"What I'd like to see is much more appreciation of critical thinking, trial and error - no, you don't get the answer right the first time - and the empirical method applied to processes and situations from everyday life, rather than being reserved for lab situations with ripple tanks and oscilloscopes and other doodads and thingummies."
But this isn't very "critical" in that it doesn't examine it's own assumptions and it's not very empirical in that about all the evidence offered to support the exaggerated assertion that "most people hate science" is the view of one astrologer - who has reason to hate scientists.
I cited a paper which actually has a lot of evidence about the issue - e.g. about the popularity of books and TV programmes about science at the end of the 20th century. But TBG seems to tack on another set of opinions to rule out such evidence against his main opinion:
Personally, I dislike those 'Science of...' books intensely. Firstly, they're obvious cash-in titles, and there's something quite cynical about them. Secondly, I've yet to read one that made me feel excited about what I was supposed to be learning. Finally, there's a kind of grim crashing of gears as drama collides with pedagogy. I don't think the interests of either are served particularly well, because usually all you get is more story telling. Feynmann is interesting, but still - I think - too technical for many people."
Personally, I dislike those 'Science of...' books intensely.
Firstly, they're obvious cash-in titles, and there's something quite cynical about them.
Secondly, I've yet to read one that made me feel excited about what I was supposed to be learning. Finally, there's a kind of grim crashing of gears as drama collides with pedagogy. I don't think the interests of either are served particularly well, because usually all you get is more story telling. Feynmann is interesting, but still - I think - too technical for many people."
Again this is opinion not evidence, e.g. the fact is that Feynman's lectures, books and TV programmes were very popular.
Here's a bit more from the source I quoted above, which does use a generally scientific method and assembles some evidence to support the claims made:
The increasing attention to science made it easier for "explanatory" books to gain influence--volumes that served primarily to present the current status of areas of scientific work. Sometimes, these books addressed multiple audiences, serving as community-builders not just with the general public, but also within the scientific community. James Gleick's Chaos (1987), for example, was primarily a broad description of current developments in a fascinating area of science, and thus fit securely in the "popular science" genre. Yet at the same time, like Watson'sMolecular Biology of the Gene, Gleick's book brought together for the first time a set of disparate work that had never previously - even among the intellectual community - been clearly seen as a single coherent field. Thus it was, in some ways, a founding document for a field of science that is today characterized by its own institutes, meetings, journals, and so on. Coming shortly after Sagan's Contact novel and at about the same time as Hawking's Brief History of Time, Gleick's book also helped demonstrate the changing nature of the relationship between the scientific community and books. Beginning in the late 1970s with a series of autobiographies subvented by the Sloan Foundation, senior scientists had begun to see books as a way to address the public directly without violating the norms of peer-reviewed journals that held together their community of professional colleagues. ... Furthermore, despite the extraneous appeal of celebrity and sex, many science books did have direct impact because of their content.Their arguments became important to policy debates and conversations among what the British call the "chattering classes." They were cited in magazine articles, in newspaper editorials and columns, in policy reports. Books like James Conant's On Understanding Science (1947), E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology (1975), or Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's Bell Curve (1994) were widely discussed, their sometimes controversial theses debated in academic conferences and colloquia. The ability of American culture to take up books as diverse as Lewis Thomas's essays on the human spirit or Herrnstein and Murray's polemics on racial politics suggests that the United States was not a science-phobic, anti-science culture (as many scientists feared). http://people.cornell.edu/pages/bvl1/Books2004.pdf
The increasing attention to science made it easier for "explanatory" books to gain influence--volumes that served primarily to present the current status of areas of scientific work. Sometimes, these books addressed multiple audiences, serving as community-builders not just with the general public, but also within the scientific community. James Gleick's Chaos (1987), for example, was primarily a broad description of current developments in a fascinating area of science, and thus fit securely in the "popular science" genre. Yet at the same time, like Watson'sMolecular Biology of the Gene, Gleick's book brought together for the first time a set of disparate work that had never previously - even among the intellectual community - been clearly seen as a single coherent field. Thus it was, in some ways, a founding document for a field of science that is today characterized by its own institutes, meetings, journals, and so on. Coming shortly after Sagan's Contact novel and at about the same time as Hawking's Brief History of Time, Gleick's book also helped demonstrate the changing nature of the relationship between the scientific community and books. Beginning in the late 1970s with a series of autobiographies subvented by the Sloan Foundation, senior scientists had begun to see books as a way to address the public directly without violating the norms of peer-reviewed journals that held together their community of professional colleagues.
... Furthermore, despite the extraneous appeal of celebrity and sex, many science books did have direct impact because of their content.Their arguments became important to policy debates and conversations among what the British call the "chattering classes." They were cited in magazine articles, in newspaper editorials and columns, in policy reports. Books like James Conant's On Understanding Science (1947), E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology (1975), or Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's Bell Curve (1994) were widely discussed, their sometimes controversial theses debated in academic conferences and colloquia.
The ability of American culture to take up books as diverse as Lewis Thomas's essays on the human spirit or Herrnstein and Murray's polemics on racial politics suggests that the United States was not a science-phobic, anti-science culture (as many scientists feared).
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/bvl1/Books2004.pdf
I've also, in forty four years, literally never heard anyone say they love science. I've heard a few people say they're interested, and occasionally fascinated by esoterica (black holes, string theory, and so on.) But I've heard any number of people expressing negative opinions about it, and if you think my sample is based on exactly one astrologer then you haven't been paying attention.
It's true I don't think scientists are likely to find themselves strung up from lamp posts any time soon. But nonetheless the key points are that:
As an overview though, science publishing is almost exclusively a somewhat aspirational middle class activity. It's very cyclical and was much bigger in the 1990s than it is now. It's also very formulaic, and often not terribly good.
This matters because if - for example - you're discussing an eco-related TV program, it's important to accurately gauge public attitudes to scientists and scientiific information so you know when and how to pitch the hard facts.
Does this matter in practice? Damn right it does.
TBG: It's opinion in the sense that I spent three years working for one of the UK's popular science magazines reviewing science books for them, with occasional side reviews for the TLS, and I now literally have a house full of popular science books, and have spoken to many of the publicists and commissioning editors and some of the agents, and have a good sense of what the trends and drivers are in that market. I've also, in forty four years, literally never heard anyone say they love science. I've heard a few people say they're interested, and occasionally fascinated by esoterica (black holes, string theory, and so on.) But I've heard any number of people expressing negative opinions about it, and if you think my sample is based on exactly one astrologer then you haven't been paying attention.
TBG: It's opinion in the sense that I spent three years working for one of the UK's popular science magazines reviewing science books for them, with occasional side reviews for the TLS, and I now literally have a house full of popular science books, and have spoken to many of the publicists and commissioning editors and some of the agents, and have a good sense of what the trends and drivers are in that market.
I don't question your experience, but general impressions are not what science is based on - and I was discussing THIS diary, and the astrologer's comments seem to be the only piece of evidence in it.
Also it's not very British to say you love something, and I'm sure this applies to many countries as far as science goes; it would sound a bit pretentious to say so. People are more likely to make negative comments than simply say they have no problem with something.
"It's true I don't think scientists are likely to find themselves strung up from lamp posts any time soon."
Well that is a rather key point, in other words, "hate" was far too strong a term - but that was your conclusion and the rest was suupposed to explain this - non-existent fact. People expressing "negative opinions" - of varying degrees no doubt, from lack of interest, through irritation, to hostility, etc. - is quite a different thing. But we do have the actions of many as evidence, e.g. in buying books about science - however much you may disapprove of them - and watching the many popular TV series on science of various kinds. You might think there is a class problem with David Attenborough, but I suspect he's one of the most liked and most trusted figures appearing on TV and (taking it out of mere trading of opinions) the viewing figures and the sales of his series on video and DVD would seem to bear this out.
I prefer Lewenstein's approach of actually citing a wide range of evidence - and some conter-evidence and complexities - for his conclusion that science has become more popular in general.
"Scientists and eco-activists actually agree about many things, and would be far more effective if they both realised this, instead of circling around each other in a rather hostile way."
It's quite natural that there should be conflict between them since the activists' interest is in trying to make things happen NOW, so they get irritated by scientists' failure to be a bit more simple and dramatic, while the scientists get irritated by the activists' reluctance to qualify statements and to accept the complexity of the issues and the areas of uncertainty. It's quite healthy that this kind of tension should exist.
"The point which I didn't spell out and perhaps should have - this has had a huge impact on the plausibility of public acceptance of climate studies, and delayed political pressure for action by at least a decade."
I think what has had more effect is the media's commitment, especially in the US, to a notion of objectivity wrongly identified with balance, and the latter in terms of ANY rival views, whether or not they are just a tiny minority. The related important thing is the energy companies' funding of some scientists to come up with views which challenge the climate change orthodoxy and to generally muddy the waters. When combined these understandably leave many people confused and under the impression that scientists in general are divided over the issue. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Key findings ... The majority of those surveyed were 'amazed' by the achievements of science, although some expressed concerns about its regulation and control. Analysis identified six attitudinal groups: 'confident believers', 'technophiles', 'supporters', 'concerned', 'not sure' and 'not for me'. The research offers descriptions of each of these groups.
Key findings
... The majority of those surveyed were 'amazed' by the achievements of science, although some expressed concerns about its regulation and control.
Analysis identified six attitudinal groups: 'confident believers', 'technophiles', 'supporters', 'concerned', 'not sure' and 'not for me'. The research offers descriptions of each of these groups.
The majority were "amazed" by the achievements of science - almost the opposite of "hating" it.
And the groups identified showed the range of attitudes which I suggested was more likely to the case with science - the most negative - "not for me" is very far from "hate".
QED :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
And so on.
If there's a point in that survey, it's that scientific comprehension lacks internal consistency. The public doesn't have much of a model of how science works, and especially how scientific points are made and evaluated.
'Hate' was for rhetorical effect and not meant literally, obviously.
The real point is that people blame science and scientists for issues which aren't their direct responsibility, when they could more profitably be directing those criticisms at economic apologists and the markets.
Attitudinal groups A key finding of this work has been the identification of attitudinal groups within Britain. Using factor and cluster analysis of the responses to 40 attitude statements, the quantitative research identified six groups. Confident Believers Positive, self-confident and outward looking, the Confident Believers (17 per cent of the sample) tend to be interested in science because of the benefits it brings, and their interest in politics means that they tend to have faith in the regulatory system and believe that they can influence Government.They tend to be well off, well educated, middle aged, and more likely to live in the south of Britain. Technophiles One-fifth of the total, this, the largest group, is confident, pro-science and well educated in science, but sceptical of politicians.They tend to be confident that they know how to get information when they need to, although they need reassuring that the regulatory system exists and works effectively. Supporters Some 17 per cent of the total, this relatively young group tends to be `amazed' by science, engineering and technology and feels self-confident enough to cope with rapid change.They also tend to believe that the Government has got things under control.Although they, like everyone else, express most interest in the medical sciences, they tend to be slightly more interested in the physical sciences - especially engineering - than others. Concerned The Concerned is the smallest (13 per cent of the total) and most female (60 per cent) of the clusters. The Concerned have a realistic and positive attitude to life but are sceptical of those in authority.Their social grade, household income and education levels tend to mirror the population as a whole, but they tend to be rather home centred. They are interested in a whole range of topical issues, and they know that science is an important part of life, especially for their children. Not Sure This group (17 per cent of the total) tends to have the lowest household incomes, the lowest level of education, and falls into social grades D and E (semi- and unskilled manual workers, and those wholly dependent on state benefits).Their views tend to be unformed: they are neither `anti-science' nor `pro-science'.This is largely because the benefits of science are not always apparent in their daily lives, which are constrained by low income and educational achievement. Not for Me This group, 15 per cent of the total, mainly comprises those aged 65 and over, of social grade E women, and of slightly younger men of social grade C2 (skilled manual workers). Like the Not Sure group, they are not particularly interested in political and topical issues nor in science. However, their lack of interest in science does not stop them appreciating its benefits for the future and its importance to young people.
Well one can hardly blame them, given the overwhelming evidence from scientists of the mess we're making of the climate/planet.
I quoted what the study said were the "key findings" - with the majority finding science "amazing » and the groups they identified having the range of views - none of them VERY negative - which I suggested.
"If there's a point in that survey, it's that scientific comprehension lacks internal consistency. The public doesn't have much of a model of how science works, and especially how scientific points are made and evaluated."
Well that's a reasonable point - but a rather different one.
" 'Hate' was for rhetorical effect and not meant literally, obviously."
Well really !:-) You deplore people's lack of understanding of how scientific points are made and evaluated - in a diary which makes little attempt to reflect such procedures, and then admit that your "main conclusion" was a mere rhetorical device, more suitable in a tabloid's distorted reporting of a scientific issue. And you have the nerve to criticise some authors of books on science ! :-)
"The real point is that people blame science and scientists for issues which aren't their direct responsibility, when they could more profitably be directing those criticisms at economic apologists and the markets."
Ah, so now, having abandoned the main conclusion - which was the motivation for the bulk of the diary - we now come to the "real point" - but yet again it is put in an absurdly general way. "People" - ALL of them ? Ah, but of course this is just another rhetorical device - you really mean some indeterminate proportion - based on your general experience. In fact I suspect that again the majority don't blame scientists, certainly not if you ask them: Do you blame scientists or politicians and corporations ? - for such unspecified "issues". I'm pretty confident that the majority would blame politicians and corporations for the kind of thing where "criticisms at economic apologists and the markets" would be more appropriate. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
