Politics in Scientific debate

[NortonH]

Has anyone noticed that as soon as science encroaches on an area touched by politics it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational debate?

Instead of parties united in a common search for truth and a quest to separate fact from falsehood there is, instead, a mad scramble to avoid answering questions, evade questions with distractions and diversions, deliberate pretence to misunderstand, misinterpret and misrepresent etc.

Although it is a bit annoying I think it only reflects upon those who are obviously squirming and fools nobody. My solution is just to stick to cold calm logical progress and not to be too concerned about people trying to slow it down. A bit like hippies lying in front of a bulldozer, if they don't move with the flow they just get rolled over.

In short, I suggest that this is the best solution to the infection of politics into a scientific debate.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

Has anyone noticed that as soon as science encroaches on an area touched by politics it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational debate?

Instead of parties united in a common search for truth and a quest to separate fact from falsehood there is, instead, a mad scramble to avoid answering questions, evade questions with distractions and diversions, deliberate pretence to misunderstand, misinterpret and misrepresent etc.

Although it is a bit annoying I think it only reflects upon those who are obviously squirming and fools nobody. My solution is just to stick to cold calm logical progress and not to be too concerned about people trying to slow it down. A bit like hippies lying in front of a bulldozer, if they don't move with the flow they just get rolled over.

In short, I suggest that this is the best solution to the infection of politics into a scientific debate.

What I see is people who don't know science trying to discredit scientific explanations by claiming nobody is answering their simple questions. They don't really seem willing to unite, since they're usually trying to make assertions about things they're ignorant about. There's no mad scramble to avoid anything, it's just that the folks who don't know don't know how to interpret the science.

One sign that someone only THINKS they know science is to claim they're sticking to cold, calm logic. They misuse the mathematical and philosophical term, and actually mean "I only listen to things that make sense to me".

[NortonH]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What I see is people who don't know science trying to discredit scientific explanations by claiming nobody is answering their simple questions. They don't really seem willing to unite, since they're usually trying to make assertions about things they're ignorant about. There's no mad scramble to avoid anything, it's just that the folks who don't know don't know how to interpret the science.

One sign that someone only THINKS they know science is to claim they're sticking to cold, calm logic. They misuse the mathematical and philosophical term, and actually mean "I only listen to things that make sense to me".

Thankyou for your answer. You pretty much prove my case.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, NortonH said:

Thankyou for your answer. You pretty much prove my case.

If you try to use reason (not "logic") instead of your emotions first, you'll be better able to see that you're part of the cause of the very real problem you're observing.

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

If you try to use reason (not "logic") instead of your emotions first, you'll be better able to see that you're part of the cause of the very real problem you're observing.

OK. Thanks for that advice.

[Phi for All]

Just now, NortonH said:

OK. Thanks for that advice.

You're very welcome.

[NortonH]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're very welcome.

So on a completely unrelated matter, there is a thread i posted about energy and subsidies. I posed three little questions. For some reason nobody is able to give a simple straight answer. I suggest you take a look because it actually ties in with what I have written here. You will be amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid answering a simple question.

Have a look sometime. It is hilarious.

 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, NortonH said:

Has anyone noticed that as soon as science encroaches on an area touched by politics it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational debate?

Not really....More to the point is the observation that sometimes people/trolls/religious fanatics/those with delusions of grandeur etc, purposely come to a science forum [note science forum] with only one intention...to generally disrupt, or put some extreme political point and/or agenda, he or she happens to be into.

Quote

Instead of parties united in a common search for truth and a quest to separate fact from falsehood there is, instead, a mad scramble to avoid answering questions, evade questions with distractions and diversions, deliberate pretence to misunderstand, misinterpret and misrepresent etc.

At times, yes, I have noticed that, and generally from the crowd that come here for a distinct purpose other then mainstream science.

Quote

 

although it is a bit annoying I think it only reflects upon those who are obviously squirming and fools nobody. My solution is just to stick to cold calm logical progress and not to be too concerned about people trying to slow it down. A bit like hippies lying in front of a bulldozer, if they don't move with the flow they just get rolled over.

In short, I suggest that this is the best solution to the infection of politics into a scientific debate.

 

Hmmm, you seem somewhat dissatisfied. Why is that? I am actually a relative newbie, although I have been a member since 2013, I have only been active for less then a year. I find the questions, answers and scientific articles as quite refreshing, with of course the obligatory moderators. A necessary evil if you will.

If your emotions are due to some of your ideas and claims being rubbished, you must remember, that any scientific theory, including the overwhelmingly accepted ones like BB, GR. SR, and the theory of evolution, have all had to "run the gauntlet" so to speak. Ideas and hypotheticals are just that, and they must by necessity stand up to scrutiny, on forums such as this, and also by professional standards with publishing of papers and being professionally peer reviewed.

If you chose to reject that, or make up your own rules, definitions etc, and insist everyone else accepts your say so, then you are up shit creek...or pissing into the wind.

[NortonH]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

shit creek...or pissing

Thankyou for your answer. You pretty much prove my case.

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Thankyou for your answer. You pretty much prove my case.

No problems, although you still appear rather emotional about some non existing case. I hope I have helped in some small way. 

[Ten oz]

14 hours ago, NortonH said:

So on a completely unrelated matter, there is a thread i posted about energy and subsidies. I posed three little questions. For some reason nobody is able to give a simple straight answer. I suggest you take a look because it actually ties in with what I have written here. You will be amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid answering a simple question.

Have a look sometime. It is hilarious.

 

From the OP of the thread you reference:

"I am of the opinion that this is pure theatre and self delusion. If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes."

Your thread was about how you personnel feel about subsidizes and for some reason was in engineering. The thread doesn't seek to analyse the cost per watt of energy produced, environmental impacts, or future potential of different energy sources. Rather it is just a complaint about subsidizes. There is nothing scientific about it.  

[swansont]

16 hours ago, NortonH said:

So on a completely unrelated matter, there is a thread i posted about energy and subsidies. I posed three little questions. For some reason nobody is able to give a simple straight answer. I suggest you take a look because it actually ties in with what I have written here. You will be amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid answering a simple question.

Have a look sometime. It is hilarious.

!

Moderator Note

Stick to the topic you brought up in the OP.  And don't further derail this thread by responding to this modnote

 

[NortonH]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The thread doesn't seek to analyse the cost per watt of energy produced,

Energy is measured in joules. Watts is a measure of power. I am surprised that there were no 'physics' qualified mods to help you with that. Probably too busy looking to nit pick bad old Norton rather than help you with a basic scientific misunderstading. I hope I have been able to help you.

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

24 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Energy is measured in joules. Watts is a measure of power. I am surprised that there were no 'physics' qualified mods to help you with that. Probably too busy looking to nit pick bad old Norton rather than help you with a basic scientific misunderstading. I hope I have been able to help you.

 

!

Moderator Note

Stick to the topic, please. And while you're at it, go look up what a watt is.

Do not respond to this mod note within this thread. Any replies will be removed. 

 

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Energy is measured in joules. Watts is a measure of power. I am surprised that there were no 'physics' qualified mods to help you with that. Probably too busy looking to nit pick bad old Norton rather than help you with a basic scientific misunderstading. I hope I have been able to help you.

There may be a bit of confusion here as these measures are related to each other. It is rare to use joules to measure electricity consumption/production, as  compared to kWh (with is just a simple factor). I think that was Ten Oz alluding to. However, you can also relate cost to Watts though it typically is mostly only relevant to compare the cost efficiency of similar systems. E.g. to compare to a 2kW solar system to a 7kW one. 

 

Hmm crossposted with modpost. Sorry about that.

Edited March 1, 2018 by CharonY

[Shauno]

Seems a shame that this thread went nowhere. Politics <-> Science is one of most interesting topics around. But I don't believe that it is a simply case that many people don't want to believe in Science (that may be the case in a minority), it is more that people don't know what to believe. I'm an old guy so I've been around a lot and no longer believe public pronouncements, especially from the government - they have been wrong so many times. We had Scientific advisors (UK perspective) reassure us about things from Salmonella, MMR vaccine to Mad Cow Disease. The reality is their advice is tinged with commercial interest. And, yes, I am a Global Warming skeptic. Why? I briefly went into teaching after leaving University and in the late 1980 was teaching what the BBC stated was "settled science" - a tipping point will be reached soon, and we will have 5 degree of heating over the next 100 years. 30 years later and we are not 1.5 degree hotter. Richard Feynman famously said if the theory does match the facts, the theory is wrong (!), but we never revise our original forecast. (Clearly Global Warming is a topic in itself)

We may never convince the Creationist but I think we mindlessly accept Scientific pronouncements without analysis and assume that those who are skeptical are not a bright as us and should know better. There is a real chance that we could lose the battle in the long run. Look at the vaccine debate. Parents, including me, were not happy with the UK government response, which was about saving money (and arrogance). My wife got hold of some medical reviews of the literature and they followed children typically only for 28 days after vaccination, and would not IMHO necessarily picked up Autism, so we paid for single shots. I now have no doubt that there is no link, but the government response alienated many including me and may have a lasting effect on vaccine uptake.

So how do we make Science reporting better quality and more convincing? We can't rely on journalists who just want a good story, and newspapers are so polarised... and seemly becoming more so. Any ideas?  

 

[iNow]

I blame the audience. Most only pay attention to things that are salacious and outrageous. Science tends to be neither of those. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by iNow

[Strange]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Science tends to be neither of those. 

That means you are not doing it right!

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Shauno said:

Seems a shame that this thread went nowhere.

This thread was  initiated as a rage because other threads by the same member were closed down for a myriad of reasons, not the least being that the member was never prepared to accept any answer that interfered with his obvious blinkered agenda.

Quote

Politics <-> Science is one of most interesting topics around. But I don't believe that it is a simply case that many people don't want to believe in Science (that may be the case in a minority), it is more that people don't know what to believe. I'm an old guy so I've been around a lot and no longer believe public pronouncements, especially from the government - they have been wrong so many times. We had Scientific advisors (UK perspective) reassure us about things from Salmonella, MMR vaccine to Mad Cow Disease. The reality is their advice is tinged with commercial interest. And, yes, I am a Global Warming skeptic. Why? I briefly went into teaching after leaving University and in the late 1980 was teaching what the BBC stated was "settled science" - a tipping point will be reached soon, and we will have 5 degree of heating over the next 100 years. 30 years later and we are not 1.5 degree hotter. Richard Feynman famously said if the theory does match the facts, the theory is wrong (!), but we never revise our original forecast. (Clearly Global Warming is a topic in itself)

Science is a discipline in continued progress, based on newer, further, and more technological viable data as it comes to hand. That is its greatest attribute.

I'm not getting into the climate change debate here, other then to say at this time the evidence supports the view that we are contributing to climate change. 

 

Quote

We may never convince the Creationist but I think we mindlessly accept Scientific pronouncements without analysis and assume that those who are skeptical are not a bright as us and should know better.

I'm not sure if the initiator of this thread is a creationist or not, but it does seem so based on the evangelistic like crusade he appears to have been conducting. And again I believe your thinking is astray as for mildlessly accepting scientific pronouncements. And science is full of scepticism as is shown by its continued progress and modification and/or scrapping of theories as data demands, by those professional and learned in that particular discipline.

 

Quote

There is a real chance that we could lose the battle in the long run. Look at the vaccine debate. Parents, including me, were not happy with the UK government response, which was about saving money (and arrogance). My wife got hold of some medical reviews of the literature and they followed children typically only for 28 days after vaccination, and would not IMHO necessarily picked up Autism, so we paid for single shots. I now have no doubt that there is no link, but the government response alienated many including me and may have a lasting effect on vaccine uptake.

Vaccines have been overwhelmingly shown to protect humanity. The crazy anti Vaxers have little or no convincing evidence to show it harms us or does not protect, and if allowed to stubbornly reject the overall consensus of science on vaccines and ignore requests to have particularly their children vaccintated, are then a threat to the community in general. In Australia we have taken some harsh actions involving non vaccinated children not being allowed to kindergarten and school, and the parents derived rightly of any potential governement childcare welfare.

Quote

So how do we make Science reporting better quality and more convincing? We can't rely on journalists who just want a good story, and newspapers are so polarised... and seemly becoming more so. Any ideas?  

You read a story...you check out the scientific paper on the story's claim or discovery......you check on any opposing views/research/criticism. You make sure that criticism/research is from reputable scientists, not unsupported adhoc claims by any Tom, Dick or Harry with an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, on a public forum.

Edited March 20, 2018 by beecee

[Shauno]

I don't think people in general have the time or skills to consult scientific papers, or spend time researching a topic in depth. And "reputable" Scientists can make questionable pronouncements as well. Many of the government adviser just get it wrong. Yet another example: The government scientific advisor advised that we should all be driving diesels (to minimise green house gases), but 10 years later we find that the particulates are killing tens of thousands of people a year in the UK alone. And to be honest, even some of Hawking's later pronouncements were little more than speculation (e.g. 200 years to leave the earth).

I think we will slowly lose the battle for minds if we do not acknowledge to ourselves that Science reported in the media is less than perfect.

So how does the average person tell what is the truth? You certainly can't trust journalists.

Pop  science magazine circulation seems to be falling since you can go to Google instead. Perhaps a satirical magazine that poo-poos bad science?  Like the Science of Stupid but aimed at bad Science? But then perhaps that would just generate bad PR

Perhaps this is just an intractable problem?

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Shauno

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, Shauno said:

I think we will slowly lose the battle for minds if we do not acknowledge to ourselves that Science reported in the media is less than perfect.

Somehow, the media (even science writers) need to do a better job of explaining that science is work in progress; it is a process rather than knowledge. So when we learn more, conclusions change. 

So, yes, it was thought (based on the evidence at the time) that diesels were a better choice (lower carbon emissions) but then the harm caused by particulates was better understood so now we have better advice.

Similarly, some newspapers (and hate-filled rags like the Daily Mail) complain that science keeps changing its mind on diet. But if those newspapers didn't take such a binary approach in the first place ("some evidence suggest that a diet too high in animal fats may contribute to heart disease in some individuals" = "AVOID ALL FAT!!!! EAT SUGAR!!!1!") then they wouldn't create the problem when the scientific conclusions change slightly ("further study suggests that animal fats alone may not cause quite as much harm as thought" = "SCIENTISTS WRONG!!! EAT NOTHING BUT FAT!!!")

Ditto shoddy reporting of climate science ("15 degree rise predicted in next 10 years!!! Disaster! Death! War!") but ignoring how accurately the observed climate change matches the models.  (This is a difficult one because, for incomprehensible reasons, it has become a political debate in the press, not a scientific one.)

Some reporters go too far in trying to be fair (yes, BBC, I'm looking at you) by having a scientist who has spent their career studying the subject presenting the evidence with suitable caution on one "side" and an ignorant, rabid ex-politician with no relevant qualifications to rant about the opposite view ("I don't care about the evidence, it's obviously dangerous" - actual quote).

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, Shauno said:

You certainly can't trust journalists.

This type of generalization is nonsense, and is definitely not certain. We’re all human first and everyone makes mistakes, but to suggest that no journalist can be trusted (even provisionally) suggests you’re also probably running around your house wearing a tinfoil hat right now. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

This type of generalization is nonsense, and is definitely not certain. We’re all human first and everyone makes mistakes, but to suggest that no journalist can be trusted (even provisionally) suggests you’re also probably running around your house wearing a tinfoil hat right now. 

Even the Daily Mail occasionally gets things right (even if only by chance or because of the stopped clock effect).

58 minutes ago, Shauno said:

And to be honest, even some of Hawking's later pronouncements were little more than speculation (e.g. 200 years to leave the earth).

You need to distinguish between science and opinion.  Even scientists can be wrong.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Strange

[Raider5678]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I blame the audience. Most only pay attention to things that are salacious and outrageous. Science tends to be neither of those. 

Is there any field of science that is outrageously fascinating?

Cough outer cough cough space cough.

 

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Shauno said:

Seems a shame that this thread went nowhere. Politics <-> Science is one of most interesting topics around. But I don't believe that it is a simply case that many people don't want to believe in Science (that may be the case in a minority),

They are a vocal minority, and some of them are single-isue voters. (or bundled with other issues that have all been aligned, e.g. abortion, owing to religious fundamentalism ideology)

11 hours ago, Shauno said:

it is more that people don't know what to believe. I'm an old guy so I've been around a lot and no longer believe public pronouncements, especially from the government - they have been wrong so many times. We had Scientific advisors (UK perspective) reassure us about things from Salmonella, MMR vaccine to Mad Cow Disease.

But that's government, not science, telling you this. I'd be interested to know what you think was wrong with the scientific consensus on these topics.  MMR, for example, was purported to cause autism by someone who committed fraud. The bulk of the scientific community rebuffed this. What was wrong about that?

11 hours ago, Shauno said:

The reality is their advice is tinged with commercial interest. And, yes, I am a Global Warming skeptic. Why? I briefly went into teaching after leaving University and in the late 1980 was teaching what the BBC stated was "settled science"

Why was the BBC your source of information? 

11 hours ago, Shauno said:

 We may never convince the Creationist but I think we mindlessly accept Scientific pronouncements without analysis and assume that those who are skeptical are not a bright as us and should know better. There is a real chance that we could lose the battle in the long run. Look at the vaccine debate. Parents, including me, were not happy with the UK government response, which was about saving money (and arrogance). My wife got hold of some medical reviews of the literature and they followed children typically only for 28 days after vaccination, and would not IMHO necessarily picked up Autism, so we paid for single shots. I now have no doubt that there is no link, but the government response alienated many including me and may have a lasting effect on vaccine uptake.

I don't know what the UK government's response was, but again that's government, not science.