One of
the reasons I think science rocks is because the conclusions are based on
evidence. I can be completely gullible in
a regular non-data-based conversation, and I always seem to be a sucker for the
pathologically lying friend. But,
science is a reliable friend that allows you to check up on the data, question
the circumstances, and retest. Well,
data is nice—wonderful even, but one could argue that there are poorly designed
experiments that could give spurious results.
That’s true, but that is not data that would hold up and stand the test
of time. There’s peer-review by the
scientific community, which happens before anything gets published and which
catches most of the experimental design flaws and can stop a publication dead
in its tracks. And, there’s a community
of scientists who should be able to replicate your experiments—studies must be
repeatable if the conclusions are to be believed. Scientists know that “belief” should never be
required in a conclusion, but rather evidence is. We scientist do not “believe in” climate change
or evolution—rather the available data support the conclusion that climate
change is occurring and that evolution has shaped the diversity of life on
earth.
ShawnLawrence Otto published a book in 2011 called Fool Me Twice: Fighting the
Assault on Science in America, and I read it with great interest because I’m
intrigued by the debate that seems to be on-going in America regarding science,
currently global climate change and evolution (as always it seems). This book offered a lot of insights as to why
some people may be wary of science, like the use of science to create weapons
of mass destruction. And why people may
not view scientific conclusions as solidly as scientists do, which Otto proposes
is a result of an educational system that has promoted viewing the world from
different perspectives with no real “truth.”
In contrasts, science revolves around attempts to uncover and reveal
Truth. If people do not believe that
there is such a thing as “the truth,” only different ways of perceiving the
world, then no wonder science is taking a beating in politics and the media.
There
were a couple of points he made that I am going to carry forward with me. One, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) 1987 decision to abolish the “fairness doctrine” which resulted in Otto’s
words of “severing one of the last ties to a common public foundation of
knowledge and its cousin, the carefully researched public record that
journalists had worked for sixty years to build.” Broadcasters were then no long required to
present balanced news coverage, resulting in a new era of yellow journalism
that allowed the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox news, which has had a huge
impact on the impression of science by the public. Otto also holds scientists accountable for
becoming disengaged with the public, which has allowed a lot of debate to
continue without a strong scientific foundation. He’s totally right about that. We scientists need to figure out what role we
can play in helping with scientific literacy.
Even though we ecologists are seldom pale, we could still stand to step
out a bit more. He also suggests that
scientists should be reaching out to churches, which is completely interesting,
isn’t it? Scientists certainly share a
range of religious views, like the non-scientific community, but there are few
who are engaging with congregations in a way that could be beneficial to
scientific understanding. And I am
totally guilty of this, as a religious person that goes to a church where a disturbing
portion of the congregation seems more likely to visit the Creation “Museum”
right down the road than to ponder the awe-inspiring interconnectedness of life
on earth that arose through evolutionary processes.
So, I
think you should read this book too and see what you think about it. There is a lot to think about and I’ve only
touched on a few of Otto’s points. As
the best books do, it has me thinking about the world in a new way and also
contemplating some different ways I can interact with people. It’s even got me thinking I need to visit the
Creation Museum and take some notes on what the creationists think is so astounding that it could only be heavenly created—so at
least creationists and scientists are all awe-struck by this dazzling world,
and that is potentially common ground where we can start a dialogue.
