View Full Version : The March for Science
How do you make a movement out of a method? Why not a March for Double Entry Bookkeeping? I'll bet that would inspire the masses to make this a better world.
It's sad that enough people reject the method, or at least the results that method comes up with, to make the attempt to create such a movement necessary.
ToomuchStuff
4-21-17, 9:55am
What march?
https://www.marchforscience.com/
https://www.marchforscience.com/
Is this really a "celebration of science" or just the usual suspects marching under a different flag? I have to admit that I'm as suspicious of people claiming to speak for "science" or "truth" in political discourse as I am of those claiming to speak for God.
How do you make a movement out of a method? Why not a March for Double Entry Bookkeeping? I'll bet that would inspire the masses to make this a better world.
Censor it. Vilify it. Cut funding for it. Push "alternative facts" as a viable method.
There won't be a "march" per se here in Boston (it will just be on the Commons, but many groups coming are having their own marches).
Censor it. Vilify it. Cut funding for it. Push "alternative facts" as a viable method.
.
Push for non-scientific ideas like creationism to be taught in science classes.
Push for non-scientific ideas like creationism to be taught in science classes.
I realize stupid things like that happen in some times and places, but does establishing "Science" as yet another victim group really advance its cause?
I realize stupid things like that happen in some times and places, but does establishing "Science" as yet another victim group really advance its cause?
Is there a different solution to that problem that you think would be more effective?
If nobody supports science in whatever way works best for them, people in power feel free to dismiss scientific findings as "fake news" and continue with bu$ine$$ as usual. If they know we care and are watching their actions--at least they'll be more circumspect, I guess. I don't always agree with (especially industry-supported) science, because money often leads to corruption, but it's the best tool we have, and a day to celebrate it is more than justified, in my view.
ToomuchStuff
4-21-17, 11:50pm
Is there a different solution to that problem that you think would be more effective?
If I don't be part of the solution, am I part of the precipitate?
Science is based on reason, through experimentation and observing. Too many people just want to be all emotional, open their mouths, while closing their eyes, ears and brains.
If I don't be part of the solution, am I part of the precipitate?
I supppose I could settle for that. After all, it does seem like a solid choice.
Chicken lady
4-22-17, 9:29am
Sure too much stuff - drop out.
do you have any idea how many american high school seniors won't know why this line is supposed to be funny?
My future daughter in law was working as a special Ed aid in Wisconsin. One of the things she loved about it was that she got to learn about evolution and help with dissections. Two things she had never been exposed to having grown up in a poor school district in rural Ohio and then majored in English.
i distinctly remember my dd coming home horrified that her honors biology teacher had responded to a question about evolution by saying "it's an interesting theory." Health classes are a little weak on the birth control too. My other Dd's best friend is pregnant because her doctor didn't realize that he would need to explain to her that starting a completely different hormonal birth control was not the same as continuing the current one. No one every really told her what hormones are or how they work.
Quote Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff
If I don't be part of the solution, am I part of the precipitate?
jp1: I supppose I could settle for that. After all, it does seem like a solid choice.
:laff:
People rallying around science makes a lot more sense to me than rallying around a sports team. That is something I've never even pretended to understand. But if it's something people like and is important to them, great.
People rallying around science makes a lot more sense to me than rallying around a sports team. That is something I've never even pretended to understand. But if it's something people like and is important to them, great.
I like that, I don't get sports stuff but I do love science. I have chest congestion and it is rainy so I am sitting this one out however.
ApatheticNoMore
4-22-17, 11:32am
My other Dd's best friend is pregnant because her doctor didn't realize that he would need to explain to her that starting a completely different hormonal birth control was not the same as continuing the current one. No one every really told her what hormones are or how they work.
seems the gynos responsibility. But yea none of this has ever been clear, I've heard hormonal birth control starts working in 1 month, and then no it takes 3 full months (at which point everyone if they want to have intercourse is sick of being abstinent just "waiting for the #$%# birth control to work"). Eh screw hormones just get an IUD or sterilization when it makes sense.
Chicken lady
4-22-17, 11:41am
Teenagers are very interested in food and sex. We miss the window to teach them nutrition and reproductive health. Because those are somehow matters of "values and opinion" and not "facts". Science is like math. It has true answers wether you like them or not. You don't get to insist the school should teach your kid "alternative math" or no math because your paycheck doesn't cover your bills.
Teenagers are very interested in food and sex. We miss the window to teach them nutrition and reproductive health. Because those are somehow matters of "values and opinion" and not "facts". Science is like math. It has true answers wether you like them or not. You don't get to insist the school should teach your kid "alternative math" or no math because your paycheck doesn't cover your bills.
I've had my kids being taught "alternative math", they got real math when they were homeschooled. "Alternative math" being they had to show they got to the answer with the method taught - and some of those methods were so convoluted and strange I couldn't ferret it out.
Chicken lady
4-22-17, 12:02pm
And yet, no matter what process was used, the answers remained the same....
Teenagers are very interested in food and sex. We miss the window to teach them nutrition and reproductive health. Because those are somehow matters of "values and opinion" and not "facts". Science is like math. It has true answers wether you like them or not. You don't get to insist the school should teach your kid "alternative math" or no math because your paycheck doesn't cover your bills.
Nutrition "science" has been held hostage for years (see Nina Teicholz); one example of false consensus winning the argument. Timothy Noakes was put on trial in South Africa for daring to go against conventional wisdom in a tweet It took him three years, but he won his case. One of my favorite Noakes quotes: "…You must never trust consensus guidelines, because they are anti-science. Science is not about consensus; it's about disproof, and disbelief, and skepticism. It's not about consensus. When you have consensus, you've got trouble."
ApatheticNoMore
4-22-17, 12:28pm
Truthfully I think at this point that all sides of the nutrition debate are corrupt and uh exaggerating their case though for different reasons (some for idealism, some for a book sales, some for corporate money, some for philanthropy money). Only the likes of Micheal Pollan make any sense to me anymore, and he's just a journalist trying to be sensible about the whole mess :) A pox on all their diets.
Chicken lady
4-22-17, 12:31pm
Yes Jane, that is part of my point and the problem - broke schools get their "nutrition" curriculums free from companies that sell food related items, not from cutting edge researchers or data collected and verified over time by people with no ax to grind but human health.
colgate sends my school free dental health curriculum and toothbrushes. The science teacher puts lost baby teeth in a variety of liquids and has the kids collect data.
I don't "science" is a one word synonym for truth. It's a human endeavor and it seems to be getting exploited here by the likes of Brand New Congress, which sent me an email about this march for science. I am so tired of the politicizing of free inquiry.
Ok, rant over.
One has to have the smarts to be able to know if science information is from a reputable source. DH and I were talking about this and he said that communication/discussion with people who reject science is what's needed. I disagreed. I think people who reject it are rather paranoid and obstinately defiant individuals (or capitalists who are afraid they will lose money from attempts to deal with climate change. DH and I both agreed that many people might begin to accept climate science when catastrophes start occurring in their own neighborhoods. Sad that it might take that, to get people to believe.
But like I said........you can't throw all science out just because there might be some "ulterior motive science" out there.
I truly don't understand why people refuse to believe the reputable scientists out there. Why are their minds so inflexible?
I truly don't understand why people refuse to believe the reputable scientists out there. Why are their minds so inflexible?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27117768
iris lilies
4-22-17, 2:46pm
On last week's Science Friday, an NPR show, I heard an interview with the guy who uses our tax dollars to work with government weapons systems to research "remote viewing. " (I think that was the phrase.) I think it means seeing things from far away. Not predictions, but sensing things that exist in the here and now.
When the hosts asked him why, if these sensitives he works with can also predict, they arent rich with lottery winning, the scientist retorted that an experiment with his group made $250,000 in lottery winnngs in just such an experiment.
why am I still skeptical? I guess I am just anti-science.
To me he sounded like a con artist and I suspect the devil in the details of his experiments would not hold up to scrutiny.
This morning on the CBS Saturday news show, they interviewed a guy (I forget his name), but he said that scientists are great with science, but not communication. But isn't that a brain thing? Seems like many people who are really smart, aren't the best at communicating or socializing. Maybe teaching them in school how to communicate may help, but I'm not sure. Wouldn't that be like asking a person who excels in communicating to be a capable scientist too? I think lots of people are capable of understanding what the scientists are saying. It's the others that, IMHO, have made up their minds that it's all B.S. and aren't going to accept it, regardless of how well a scientist communicates with them.
Let's take a simple example.....climate change. The ice caps are melting, there has been a lot of wide fluctuations in temperature and many unusual floods, tornadoes, etc. The average temps have been warmer than ever, etc., etc., etc.. So.....if someone doesn't believe the science of this, do they just think it's a scam for some reason? That's where I think paranoia comes into play. Why won't some people believe science? (other than evolution vs creationism). I wonder if people's belief in creationism plays into what they do and don't believe about other science things?
Scientists shouldn't have to be marketers, but it would be helpful if they worked with knowledgeable professionals to sell their ideas.
Remote viewing is indeed a thing, but I thought they had discontinued it years ago. It was big in Russia at one time.
The scientists who are "climate deniers," mostly oil and gas apologists, would say they know the climate is changing (as it always has) but they don't (won't) believe these changes are caused or influenced by human activity.
flowerseverywhere
4-22-17, 7:56pm
It was about way more than climate change. The idea of cutting back funding for NIH for instance. I was recently talking with a physician who is working on organ regeneration and repair at NIH. A really super smart woman saving lives. Many years ago I worked ina VA where HIV studies were taking place. If drugs had not been developed and research done can you imagine the global epidemic it would be? i know someone working at Tessla where they are developing shingles that act as solar collectors. They look the same and are being tested in Southern California. I once spent an evening with a man who had worked on the Human Genome project.
When people are not geniuses like these people it is easy to ignorantly dismiss their theories and premises. But if not for scientific study and testing we would still have smallpox epidemics, people would not have taken to the seas and made their ocean voyages, and surgeons would not wash their hands. It seems like a pretty good use of money to innovate and explore scientific theories. Unless you are depending on your God's will.
Remote viewing is indeed a thing, but I thought they had discontinued it years ago. It was big in Russia at one time.
There was a decades-long set of experiments in this direction at my university, the results were controversial and not generally reproducible, and the experiments had some serious methodology issues.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
"Even casual comparison of the agent and percipient narratives produced in this body of experiments reveals striking correspondences in both their general and specific aspects, indicative of some anomalous channel of information acquisition, well beyond any chance expectation."
This is such important research. We don't know or understand more than a fraction of what makes this universe so fascinating!
"Even casual comparison of the agent and percipient narratives produced in this body of experiments reveals striking correspondences in both their general and specific aspects, indicative of some anomalous channel of information acquisition, well beyond any chance expectation."
!
To be fair, my department (Statistics) used that group's work as cautionary tales...
ToomuchStuff
4-23-17, 2:41am
I certainly am no scientist. I didn't even get into some of the higher math classes in school and was turned off of several science classes by some of the teachers (chemistry teacher made Steven Wright seem lively and animated by comparison). In some ways I have learned more after school, where I can seek my interests at my own pace, while controlling my own surroundings. Science helps us understand things, but it by itself, would not be enough based on how we seem to progress. We need visionaries and inventors to go with that. A good old tv example of that would be the show Connections by James Burke (remember that? good example from that is the carburetor). Some scientists can and do make the connections to how useful things can be, and move in that direction, while others are more just research type. A good example of a connections type is Richard Feynman. After the bomb, he tells a story about some uses for nuclear energy, for which the government then goes patenting and puts his name on the patents. He mentions sub propulsion (and the patent person says that is taken), and then plane propulsion (which he gets) and is later offered a job based on that patent.
Then you have visionaries or inventors who use the science in a way to solve a need. Some are inventors by taking things and combining them (going back to the carburetor) and others are visionaries and trying to solve a local need (William Kamkwamba, trying to understand a book in a foreign language, to build a windmill to provide power for a well and for powering a light or cell phone charger in a house).
All of these involve an open mind, and a belief that one can be wrong.
Their opponents tend to just believe they are wrong, without having an open mind to view the reasoning or how they got there.
But like I said........you can't throw all science out just because there might be some "ulterior motive science" out there.
I truly don't understand why people refuse to believe the reputable scientists out there. Why are their minds so inflexible?
Because sometimes accepting something as true means you have to change your current mental paradigm, or your behavior, or both and people find that very threatening. It's incredibly difficult to get people to release beliefs they hold dear, even in the face of "proof" and "data" and "smart people saying so."
I remember my daughter learning that in her early days of being a vegetarian. She was in high school at the time and for a school presentation project she decided to make a video of all the horrific conditions in factory farming. She truly believed that all she would have to do to convince her classmates not to eat meat would be to show them how cruel the meat industry is. She was really surprised when, not only did no one in the class change their minds or habits around meat-eating--but the teacher yelled at her and told her to stop playing the video because it was upsetting people.
If I had time to do some pro bono market research work (which I don't) I would definitely do some market research on how to reach non-believers. What hits our buttons doesn't automatically hit the buttons of those who feel differently. And I bet it will take "them" just as long to change their minds as it would take "us" to change ours.
Chicken lady
4-23-17, 7:53am
One of my students complained to our director that I had ruined marshmallows for her for life. The director asked "how did she do that?" And the student said "she told me how they are made." And the director said "ok."
Believing in the process of science does not mean that you necessarily believe in all the results. The remote seeing thing is interesting, I think we have taken out of our cultures some kind of respect for those extra sensitive individuals who may 'know' things, and instead only respected the ones that went to years of school. I tend to be blessed/cursed with some of this, I think it is the high sensitivity to everything around me that notices things that others don't. Not remote seeing however, just noticing tiny details and trends all the time. Not winning the lottery however!
I also think that understanding the process of science is very important, and that it is a series of educated guesses that are proven wrong or not proven wrong yet. When we do science with older elementary kids who have started to get into the mental blocks of not wanting to try something that may not work I explain science that way. That scientists try something, fail a few times, and learn a lot in the process. The ways of testing, the ways of reporting and analyzing data, and the number of times the experiment can be repeated with similar results are all essential. That means that a lot of scientists are just testing out things that have been done before, and that is not as cool as inventing new things. I know that we have a data guy now in our department and available to other organizations. He helps us choose really good questions to get at specific things we want to know, and how to collect, get more results and analyze. Choosing a good, clear question is really important.
Also I am seeing that with the ability of googling everything under the sun people think that you do not need to be an expert on anything. So the lack of respect for those who have spent years studying is affected. If it is climate change I listen to my friend who has been to the arctic as a climate scientist. However not everyone understands the developmental stages of children and their learning process. My staff person who did not work out this year didn't have any interest in learning more about this, and therefore did not grow at all in the job.
One of my students complained to our director that I had ruined marshmallows for her for life. The director asked "how did she do that?" And the student said "she told me how they are made." And the director said "ok."
I have to ask, what was it about the marshmallow manufacturing process that bothered them?
I listened to too much late night radio a few years ago that had guests from the government remote viewing project. I don't remember the exact time period when the program was developed, but think it was a time related to the cold war. The story was that Russia was investing millions into psychic espionage and there was a little bit of an espionage race. They eventually decided it was not worthwhile and was discontinued. I actually tried to learn to do remote viewing from some web site training programs and honestly think there may be a little bit to it.
As goofy as it might seem, it was a good example of the scientific method and exploring the unknown, where you formulate a hypothesis, design tests, collect information and analyze the results. In this case it didn't appear to be worth pursuing, but what if there was something there but no one ever tested it. People has scoffed at other things that might have seemed just as ridiculous in their day.
... ...
All of these involve an open mind, and a belief that one can be wrong.
Their opponents tend to just believe they are wrong, without having an open mind to view the reasoning or how they got there.
The history of science is one of consensus vs. open minds. Semmelweiss and his hand-washing being only one example--he was rewarded for his life-saving work by being essentially killed in an asylum. Consensus has its place, but open minds are a necessary treasure. More Noakes: “The reality is no great scientific advance has ever been made, but that it was once considered “unconventional”.
catherine
4-23-17, 10:12am
This Tolstoy quote aptly popped up on my FB just now.
1731
This Tolstoy quote aptly popped up on my FB just now.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1731&stc=1
Is freethinking a herd activity? Looking at some of the footage, I saw a lot of brain-hatted virtue signalling, some clever signs and a lot of politics-as-usual trying to wrap itself in a white coat.
I think it's important to invest in small-c science for the same reason it's important to invest in a strong defense establishment. I can understand the dissatisfaction with our illiterate reality-show president's difficult relationship with the truth. I understand that there are tendentious arguments being made over subjects from climate change and evolution to genetically determined levels of intelligence to nuclear power; with various camps pushing different agendas.
But I don't think it's necessary to elevate a technocratic class to some kind of sacred status, any more than I think we need to worship engineers or farmers or bankers for their essential roles.
But what is the alternative. How do you propose that we stand up for the technocrats and prevent the people in power from succeeding in their attempts to delegitime them? I don't view what's being done to support science as elevating anyone to sacred status as much as just an effort to say "these technocrats are the people we should be listening to, not some jokester who sold his soul to Big Oil or Big Chemical."
I think it's important to invest in small-c science for the same reason it's important to invest in a strong defense establishment. I can understand the dissatisfaction with our illiterate reality-show president's difficult relationship with the truth. I understand that there are tendentious arguments being made over subjects from climate change and evolution to genetically determined levels of intelligence to nuclear power; with various camps pushing different agendas.
But I don't think it's necessary to elevate a technocratic class to some kind of sacred status, any more than I think we need to worship engineers or farmers or bankers for their essential roles.
I'm not sure I understand who is being elevated to technocrats? Aren't there military scientists who develop strategies and weapons. Earth scientists who discover new ways to extract petroleum and atmospheric scientists who work with the Navy to predict weather patterns. Somehow the same principals of chemistry, physics, Biology, and innovation are cast as some sort of voodoo elitists when it relates to climate change or health and human services.
iris lilies
4-23-17, 7:54pm
I have to ask, what was it about the marshmallow manufacturing process that bothered them?
Marshmallows are an animal product. Hoof, I think.
Marshmallows are an animal product. Hoof, I think.
They do have gelatin in them.
Here's Alton Brown's recipe. I'll take a homemade marshmallow over a Little Debbie snack cake any day.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/homemade-marshmallows-recipe
But what is the alternative. How do you propose that we stand up for the technocrats and prevent the people in power from succeeding in their attempts to delegitime them? I don't view what's being done to support science as elevating anyone to sacred status as much as just an effort to say "these technocrats are the people we should be listening to, not some jokester who sold his soul to Big Oil or Big Chemical."
I don't think we should "stand up for the technocrats". Ultimately, facts win on their own without political assistance. We don't listen to them because Big Government or Big Academia are somehow more credible than Big Oil or Big Chemical or Big Cupcake. If they were, we'd have seen food riots in 1975 or "peak oil" in 1995.
I'm not sure I understand who is being elevated to technocrats? Aren't there military scientists who develop strategies and weapons. Earth scientists who discover new ways to extract petroleum and atmospheric scientists who work with the Navy to predict weather patterns. Somehow the same principals of chemistry, physics, Biology, and innovation are cast as some sort of voodoo elitists when it relates to climate change or health and human services.
And those principles stand on their own without the need of political backing. Gravity does not require slogans. What I saw in those demonstrations was people supporting "our truth", not "the truth". Whether it's Bible Belters pushing creationism, or students at pricey colleges beating up social scientists or insisting that objective truth is a tool of white supremacy, the people who think facts can be shouted down will ultimately lose. Injecting politics into it is futilie.
Marshmallows are an animal product. Hoof, I think.
Wait until she gets old enough and learns that beer has an animal product in it too.
Wait until she gets old enough and learns that beer has an animal product in it too.
You got me curious - not sure how strict the site is, but it is thorough: http://www.barnivore.com/
Chicken lady
4-24-17, 12:32pm
Whew, you scared me! I'm ok with honey in my beer though, so I'm good - thanks for the link!
yes, it was the hooves that put her off.
She may be ok with honey, but I suspect the isinglass that comes from fish will probably be offputting to her.
Chicken lady
4-24-17, 1:59pm
So we'll drink the same beers, lol!
ToomuchStuff
4-25-17, 3:29am
Ultimately, facts win on their own without political assistance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfoJt9oiSxo
One hopes or we may relive things like the dark ages (when religion persecuted science), or ignore science in the way the third Reich did when ignoring "Jewish science" in their attempt to create nuclear weapons.
ToomuchStuff
4-25-17, 3:29am
I do understand his view about congress. So much of it is made up of lawyers and then business people, what would it be like if instead of this two party, yes no thing, more of congress were scientists and engineers. In the below link, 25:50 to 29:00, when he and President Clinton, discuss the difference between scientists, politicians and lawyers.
A good show he had last year some time, I found the radio part on his Youtube channel, if anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQUXvRMd8QA
The best commentary on the march I read, came amazingly enough, from that generally self-parodying site: Slate:
But there is very little indication that what happened on Saturday will counter these misconceptions. Instead, the march revealed the glaring dissonance of opposing that trough of ignorance by instead accepting a cringe-worthy hive-mind mentality that celebrates Science as a vague but wonderful entity, what Richard Feynman called “cargo cult science (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm).” There was an uncomfortable dronelike fealty to the concept—an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse. That is not intellectually rigorous thought—instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/the_march_for_science_was_eerily_religious.html
Yes--I've long said I don't worship science or subscribe to a religion--for the same reason. Science isn't monolithic; it's messy and contentious, and just as subject to bribery and corruption as any other human endeavor.
That said, I fully believe that "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan
Remember the big AIDS scandal with the French doctor from the 1980's-- his name started with a G.
Science is a pretty big umbrella, like art or music, or breathing or eating.
Remember the big AIDS scandal with the French doctor from the 1980's-- his name started with a G.
Science is a pretty big umbrella, like art or music, or breathing or eating.
Wasn't that Luc Montagnier? There was talk that the American scientist who was doing research at the same time stole his findings. I think they ended up with shared credit.
ETA: The American scientist was Robert Gallo, and the issue arose from contaminated viral samples from Montagnier's lab. Courtesy of Wikipedia.
You are right, Jane, I conflated the two scientists into one! Gallo was alleged to be hogging credit for things he did not do, as I recall.
You are right, Jane, I conflated the two scientists into one! Gallo was alleged to be hogging credit for things he did not do, as I recall.
Yeah. Alan Alda played Gallo in the movie and was a really pompous dick.
iris lilies
4-25-17, 1:47pm
Yeah. Alan Alda played Gallo in the movie and was a really pompous dick.
He does that well, good casting.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.