. They understand people, what makes them tick and how to build a base, that requires huge effort. 

Understand people? What? They understand their target audience and how to exploit and manipulate the gullible - that's a huge difference. Most of this is accomplished through stoking anger and outrage, widening divisions and through sensationalist claims designed to increase populist appeal. There's nothing particularly admirable or even clever about that. 

 

14 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Twitter bods don't believe what they are saying but they know how to work a room. So learn from them and stop arrogantly playing down what they are doing and demeaning their fanbase. 

Pyramid salesmen and all manner of con artists and mountebanks similarly know how 'to work a room' - it's called selling a lie and there's nothing to be admired about that. Those who lazily consume and arrogantly regurgitate misinformation because they lack the will or the critical faculty to independently verify claims for themselves deserve as much contempt as the ones that intentionally manufacture such disinformation in the first place.

 

We have nothing whatsoever to learn from these people. Their entire stock in trade is valueless. 

 

I encourage the postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral candidates that I work with, be it verbal or written communication, always assume that you are addressing a lay audience. One of the greatest scientific communicators in recent history was the late Carl Sagan who broached and articulated complex topics and subjects in the simplest way possible, objectively making them accessible to the public. 

 

“Don’t talk to the general audience as you would your scientific colleagues. There are terms that convey your meaning instantly and accurately to fellow experts. You may parse these phrases every day in your professional work. But they do no more than mystify an audience of non-specialists. Use the simplest possible language. Above all, remember how it was before you, yourself, grasped whatever it is you’re explaining.”

 

Granted, this was largely before the advent of the internet and he wasn't drowned out by the background noise of populist online opinion 'trumping' fact and the cacophony of arguments from incredulity and ignorance. But it is noble luminaries and educators such as Sagan that we need to look to and take inspiration from, not deceptive manipulators, opportunistic agenda driven 'influencers' and all manner of gobshites on social media

[leicsmac]

https://doctorow.medium.com/orphaned-neurological-implants-3f0b7918553f

 

This sounds like something out of a dystopic science fiction novel.

 

This kind of tech must be made freely available to the end user in perpetuity no matter what happens to the supplier. Any other idea is simply grossly unethical.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Understand people? What? They understand their target audience and how to exploit and manipulate the gullible - that's a huge difference. Most of this is accomplished through stoking anger and outrage, widening divisions and through sensationalist claims designed to increase populist appeal. There's nothing particularly admirable or even clever about that. 

 

Pyramid salesmen and all manner of con artists and mountebanks similarly know how 'to work a room' - it's called selling a lie and there's nothing to be admired about that. Those who lazily consume and arrogantly regurgitate misinformation because they lack the will or the critical faculty to independently verify claims for themselves deserve as much contempt as the ones that intentionally manufacture such disinformation in the first place.

 

We have nothing whatsoever to learn from these people. Their entire stock in trade is valueless. 

 

I encourage the postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral candidates that I work with, be it verbal or written communication, always assume that you are addressing a lay audience. One of the greatest scientific communicators in recent history was the late Carl Sagan who broached and articulated complex topics and subjects in the simplest way possible, objectively making them accessible to the public. 

 

“Don’t talk to the general audience as you would your scientific colleagues. There are terms that convey your meaning instantly and accurately to fellow experts. You may parse these phrases every day in your professional work. But they do no more than mystify an audience of non-specialists. Use the simplest possible language. Above all, remember how it was before you, yourself, grasped whatever it is you’re explaining.”

 

Granted, this was largely before the advent of the internet and he wasn't drowned out by the background noise of populist online opinion 'trumping' fact and the cacophony of arguments from incredulity and ignorance. But it is noble luminaries and educators such as Sagan that we need to look to and take inspiration from, not deceptive manipulators, opportunistic agenda driven 'influencers' and all manner of gobshites on social media

10 in a room. 3 believe in you, 6 need to be swayed and 1 will never be with you. Arrogant swatting off of that 6, like the post above, makes the whole so called job of ‘science communication’ completely redundant. 

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

10 in a room. 3 believe in you, 6 need to be swayed and 1 will never be with you. Arrogant swatting off of that 6, like the post above, makes the whole so called job of ‘science communication’ completely redundant. 

I think you misunderstood my reply. Effective scientific communication does not dismissively and "arrogantly swat off the six". Also, scientific communication is never redundant - even if you only get through to 1 in the room. Moreover, known science is not a question of 'belief' and if properly pitched, it has a voice of its own. 

 

You are suggesting that scientific educators should defer to methods used by liars, braggards and con-artists which are manipulative. I disagree. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63982190

 

Fascinating.

 

I'm excited about what the Clipper might confirm on Europa in a few years time.

 

If there's liquid water there, I'm inclined to think there will be microbial life.

[leicsmac]

https://www.livescience.com/aliens-technological-signals

 

A somewhat interesting take on the Fermi Paradox, though it covers ground that the Zoo Hypothesis mostly does already from the practical standpoint of why we haven't encountered spacefaring alien life yet.

[The Bear]

I still think that long distance space travel is just too hard. And even if civilisations did happen to exist and were advanced enough at the same, if you're in separate galaxies or thousands of light years away then it's going to take too long to get there. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

I still think that long distance space travel is just too hard. And even if civilisations did happen to exist and were advanced enough at the same, if you're in separate galaxies or thousands of light years away then it's going to take too long to get there. 

That's the most plausible take to have at this time, until it is conclusively proven that FTL travel or communication is possible - or incredibly long lifespans of beings and technology.

[samlcfc]

These sorts of thought experiments are pretty fun.

 

Considering the exponential technological growth achieved in recent decades on earth,  I'd imagine there's also a chance that a fairly small window exists between being sufficiently advanced enough to contact alien life, and being so far advanced that the desire to do so fades away.

 

The above could be true because of many societal or philosophical factors and it may not even mean an alien species wouldn't be able to contact another, but rather that they just wouldn't. 

 

It's so difficult to predict where technological advancement might take a civilisation, you can entertain a huge amount of reasons why one spacefaring species might not contact another. Maybe space exploration becomes entirely defunct for many at a certain point. Maybe it continues for many, but in a self-serving manner. Maybe the cons far outweigh the pros of making contact at some point. Discovering life elsewhere would be hugely significant to us humans at this time, but for another species that can travel anywhere and knows like exists beyond doubt? 

 

Species may even disappear into a virtual existence, where all their desires may be met with ease and without issue.

 

For all we know, we ourselves could be visited regularly by probes akin to those we send out ourselves, but if the capable makers put even a little thought into being cautious about it, we wouldn't know. A witness sighting here, a radar return there, but nothing sufficient enough for our scientific method to comment on. 

 

 

Edited 16 December 2022 by samlcfc

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, samlcfc said:

These sorts of thought experiments are pretty fun.

 

Considering the exponential technological growth achieved in recent decades on earth,  I'd imagine there's also a chance that a fairly small window exists between being sufficiently advanced enough to contact alien life, and being so far advanced that the desire to do so fades away.

 

The above could be true because of many societal or philosophical factors and it may not even mean an alien species wouldn't be able to contact another, but rather that they just wouldn't. 

 

It's so difficult to predict where technological advancement might take a civilisation, you can entertain a huge amount of reasons why one spacefaring species might not contact another. Maybe space exploration becomes entirely defunct for many at a certain point. Maybe it continues for many, but in a self-serving manner. Maybe the cons far outweigh the pros of making contact at some point. Discovering life elsewhere would be hugely significant to us humans at this time, but for another species that can travel anywhere and knows like exists beyond doubt? 

 

Species may even disappear into a virtual existence, where all their desires may be met with ease and without issue.

 

For all we know, we ourselves could be visited regularly by probes akin to those we send out ourselves, but if the capable makers put even a little thought into being cautious about it, we wouldn't know. A witness sighting here, a radar return there, but nothing sufficient enough for our scientific method to comment on. 

 

 

And all of our reasons are human reasons, which in this particular case make them flawed/probably not the whole picture anyway.

[samlcfc]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And all of our reasons are human reasons, which in this particular case make them flawed/probably not the whole picture anyway.

Absolutely. It's pretty crazy how many future possibilities you can envision whilst building on a human-centric context as above, before even attempting to consider how something might have evolved and progressed under different conditions elsewhere.

[The Bear]

I don't think exploration will ever be defunct, even if we somehow create a paradise here on Earth or some other planet. Its just too inate a human desire. We'll always wonder what's a bit further out there, and the ability to get there will push that to be further and further until the laws of physics stop us (very likely) or we die out.