Science - the dirty word in America?

[Pabmusic]

I found this an excellent article on the tragic position of science in America - beaten down by religion and post-modernist philosophy:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy&page=6

[rauschwerk]

It seems that one must shell out some dosh in order to read this. Is that right?

[umslopogaas]

Rauschwerk, no, I initially thought that too, but in fact the full article is available by clicking on "Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardise US Democracy" in the box on the right titled Latest News. It runs to six pages, but I only got up to page three before my computer seized up. Will try again and report back later.

[Pabmusic]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise there were problems. Here's a link to the article through another website - it certainly works:

http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/10/17/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-u-s-democracy

[Frances_iom]

the Scientific American is fine just turn off Javascript + images - they try to push too many adverts (tho if you are now a regular listener to BBC radio you know they are not alone) - yet another once respected organisation is sliding down hill fast.

[DracoM]

I found this an excellent article on the tragic position of science in America - beaten down by religion and post-modernist philosophy:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mocracy&page=6

Terrifying, isn't it? One of the world's most powerful nations mired in such stuff like some tribe gazing at the heavens to name the star clusters from 6000 or so years ago, yet possessed of WMDs and the wherewithal to deliver them.

[John Shelton]

I found this an excellent article on the tragic position of science in America - beaten down by religion and post-modernist philosophy:

No argument with the remarks about anti-scientific irrationalism, but the stuff about so-called post-modernist philosophy is hopelessly thin and uninformative (and non-specific. And obviously uninformed). I'm not sure what post-modernist philosophy is taken to mean in the article, and I'm not defending a post-modernist position (I can think of post-modernist positions I'd criticise, but don't see any reference to them in the article). I've never read a philosopher who claims that science is just one way among many of equal validity of representing scientific reality (Feyerabend doesn't say that). I have read philosophical accounts of scientific discourse and the will-to-truth which relativise not scientific claims (in other words, they don't claim creation myths are as valid as evolution) but the discursive, political and social character of scientific discourse (in which context it's worth pointing to the way the article treats as political a writer as Locke's influence, the theorist of property, on Jefferson as simply a matter of neutral concern for fact and evidence).

How post-modern treating scientific discourse or language as non-transparent is I doubt. Hegel does it, Wittgenstein moves towards (at least) such a treatment. In Foucault's work on madness a reductive version of his arguments has certainly been possible, but there's no doubt that the medicalisation / making scientific of madness has a dimension which spreads beyond the purely therapeutic and there's also no doubt that there are issues to do with the ignoring of environment in the chemical treatment of, say, depression which are 'more than' simply medical.

This is typed in a rush on a laptap so isn't as clear or elegant as I'd like. I'll probably be told I'm being (a) superior or am talking (b) obscurantist piffle, such seems to be the way of this forum, so I'll leave it at that.

[amateur51]

Many thanks for the alert Pabs, and for the additional link which certainly worked for me.

I'd like to believe that the situation in UK was completely different but I'm not sure any longer, not least because press/TV/radio coverage of science is so poor and sensationalist. Also there is no longer certainty that fake-science like Intelligent Design isn't being taught and there is a dearth of students taking physics at foundation and advanced levels.

I wonder what the status of science is in other European countries

[amateur51]

No argument with the remarks about anti-scientific irrationalism, but the stuff about so-called post-modernist philosophy is hopelessly thin and uninformative (and non-specific. And obviously uninformed). I'm not sure what post-modernist philosophy is taken to mean in the article, and I'm not defending a post-modernist position (I can think of post-modernist positions I'd criticise, but don't see any reference to them in the article). I've never read a philosopher who claims that science is just one way of representing reality (Feyerabend doesn't say that). I have read philosophical accounts of scientific discourse and the will-to-truth which relativise not scientific claims (in other words, they don't claim creation myths are as valid as evolution) but the discursive, political and social character of scientific discourse (in which context it's worth pointing to the way the article treats as political a writer as Locke's influence, the theorist of property, on Jefferson as simply a matter of neutral concern for fact and evidence).

How post-modern treating scientific discourse or language as non-transparent is I doubt. Hegel does it, Wittgenstein moves towards (at least) such a treatment. In Foucault's work on madness a reductive treatment of his arguments has certainly been possible, but there's no doubt that the medicalisation / making scientific of madness has a dimension which spreads beyond the purely therapeutic and there's also no doubt that there are issues to do with the ignoring of environment in the chemical treatment of, say, depression which are 'more than' simply medical.

This is typed in a rush on a laptap so isn't as clear or elegant as I'd like. I'll probably be told I'm being (a) superior or am talking (b) obscurantist piffle, such seems to be the way of forum, so I'll leave it at that.

Great to see you back & posting, Hey Nonymous! - you had me disappointed and worried by your mass message deletion the other day. Good to see you back and on stonking form

[Simon]

I found this an excellent article on the tragic position of science in America - beaten down by religion and post-modernist philosophy:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mocracy&page=6

S A is one of the magazines that is often worth picking up at an airport if you've got a journey ahead. But of course it has an agenda, as do they all.

I'm not surprised that the less discriminating amongst us will have swallowed it all whole, but whilst some of the comments are valid enough, the attempt to link the preservation of "democracy" (= "good") with a wholesale acceptance of everything that "science" (also = "good") wants to promote, is clearly built on sand as any open-minded reader can see. The fact that it's also so obviously driven by the atheist agenda (see the dawkins link) is neither here nor there.

In an age when science influences every aspect of life ... and in a time when democracy has become the dominant form of government on the planet, it is important that the voters push elected officials and candidates of all parties to explicitly state their views on the major science questions facing the nation. By elevating these issues in the public dialogue, U.S. citizens gain a fighting chance of learning whether those who would lead them have the education, wisdom and courage necessary to govern in a science-driven century and to preserve democracy for the next generation.

The facile suggestion that only those who accept the "scientific" viewpoint have the necessary education, wisdom and courage to govern is so crass as to be hilarious. It's one of those times when you wish you were a journalist with a national column. What fun you could have ripping such idiocy to pieces!

[french frank]

The facile suggestion that only those who accept the "scientific" viewpoint have the necessary education, wisdom and courage to govern is so crass as to be hilarious.

I'm not sure what the quotation marks are supposed to mean, but the implication that "science" is merely about viewpoint (or belief) seems off-beam. To claim that an understanding of science is a prerequisite for determining policy and setting political goals in many areas seems to me to be uncontroversial.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

oh i think that is special pleading ... and reader recruitment

America is the world's centre of excellence for most sciences and close to, if not, the best in the rest

to say "America is ...." is always to utter a contradiction, it is a vast and complex place ....

the attitudes to science likely reflect the political attitudes and media habits of middle America, to claim they are against something they are ignorant of is also a tad suspect as an argument ...

[amateur51]

The facile suggestion that only those who accept the "scientific" viewpoint have the necessary education, wisdom and courage to govern is so crass as to be hilarious. It's one of those times when you wish you were a journalist with a national column. What fun you could have ripping such idiocy to pieces!

Oh please Simon, be my guest - regard this as your national column. Have a ripping good time.

Your readership is waiting with bated breath for your insights and trenchant argument

[handsomefortune]

oh i think that is special pleading ... and reader recruitment

America is the world's centre of excellence for most sciences and close to, if not, the best in the rest

to say "America is ...." is always to utter a contradiction, it is a vast and complex place ....

the attitudes to science likely reflect the political attitudes and media habits of middle America, to claim they are against something they are ignorant of is also a tad suspect as an argument ...

definitely agree with you on the reader recruitment angle calum da jazbo, (and the generalisations). but particularly agree as regards 'the political attitudes and media habits of middle America', perhaps it's the media, especially, and politicians themselves who need to step up the game in influencing and controlling media in order to promote the positive aspects of science....in particular what science is to blame for...and what it's not. a sort of 'leveson inquiry' on scientific journalism would be just the ticket - rather than making worthless generalisations about post modernism .....in conjunction with the tea party.

perhaps unraveling what science is not to blame for, means naming names etc and few are powerful enough or dare risk it. it is litigation litigation litigation that's the problem, which isn't a science, (or a philosophy) and arguably has no principles whatsoever.

personally, i think people probably are rejecting 20th c concepts and objectives of democracy, politics, the arts, and the sciences as though this shields them from acute unfairness ....which it does to an extent temporarily. but it is a dangerous strategy in the long term and plays into the wrong hands.

arguably, the article seems to be all about power, and the specific traites of it....rather than post modernism, the tea party, or science? if you can even read it, due to 'the science of marketing pop up adverts' all over the surface of the page....ironically.

hey nonymous's post was interesting i thought too, i hope he/she writes more on this thread, when there's sufficient time available.