Science under attack

[strongmanmike]

Saw this advertised for Tomorrow night 8.30pm (Tues 9 Aug) on SBS TV and thought it might be of interest to some IIS'ers :thumbsup:

"Science under attack"

Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS. He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS. (From the UK) (Documentary) G CC

[supernova1965]

I will be watching this Mike and just quietly science is under attack in a big way every where you look including here on this forum which is sad as our hobby is science based and it isnt being done justice in my opinion.

I would have thought on an astronomy forum science would rule instead we are having arguments on ideology and beliefs instead of facts. Its time to let the facts speak up.:thumbsup:

[renormalised]

When did anyone ever let the facts get in the way of the truth??

One man's facts are another man's fallacies.

Facts only become truths when everyone can see their inevitability.

Science has come under attack because it has failed to offer the average person any comfort in inevitability. However, it has also been horribly misrepresented by those people who have a vested interest in it....the scientists. We are not paragons of all knowledge, nor are we custodians of the arcane. We are not high priests either, but to see how many scientists react to criticism and the way they conduct themselves, you'd think otherwise. Although, the people have to carry the can as well. They are just as guilty of expecting too much from scientists and putting them into the positions of "high priests". Science has become a religion in many respects, which is something it was never meant to be. When a religion fails to sate the concerns of the average person, it becomes abandoned or ignored. That's what's happening to science. It's been put in a position it should never have, nor has any business to have, occupied.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

I believe this attitude stems from many decades ago when "scientists" assured us that smoking was OK, that DDT was OK, CFCs were safe and numerous other instances of products, materials, chemicals etc, that were patently NOT safe, being passed by the 'boffins'.
Then the opposite happened - EVERYTHING was bad, from the perfectly benign preservatives in your tinned spaghetti to, of all things EGGS!
Eggs for god sake!
I've never heard of anyone dying from eating an egg.

My faith in 'Science' has been very much eroded by having worked in the scientific community!
Jealousies and rivalries are rife. Results are regularly skewed if not out-right fabricated and replicable experimental outcomes have been replaced by "estimates" and "models" that have dubious predictive value and are based on specious reasoning and logical fallacies, Unfortunately, these are touted as substantive and inarguable, particularly if they reflect public prejudice.

While my degree is in economics, a fair amount of that 'dismal science' is statistical analysis and I know 'good' stats from 'bad'.
Much of the analysis and modelling coming from universities and institutes (government and non) is so badly flawed from the word 'go' that it is effectively useless.
Yet, as it panders to political and popular prejudices it is given the legitimacy of numbers - the more people that say its true, the truer it must be!
The climate-change industry is particularly bad for this. A chap on the radio the other day avowed that if 99 scientists agreed on an issue and one disagreed, he could legitimately thought insane!!
Lister? Gallileo?

Another cause for deteriorating faith in science is that so defensive are scientists of their theories and careers, that even in the face of contrary evidence (string theory?!) they would rather deny the truth themselves than admit to error.
The strident posturing visible in almost all scientific disciplines filters out to the great unread through a facile media who's sole function is to retain viewers.
The more disastrous the prediction - the more highly its defended -the better the story.

There will, alas, always be villagers with pitchforks who, despite all hard evidence, will reject anything that challenges their prejudices.
I suspect that this is the faction on which the program will focus.
But there is, I think, a larger body of people who have, with justification, been questioning the validity of much scientific research and the motives of the people who carry it out.

Aren't we all supposed to have fried to crisp by now because of the hole in the ozone layer?

[supernova1965]

I believe that if results are skewed it is because of ideology it might not be the ideology of the scientist's themselves but it is their greed in accepting payment from people who bribe scientist's to get the result that best suits them that is what is wrong with science not science itself.

About being fried to a crisp due to the hole in the ozone layer governments around the world listened to the scientists and did something reducing the CFC's that caused the hole and it was closed disaster averted why can't we put the same faith in the science to deal with the current climate problems I will say it is ideology getting in the way of doing what is in our best interests.

[sally1jack]

I can agree with alot of what is said here , but this is not just happening in science it's the norm to put the benifit of one self before the benifit of others which has the potential to lead to corruption & the break down of trust in society.
Trust has been eroded to the point that there is fierce debate for virtually everything in our world that is pushed by people with an agenda to see thing go in there favour.
The big problem as i see it is if science & the trust in science is eroded to the point where it's somewhat ignored due to the continual debate of its validity by people with their own agenda's , then we as a planet are in trouble as we will need science for our long term survival as we come across some massive problems, like global warming, safe energy production , & the big one that people don't seem to talk about OVER POPULATION & FAMINE :eyepop:.
we need to promote integrity & honesty & teach it to our children
phil

[strongmanmike]

All good discussion... but it may be more useful and on-topic after the SBS show..? :question:
Mike

[Baddad]

Hi Mike,:)

One of the basic needs of humans is to satisfy the question "Why is it so?"
Depending on the quantity of knowledge a person has will be a factor in determining the complexity of the explanation that they require.

Astronomers and people involved in sciences often have an enquiring mind. It leads to aquiring a wealth of knowledge. If the question was raised, "why does the moon not fly away into space?" To many people the explanation that it is gravity that holds the moon in orbit is usually sufficient.
To others, we may ask "What the heck is this gravity thing?" And the questions continue.

JJJ made a good point. "Interferes with TV viewing". Their level of understanding requires only small explanations to satisfy their valency for knowledge. They are then released to pursue mind numbing interests.

"Ignorance is bliss"

We reach now to my point. People have varying degrees of knowledge. The kind of decision or opinion that a person makes heavily relies on the information they have on hand in the grey matter.

I have observed that most people do not have a wealth of knowledge to make well informed opinions or decisions.

Its all too easy to fob off an issue if it disagrees with them or more importantly that they don't understand it.
Hence some become critical of the scientists. They ridicule them with the arguement that they do not know what they are doing. What complicates the issue is the alarmist strategies the media employs to gain an audience. Also the media adjusts information to be directed to the couch potatoes. Little fact content and loads of incredulism attracts an audience.

Never argue with a fool. He will degrade the discussion down to his level and beat you with experience.

Cheers

[Dujon]

Science has always been, and hopefully always will be, under 'attack'. Surely that's the way it should be?

Ignoring internecine squabbling for the moment, every hypothesis, theory and discovery should be put under the microscope of peer review and analysed to the point of destruction if necessary. All experimental results need to be replicated and all observations verified.

To the best of my knowledge Science has always said something along the lines of "We are always open to correction". To any scientist who sits, like a shag on a rock, flapping around a favourite subject I would suggest the spreading of the dried wings and going out to prove that your little pet is real and deserves consideration.

I was going to go on about scientists being their own worst enemy when it comes to media coverage; but I won't.

[supernova1965]

I agree except to say science is under attack by people who only want to defeat the other side they are not interested in whether it is true or not they only want to do anything to benifit themselves short term. I am all for peer review but this attack is not coming from scientists it is coming from political agenda's. And I am not surprised that scientists don't handle the media well most scientists don't have a lot of time for dealing with people it is not what they are good at they are good at science.

[Barrykgerdes]

The trouble with "science" these days is not the true science of discovery, testing and proving.

It is that all the current scientific theories are based on statistics put forward to support an argument for or against someone's personal agenda.

Anyone that has dealt with statistics will know that by being selective you can "prove" anything you like. If they were as reliable as proponents say then "bookies" would be out of business.

Barry

[AndrewJ]

Where is Hober Mallow when you need him.?????

Andrew

[wavelandscott]

Luckily the children's show Sesame Street is going to start having more emphasis on math and science so we will all be saved!

[TrevorW]

$$$$$

[xelasnave]

Arrogance and hypocracy if perceived cause folk to lose faith.
Reality is only a perception humans manufacture and their perception can be flawed or manipulated...

If science is having a problem I suggest it is vested interests who are responsible for the manipulation of the publics perception.

One particular scientific debate having spilled over into politics means that scientists become mere pawns in a much bigger game...

The politics leave scientists in a most difficult position...

Their evidence and reports are presented by politicians with an arrogance of infalibility which I doubt any true scientist would claim...those against react to the arrogance of the presentation which appears as a rejection of the science in total...

Then the hypocracy... politicians see problems as opportunity for votes rather than actually providing a fix... the hypocracy (on both sides)surrounding the management of the percieved climate problem by politics is clear... but finally it all comes back to the poor scientist who simply did his job ..researched etc... so incorrectly the science is seen as hypocritical rather than the politics.

On the positive real science can take examination and review ..emotion is irrelevent ..

AND why is this show on anyways... one side or the other has caused it to be so... we will come away with a perception of reality created by the producers of this show... it will be interesting to see if they are grinding anyones axe in particular...

Will it change minds..I doubt it..each side will select the parts suitable to their current stand.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

We live in an age where it appears that having an opinion is more important than having an informed view. Empowering information technologies, where everyone is on equal footing such as the internet, (and messaging boards), offer a breeding ground for strengthening one’s preconceived opinions, (and resolve), which are usually rooted in philosophical beliefs from the past.

As a species, I feel we are approaching a phase of awakening when it comes to the reality about the tools of science. The last generation looked to science as a way of reinforcing the need for stability, coming from a deterministic world view. Everything in the universe, as reported by science, was no more than a chain of events following one after another according to the ‘law’ of cause and effect. Our education system also reinforces this view.

The ‘awakening phase’ has burst this bubble .. there is anger and disbelief. Trust has somehow been broken .. with the root cause being misperceptions about what science can, and cannot, achieve.

I see it everywhere, and I hope this aspect is examined in this doco.

Thanks for the heads-up, Mike .. Looks very interesting.

Cheers

[KenGee]

Oh come on really ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
The war on science is led by the far left and the far right, and their foot soldiers are the ingnorant. What makes your comments even sader is your an economist.

[strongmanmike]

Good show

So we have to add The Royal Society (http://royalsociety.org/) and NASA to the conspiracy now.

Their full report summary (http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/) on the evidence for Human induced climate change, concludes:

"There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are
likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems"

and finally viva Gillard!

"Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in
the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were
substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would
make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts
of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well
established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate
projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this
complex and challenging area."

I mean fair shake of the sauce bottle guys this is the society of Newton, Darwin, Herschel and Stephen Hawking - how much more convincing do you need?

Come'on Bolt, Jones and Abbott et al tell us more about your weightless, colourless, oderless and tasteless gas....

Will you just READ the above summary for F'sake! it isn't that long :screwy:

If it wasn't so sad I'd laugh :rofl:

[OICURMT]

Cue the 2012 end of the world believers... ;)

[strongmanmike]

It is very clear that anyone still doubting the science and consensus on climate change and our significant hand in it is just being obstinate and unyielding for the sake of..?..well I dunno :shrug:

Or perhaps they don't have the intellect and powers of scientific reasoning they thought they had...?

[Brundah1]

Peter wrote:

Then the opposite happened - EVERYTHING was bad, from the perfectly benign preservatives in your tinned spaghetti to, of all things EGGS!
Eggs for god sake!
I've never heard of anyone dying from eating an egg.

Well Peter now you have!

Our youngest grandchild was rushed to hospital with a severe reaction to egg. She has been diagnosed as strongly allergic to egg, her parents and my wife now all have "pens" in case she accidentally consumes egg.

No intention to highjack this thread into a debate on children's diet problems and increasing allergies.


Alex wrote;

Then the hypocracy... politicians see problems as opportunity for votes rather than actually providing a fix... the hypocracy (on both sides)surrounding the management of the percieved climate problem by politics is clear... but finally it all comes back to the poor scientist who simply did his job ..researched etc... so incorrectly the science is seen as hypocritical rather than the politics.

On the positive real science can take examination and review ..emotion is irrelevent ..

AND why is this show on anyways... one side or the other has caused it to be so... we will come away with a perception of reality created by the producers of this show... it will be interesting to see if they are grinding anyones axe in particular...

Will it change minds..I doubt it..each side will select the parts suitable to their current stand.

alex

Well put Alex.



Otherwise some thoughtful comments expressed. Science has always progressed because inquiring minds challenged the status quo.

I agree that statistics dressed up as new scientific facts, should be taken for what they are.

David ;)

[netwolf]

First of all lets remove the words Truth and Faith from the sphere of Science. Science is neither a vehichle for finding truth nor is it a faith. Scince is an evolving understanding of the world around us. It evolves with the human element. The strong theories prevail and week fall to the side.

The scientific method is about proposing theories and testing those theories by observation and amending them to fit what we observe to draw conclusssions. These conclussions are not truth, because they rely on human observation and limits that go with that. But with the Scintific method it is a given that the theories will change with time, as we observe more and our understanding grows. It will provide a better model to approximate the evolving truth at that point in time.

However as I said before the limiting factor is the human element. That is unavoidable. There are vices and virtues to human nature. Unfortunately therfore the strong theories may not neccesarly be the best. Because one must consider, what are the influnce's behind the theory. For example Newtons particle theory ruled for 100 years simply because he was British, he was better known etc etc. Even when Einstien proposed relativity the British scientific community did not want him to be right simply because he was German. And we all know how that turned out.

The problem today is weeding out the best is more complex. Because we must also examine what is the agenda behind the theory. While this may seem paranoid, it is nevertheless true. This is the perhaps the only truth. The human element is influcned by factors outside the scientific method. Those can be political, captilist, religious etc etc. But they are there. And even if the theory is complelty without the above bias, some one will no doubt claim there is.

In the world today we have agendas set to drive profits. Can we really say the outcome of this will be truth? or even a close aproxmiation of the truth? Do you think big pharmcuiticals want you to know the truth? or chose there medicine?

The problem today is in being able to see that Bias. It is not simply about remvoing the dark frames from the light, we need Bias and Flat frame removal too ;)

Science has been turned on itself to serve the influential. As such it is inevtiable that people will turn away from the theories. But I dont think people will ever turn away from the endevou of Science. This is the virutous side of the human element, that which is better will eventually surface and carry forward. We just need to be perecevere and be paitent. Keep putting forward new and invoitaive theories and keep chalenging that evolving understanding. That will not change and that is the Scientific method. Indeed the very exisitnace of this thread is proof of that.

[rat156]

A couple of semantic points here.

Firstly you, and a lot of others in the wider community, have their theories and hypotheses mixed up. What you have described in the first part of your post is a hypothesis. It is largely unknown as to it's relation to fact, but is usually under some sort of experimental testing. A theory on the other hand is a hypothesis that has undergone extensive testing and still fits the observable results, not fact, but accepted as so until contrary evidence comes to light.

Your post also touches on the perception that Science is untrustworthy, hey, it's even implied in the thread title. I think that the show on SBS exposed this as a myth, usually trotted out by someone with a vested interest in saying so. If you read the published, peer reviewed, literature from reputable journals then you get no bias. Large pharmaceutical companies do what every other company does, they look for the most lucrative target, not the one that will save the most lives, why are they criticised for this when every other company does the same thing? Most of us would be dead if it wasn't for the research undertaken by large Pharmaceutical companies, so give them some credit.

The show also exposed the bloke who broke "climategate" for the fraud he is. Unresearched, online "journalist" who took a couple of words out of context, never asked the person for a reasonable explanation, and is now on the lecture circuit peddling his trash. Do you think he's going to admit that it was all mountain out of molehill stuff? Who has the vested interest in this case? Perhaps if he was as scrupulous about HIS research as the scientist then there would be no such thing as "climategate".

An excellent show, showing that the climate change denialists are underinformed. I have to agree with Mike on this one. I didn't always, but have been swayed by the overwhelming evidence. Also I trust NASA and the Royal Society.

Hence the 3kW on the roof.

Next weeks show on at the same time looks good as well, might tell me whether the 3kW is worth it?

Thanks SBS.

Cheers
Stuart

[supernova1965]

Really when it comes down to the nut of the argument I couldn't care whether it is human caused or not (I believe it is human induced) but it is happening and we have to deal with it the argument as to if it is human caused or not is just a way to gain power for the climate change deniers.

[supernova1965]

I was just watching the recording of the program and the bit where the Climategate reporter was being interviewed and the analogy to cancer and the concensus view was put to him he looked completely befuddled and didn't want to or couldn't argue it so asked to only talk about climategate hardly a reliable position when you can't respond to a sensible argument.

[multiweb]

:rofl:Or maybe they do have the brains to question some of the things they're told on today blatant TV propaganda. ;)

[CraigS]

The question was fairly biased though .. if one chooses to believe that Climate Change is lethal, then adopting recommended correctives measures would seem reasonable.
If on the other hand, one chooses to not believe that Climate Change is lethal, then the corrective measures would seem irrelevant.

This comment is more a reflection on the impartiality (or otherwise), of the documentary .. more than the issue at hand, mind you. Clearly the documentary was never really intended to present a completely impartial view ...

Cheers

[strongmanmike]

So, The Royal Society partakes in propoganda..? Sorry but on this issue, you clearly need another eye Marc :shrug:

[supernova1965]

If you think that climate change is not lethal then why don't you move to one of these five nations under immediate threat right now.



And the above nations will need somewhere to go or die so that causes more problems with refugees another hot topic doing the rounds

[TrevorW]

Regardless of what science says by my own observation what I believe is that both man and nature play a part in climate change

whatever man does to lessen his impact on the environment can only be good to both man and nature in the long run,

nature was here a long time before us it's timetable long established, so we should try and not disrupt the natural course of events

However in saying that as long we are driven by the pursuit of the almighty $$$ IMO little will be done to resolve this

[xelasnave]

I enjoyed the show:thumbsup:.

Seeing the books in the library did it for me... they could have been dealing with any subject matter but the prospect of touching Newton;s book made me feel warm and fuzzy:).

I think we have a clue that points to problems of scientists communicating valid ideas in a "non scientific" and presumably a non frightening way.(GM example).

I am still unconvinced a tax will have any impact on behaviour. That is a political view point and it doesnot matter for me who presents it as a solution..if Libs were in they would be grabbing at a tax also I suspect.

I spent 3 hours on Sunday whatching the car races,the truck races and the drag races...did you know a top fuel dragster uses 3inch fuel line to burn 60 litres of fuel for a 4.5 second race?
It seems odd that we will tolerate a tax which wont change this wasteful behaviour...Tax wont change those who want to use cars, trucks boats or planes as toys...

If we are smart enough to determine we have a major problem why is it we are not smart enough to take affirmative action that produces real change in behaviour. I feel my personal effort to maintain a 200 acre forest and live with only a solar panel for power is taken away in one run of a top fueler dragster.

If we subscribe to the arguement that we can set an example for others to follow cant we come up with something better than a consumption tax.

Further the debit/credit approach to carbon simply suggests to me that you can do what you like just pay for it..or off set it...if we are in crisis the goal must be reduction not a shuffling of credits tax etc to achieve a token result.

If the problem is as serious as presented tuff action is called for.

After the second world war goods were rationed to meet a problem less than the one we are told we will face because of climate change.

I think there is a consensus that the planet will warm more..the arguement as to what is responsible is somewhat irrellevant ...because if man induced a consumption tax or trading in carbon credits wont see the reduction needed to achieve change... it is the moving the deck chairs on the sinking ship approach.

One small point I do think calling anyone a "denier" is a terrible thing to do ...no one deserves the implication that they are in the same boat as those who deny you know what...the word should be confined to that aspect of history out of respect....it is a cruel and uncalled for insult that decency should cause you to abandon the use of the term. Its use is unhelpful to meaningful debate which will benefit from not resorting to emotional name calling.

This is a rush job please excuse my poor spelling etc.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Not a particularly good example of freedom of choice there, Warren.

A choice is made for no reasons .. freedom of being driven by thoughts or concerns from anywhere, or anything, thus demonstrating no bias. Moving to one of those places for reasons of not thinking climate change to be lethal, would not be an example of choice.

It would be an example of a decision.

A decision is made for reasons ..out of concerns and considerations coming from anywhere or anything, thus an active demonstration of one's bias.

Bias was an unashamed, yet invisible point behind this documentary .. which is OK .. just notice that, is all I'm saying.

Cheers

[supernova1965]

Well the government tried to do more than this but the opposition changed leader and sanity went with the old leader.

And as to calling people deniers and they are denying that it is real. I think that is much less offensive than calling people communist and commrade which seems to be the norm for people against what the government is doing

[supernova1965]

The people on those islands don't have the freedom of choice you are talking about their land is disappearing where is their choice:shrug: which is what I am trying to demonstrate the world is taking these peoples choices away and will then try to refuse them refugee status when they have nowhere to go.

[CraigS]

Yet another point … just not the point I was making.

Cheers

[supernova1965]

I was asking you to put yourself in these peoples place and try to look at the problem from their viewpoint only then can you say you have looked at all sides of the debate. To them Global warming is lethal if they stay where they are and possibly lethal if they try to escape to somewhere else

[xelasnave]

Hi there Supernova........you said....

And as to calling people deniers and they are denying that it is real. I think that is much less offensive than calling people communist and commrade which seems to be the norm for people against what the government is doing

I have stated my view on name calling you have stated yours I dont think we need argue about degrees of offensiveness ...name calling is offensive and just because your opponent uses such base tactics there is no need to lower ones self... no matter how you feel about the matter one should give respect to others irrespective of their position and avoiding name calling is a great place to start.

I have enjoyed reading your comments and the others here.

alex

[CraigS]

They too, have been exposed to the same presentation biases, as us.
They too, have beliefs shaped by those biases.

Cheers

[supernova1965]

Their beliefs are shaped by the water washing over their homes and land not by what is in the media:confused2:

[CraigS]

Their beliefs have been shaped by presentation of the causes and predictions into the future.
(Amongst many other beliefs).

Cheers