patrick.net

Science isn't sexy. It doesn't sell anything. It's unfortunate - but kids are only exposed to science if they see it on YouTube.

elliemae says

Science isn’t sexy. It doesn’t sell anything. It’s unfortunate - but kids are only exposed to science if they see it on YouTube.

That might explain the science part, but not the technology part. Movies are full of technology. Awesome technology. Technology that I would love to have.

But the hero is never the guy who builds technology. It's always that guy's boss or child. More often than not, the technology maker is the bad guy.

There's a site with tons of videos - wimp.com - that has all sorts of stuff on it. I do enjoy the vids about science - and also the vids from http://www.ted.com/. That site has brilliant people sharing information and is truly amazing.

I was married to the stereotypical scientist, few social skills. He was the smartest person I will ever meet, speaks 5 languages and can perform complex calculus equations in his head. His work parties were a blast, tho. Verysmart people know how to have fun.

"american society has become increasingly hostile towards science and technology."

No they haven't, Politics has grabbed hold of the Scientific community and are using them as their Papal guidance. Science has become a Zealot church of the Liberals. So much so, just a mear theory, the rest of America is expected to take those theories as undisputed truths. Those that don't agree with the latest Scientific findings are ostracized and ridiculed. Science doesn't operate like that, only the Douche bags with agendas act like that.

A Mathematician doesn't give Two shits if you can't Add and Subtract, that means more work for them, and less competition from you.

From a Science prospective, Science doesn't care, if you take stock in a Theory, Proof or consider it Law.
That's the Politicians job.

Sabe?

Let me ask you a related question. Why does Science, er, uh I mean the Liberals have a problem with people that believe in "Creationism" and does not believe in "Evolution"?
What the Liberals don't get, it's about "Faith" and not academics. D.L. Hughley summed it up nicely Friday night on Politically incorrect. When he was asked by Bill Maher, after a Liberal knee slapping on other issues. Bill expected a quick "Yes" answer because D.L. is a Liberal, when asked if he believed in Evolution.

After struggling a bit with the answer, D.L. finally said... "No because I believe in God."
Even though admitting that in that context while sitting in the Den of Liberal jackals that would surely chew him to shreds, still he stood by his Faith and answered the question accordingly.

Now before you get the wrong Idea, I'm more leaning atheist, BUT(and this is important!) I respect all religions and their beliefs. Their beliefs are not up for debate, as I am not a devout(insert religion here).
Who in the hell am I, to make them repent?

As long as they aren't making inquiries and putting me to the TEST, they believe what ever they want.

I would suggest to the Liberals, Stop putting religions to the "TEST". Religions have more experience at Witch hunts, you really don't want to get THEM started. They aren't out for political gaffs and sound bytes when they go looking for converts.

It's Faith stupid, leave them alone, and go count your protons.

Tenouncetrout says

So much so, just a mear theory, the rest of America is expected to take those theories as undisputed truths.

Just a "mear" theory, like Gravity, Atoms, or Computation?

There is no such thing as "undisputed truth" in science. Please learn something.

Tenouncetrout says

Those that don’t agree with the latest Scientific findings are ostracized and ridiculed. Science doesn’t operate like that, only the Douche bags with agendas act like that.

How exactly do you think that science operates?

Because in my world, where actual scientists are, science operates through careful study, observation, and testing of hypothesis. People who have a theory that contradicts what we currently know are expected to provide some way of testing it. Those who simply talk, without doing the actual science, are "ostracized and ridiculed".

Note that actual scientists who do actual science all operate this way. People who call themselves science but never actually do studies do not.

Tenouncetrout says

A Mathematician doesn’t give Two shits if you can’t Add and Subtract, that means more work for them, and less competition from you.

Ah, yes, the lucrative "mathematics" industry, where job competition is fierce!

Tenouncetrout says

From a Science prospective, Science doesn’t care, if you take stock in a Theory, Proof or consider it Law.
That’s the Politicians job.

Oh, friend, I assure you that "science" (or rather, the scientific community) cares *very much* whether you "take stock" in a theory. Proofs are a mathematical concept. I'm not sure you understand what "Law" means at all.

Tenouncetrout says

Why does Science, er, uh I mean the Liberals have a problem with people that believe in “Creationism” and does not believe in “Evolution”?

Oh, I assure you that "Science" (the scientific community) does have actual problems with people who even equate "Belief" with evolution. Evolution is not a matter of belief -- just like Gravity, atomic particles, biology, or any other scientific theory, it is the aggregation of all of the knowledge we have accumulated over many, many centuries of study and experimenting.

If you ignore all of the findings of evolutionary biologists, it becomes just about impossible to actually make sense of the entire world of carbon-based lifeforms. You're left trying to understand everything at the anatomical level, which just doesn't work.

If a person doesn't understand how evolution works, they have no hope of becoming a useful biologist.

"Creationism" is not science, it is religion. You can not reconcile religion and science, because religion has no basis for testing and observation. It is no different from believing in the tooth fairy, ghosts, or magic.

Tenouncetrout says

What the Liberals don’t get, it’s about “Faith” and not academics.

I assure you, "Liberals" understand "Faith". There is a very large contingent of religious liberals. If there wasn't, Obama wouldn't have to pretend to be a religious man.

There are also a great many "conservatives" who are not religious. Many of them also pretend to be in order to fit in with the fundies who have taken over conservative dialog in the united states.

Tenouncetrout says

As long as they aren’t making inquiries and putting me to the TEST, they believe what ever they want.

But they *are* hampering scientific progress, by ignoring scientific finding and by attempting to equate religion with science. By preventing children from learning real science, they harm us. By blocking medical research, they harm us.

Yes, they're free to believe whatever they want. What they can not be free to do, is prevent everyone else from growing and advancing as a society because science happens to uncover some data that they find difficult to reconcile their faith with.

Tenouncetrout says

I would suggest to the Liberals, Stop putting religions to the “TEST”. Religions have more experience at Witch hunts, you really don’t want to get THEM started. They aren’t out for political gaffs and sound bytes when they go looking for converts.

I assure you, nobody is trying to put religions to any sort of "TEST". What we don't want is for religion to be forced upon people who have no interest in it. Religion is for the home or the church, not the class room or the floor of congress.

The right has rejected science because they group real scientists into the same category as a small percentage of scientists who act as a platform of the left to try to extract federal funding out of them. Generally, you're not going to get much federal support from Republicans unless it's related to the military or homeland security. Democrats are willing to try to fund anything under the sun without question if you tell them that it will improve society. So, a good portion of the scientific community gets aligned with the left. Meanwhile, the right wingers resort to rejecting anything new by default because of this alignment with the left. The ultra-religious right hates science for obvious reasons. They hate evolution and will naturally group anything controversial in with it.

The scientific community doesn't do themselves any favors by holding up a theory like "global warming" to be equivalent in legitimacy to Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Any rational scientist still understands the difference between a theory and a law. Any rational scientist is able to objectively look at raw data. Any rational scientist is able to fully recognize the limitations on our current understanding of the world. There are a ton of scientists out there who love to draw conclusions without enough evidence to support their claims. The scientific community fails to call them out on their crap and they simply deal with them by forcing them to publish their nonsense in less prestigious journals. I will say, the scientific profession is not nearly as professional and respectable as it was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I greatly admire the academic integrity of the science community that existed during that period. I do believe the federal government's willingness to openly fund science ventures leads scientists to exaggerate their results or the relevance of their research. I'll be the first to admit that my research that I focused on during my dissertation will probably never post a profit or positively affect anyone. Yet somehow, our lab has had the luxury of spending close to a million federal dollars over the years.

Where did the anti-science/technology mentality of American society come from?

Wilful ignorance, as demonstrated by some commenter s here.

People who do too many drugs, and focus primarily on their own little world. Because it's easy to be comfortable with simple mysteries we can attribute to God. We don't have to think for ourselves anymore, we let others tell us what house/clothes/car to buy. We let the idiot box and drugs take care of that.

But think back to HS or College. Science is hard. It takes mental work, lots of it. Remember the people who avoided the 'hard' classes? The people who rail against science are at least one of two things:

1) Lazy
2) Stupid

I stand in awe of ToT's post. It answers the question that Kevin posted, and so much more.

Please tell me that you weren't high when you wrote it, ToT. 'Cause if you were, I'm swearing off pot forever.

I agree with Frodo's take above.

People want to think that reality is subjective. In some domains my truth can be different than your truth, for example pertaining to spiritual questions that can not be answered with certainty. If you look at discussions on this forum, with the exception of maybe 5 or 6 people I can think of, the back and forth rarely drills down to exactly where the disagreement lies.

Instead, one of the parties changes the subject a little or resorts to calling the other names (as if that somehow proves their point). Most people these days are experts at believing what they want to believe. Sometimes not even thinking for themselves and believing what they are told to believe. And sure, that is what religious faith is about, and I have some respect for that, but it should only be in the domain of questions that we can't answer, as said above, not the science class or in the government.

But getting back to your question, I would pose what I consider a related question. Why is it that in our culture, where money and success are so respected, academic success is not nearly as respected as it could and should be ? I have a somewhat weak theory that it has to do with some kind of romantic notion that success in adult life is independent of academic success as kids. It used to be true, more often than it is now. That is, we haven't yet finished adapting to the technological age we are in, or there would be a higher priority put on academics. By the way, reading comprehension, communication skills, and learning to work together, are just as important as Math and science skills.

It's easy to blame teachers and schools too much. They need to improve, but ultimately this is a cultural question. Where are our priorities ? When one chooses a mate, what are the priorities, is it just attraction? Maybe our freedom and our entertainment market which finds profit in sexual messages has caused priorities to be a little out of whack. That won't ever change, but intelligence and academic success needs to more attractive.

Final question, how do you sell the message that intelligence and academic success are great priorities to your typical average joe on the street? It doesn't happen quickly, it will take a couple generations at least. And back to believing what we want to believe - it's so much easier to believe your child's later success will be nearly independent of their academic success, than to do the work of guiding them and helping them on a nearly daily basis.

marcus says

Final question, how do you sell the message that intelligence and academic success are great priorities to your typical average joe on the street?

You have to get them young. It is very difficult to develop the necessary skills needed to perform well in science and tech fields in a short period of time. More importantly, it is almost impossible to do well if you don't have an inherent love for the subjects (this is far, far more important than being good at math).

I think we really need to tackle it at a cultural level. Most of our messaging to kids is focused on 'leadership', usually in the form of military prowess. That was probably a very valuable culture to develop during an era of constant land wars, but these days it's antiquated.

It might sound silly, but I think the best answer is to replace the toy guns with legos and the barbies with chemistry sets. Make movies and TV shows that show scientists and engineers solving problems to save the world (make it cool and flashy, like them developing robots or something) instead of the lone gun hero who kills a million bad guys without running out of ammo.

Basically, you have to make technology cool.

theoakman says

I will say, the scientific profession is not nearly as professional and respectable as it was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Seems like a difficult comparison to make. Not only because you are comparing real time perception to history (sort of ancient history in modern science), but also because in most areas we are in such a different part of the learning curve (learning curves look like a logarithmic function).

Huge dramatic gains are made in short periods of time in the early part of any learning curve. Hard to compare to the breakthroughs that don't come nearly as easily later.

I think it's absurd to say that science was more professional in the late 19th century. A whole lot of quackery got passed off as science, and the peer-review process was nothing like it is today.

"If the sun refuse to shine
I don't mind
I don't mind
If the mountains fell in the sea
Let it be
It ain't me
Got my own world to look thru
And I ain't gonna copy you

Now if 6 turned out to be 9
I don't mind
I don't mind
If all the hippies cut off all their hair
I don't care
I don't care
Dig it
Got my own world to look thru
And I ain't gonna copy you

White collared conservative flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic fingers at me
They're hoping soon my kind will drop and die
But I'm gonna wave my freak flag high, high

Fall mountain, just don't fall on me
Hello, Mr. Businessman, why you ain't dressed like me?

I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to
Sing on, brother,
Play on, drummer"

Don't really see how jimi hendrix is relevant, but cool song, great album. anti establishment message true, but interesting that he had a work ethic that anyone could be proud of. You don't become a virtuoso at anything without working really really hard at it.

Well, Nomo,

The reason that you don't understand ToT is because, in addition to operating on many more working brain cells, you're a scientist. You're biased coming out of the gate. The problem with people like you is that you churn out scientists, who in turn will probably pop out some ultra intelligent children.

...uh, I forgot where I was going with that one.

marcus says

interesting that he had a work ethic that anyone could be proud of

He also choked to death on his own vomit.

Kevin says

marcus says

interesting that he had a work ethic that anyone could be proud of

He also choked to death on his own vomit.

Did they ever prove it was his vomit? You can't really dust for vomit.

I like this post.... looking forward to more comments here...

Who knows? That was uncalled for. May he rest in peace. Organized crime used to have a big role in the music business. So, we'll never know what happened. One thing we do know, and that is the guy was a great artist, even if his stuff wasn't your taste. And he was very smart. So the idea that he went crazy overboard with the pills is hard to believe, unless it was suicide. I still say, may he rest in peace.

No disrespect meant - it's a line from Spinal Tap.

marcus says

Who knows? That was uncalled for. May he rest in peace. Organized crime used to have a big role in the music business. So, we’ll never know what happened. One thing we do know, and that is the guy was a great artist, even if his stuff wasn’t your taste. And he was very smart. So the idea that he went crazy overboard with the pills is hard to believe, unless it was suicide. I still say, may he rest in peace.

I like Jimi Hendrix as a musician, but the dude had a serious drug problem. Lots of great musicians have.

That's why musicians shouldn't be role models.

It's not uniquely American, however it's more noticeable for the USA. We are incredibly dependent on science for our lifestyle and our global power. Yet we deride the very basis of it and get away with it, at least for now. Richy Rich is squandering the family fortune, this will end badly.

Vicente says

Yet we deride the very basis of it and get away with it, at least for now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science

http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/12/republicans-reject-science-scientists-reject-republicans/

One animated movie I can think of has a scientist as a hero:

Disney's Atlantis

Also there was that guy in the Core.

And isn't Indy Jones a professor and archaelogist?

Granted these are exceptions though...

I don't think Americans are anti science. I live in a very American neighborhood, no one cares.

Most science is in China/India... they are cheaper so anything in US are usually migrants from India doing it... not sure if xenophobia gets conflated with science.

You guys are funnier than a jar of nickels at Neimen Marcus.

ChrisLA says

Most science is in China/India

I'm speechless. Do you really think this way?

marcus says

theoakman says

I will say, the scientific profession is not nearly as professional and respectable as it was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Seems like a difficult comparison to make. Not only because you are comparing real time perception to history (sort of ancient history in modern science), but also because in most areas we are in such a different part of the learning curve (learning curves look like a logarithmic function).
Huge dramatic gains are made in short periods of time in the early part of any learning curve. Hard to compare to the breakthroughs that don’t come nearly as easily later.

I wasn't so much talking of the breakthrough as I was about the integrity of the scientists themselves. They were incredibly careful to not declare they were right until proven right. The theory of relativity was a race to the truth. Everyone wanted to be right, but no one claimed to be prematurely. Present day science involves people drawing all sorts of unsupported conclusions that they want you to accept as the gospel.

People are not pursuing science fields because there are no jobs thanks to outsourcing and the H1-B criminal enterprise. It far more profitable to become an investment banker or a doctor.

And when people do pursue science fields on the PhD level, in most cases they want to become tenured professors. Nobody actually wants to work in the field.

You guys getting the Picture yet?
Is this thing on?

The more I think about it, it must stem for religious fervor. The people who think that "everything I need to know comes from one book" are always the same. Example a large percentage of people in the USA don't believe in evolution, preferring to believe the Earth was formed about 10,000 years ago and fossils are a tool of Satan. You can encounter the same thing in Turkey quite frequently. There's no real difference between an Islamist and a Christian when it comes to their hostility to science as a DISTRACTION from their magical thinking.

I'm reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer and it's good. I recommend it.

Vincent but what you don't realize, the religious have always been skeptical, nothing has changed.
It's the modern Liberals that grabbed Science from behind and is using Science as a human shield, to push policy.
I don't think there's not a single person in the world, with out genuine concern for what is going on in the world with all of it's natural resources, and the resulting pollution. The Liberal voice has seized those realities and are injecting their agendas to monetize the rational fears that are already inherent in everyone on this planet. Their solutions does nothing to convince most that the Liberal intent is as Sincere as they claim. Especially when the proposals on the table consist of things like Carbon credits, tax burdens on efficient energies while we blunder our way to alternative energies that yield as much efficiency and is cost effective to do so.
The Poor and the lower class are the ones ultimately will be on the hook, for everything that has been politicized in the last decade. While the Liberals keep claiming otherwise. I've been poor most of my young adult life, I know damn well who pays for Political feathers, and the hat where they stick them.

Meanwhile what about Deforestation, over fishing, water and land pollution, over developing?
A bullet train from Miami to Tampa does nothing to address those realities.

People aren't as stupid as the Left would like to claim, they dispute Science, they are calling the guy giving the PowerPoint presentation a Liar and a Cheat.

I don't think Americans are becoming more anti-science Luddites. It just seems that way from our sensationalized media.

We are a nation of specialists. Does it really harm the science of biology if a dance teacher doesn't believe in evolution? Or an accountant at a shoe lace factory doesn't believe in Global Warming? Or that the owner of my local Baskin Robbins believes in all sorts of wacky untrue things about contraception?

As long as we trust the dance teacher to know and understand dance, the accountant to balance the shoe lace books, and my Baskin Robbins guy to give me my double scoop of Chocolate Escape; we should also only trust our scientists to know and understand science.

You don't have some poofy haired Kansas School Board member who worked at a dry cleaners her whole life decide science policy for Biology. One should consult the experts and follow their advice.

As the bumper sticker on my engineer friend's care used to say: "Repeal Ohm's Law NOW!"

I think that with a free press and relatively comfortable lifestyles, we have the luxury of looking at the downside of engineering and science marvels. We take the upside for granted, and consequently look at advances with a skeptical view: drug resistant bacteria vs. antibiotics; advances in microelectronic design and fabrication vs. pollution in the majority world; the automobile vs. environmental degradation. The scientist/engineer then becomes the whipping boy for unintended consequences. There is also an uneasiness with the the military industrial complex, which was a driver of much of the technological innovation in the 20th century. Not to mention, the Cold War was not exactly an easy peace; a relative calm coupled with the the overwhelming fear that you might not wake up tomorrow.
It's interesting to note that the IEEE recognizes this perception problem, and recently changed their tag line to Advancing Technology for Humanity. I consider myself someone who lives in tension with these competing ideas. Clearly, though, I have no desire to go back living in a cave. I have only to look at my friends thriving children; they have a metabolic disorder which was diagnosed and treated by scientific advances. Without their daily formula, they would be mentally retarded; we live in the age of miracles...

EBGuy says

We take the upside for granted, and consequently look at advances with a skeptical view: drug resistant bacteria vs. antibiotics; advances in microelectronic design and fabrication vs. pollution in the majority world; the automobile vs. environmental degradation. The scientist/engineer then becomes the whipping boy for unintended consequences. There is also an uneasiness with the the military industrial complex, which was a driver of much of the technological innovation in the 20th century.

Yeah it really pisses off a community when they sprout up Cancer clusters in their kids all around the same age, and lived at the same site for the same amount of time.

Just because Science can make things differently, doesn't always mean it's better or safer.

Polio Vaccine - Scientific achievement
Edible Plastic - Creators of the Human Goat.

EBGuy says

we live in the age of miracles…

Thats a nice thing to remember. Ever seen this:

Louis CK - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

@Tenouncetrout

>People are not pursuing science fields because there are no jobs thanks to outsourcing and the H1-B criminal enterprise. It far more profitable to become an investment banker or a doctor...its alot move exciting to think about being an actor, athelete, or even a wall street person making 400k a year.

@PersainCAT

>When the average physicist makes 200K a year and breakthroughs occur every 6 months come back to me about the usa being pro science/tech

'nuff said.

On one forum I read occassionally, here is one informative post someone recently authored:

If one more person quotes the science shortage I will scream. I have an MSc in Chemistry and unfortunately currently work in the private sector.

I have since spread word far and wide for all Americans to avoid science degrees like the plague. If I don't get into a fed job by fall I am starting grad school for A MS in accounting. I am through.

How about looking at it from a stand point of a "successful" society. Science is hard work, it's interesting, but so is Art and Literature, everyone has their preferences. One pays well when society is hurting in general (science), but both can offer a decent life style when society is doing well (like now).

People take courses that are necessary for their survive, but if survival is guaranteed then it's less likely they'll take them.

Look at countries like China, or India. They put out masses of women scientists, not just men. They put out a lot of people who don't necessarily enjoy science, but do it because they know they'll be able to survive with this skill set. That is important for them.