patrick.net

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.

ten oz,

do you ever read what you write? you're very angry at the "left" and the "liberals" but you make little sense. Would you please restate your point in english?

Vicente says

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.

What percentage would that be? And what is the percentage that believes that organisms change over time but believe in a divine creator? I don't think evolution is incongruous with creationism. You won't be able to "prove" either one satisfactorily and in the end it is faith in one idea over the other.

Humanity is FAR different than our"closest" genetic bretheren. I have yet to see a dolphin hospital. Where are the monuments to the "apes of old" erected by non-humans in the rainforest? How about the weekly ape collections to support the ape orphanage on the other side of the mountain? My dog doesn't tell jokes and won't even laugh at my best ones. Somewhere along the line something happened that sets us apart - perhaps your science-based religion says evolution and deists believe in divine intervention? Why can't we agree to disagree rather than constantly denigrating each other? The only fact that most "science" proposes in this sphere is that there is no possible way for there to be a "divine" entity - even though they have no science to back this up...is it based solely on faith. They then turn around and impugn the other side for having faith of a different color. Humanity needs both science (the understanding of nature) and religion (the understanding of morality and philosophy) - either one on their own leaves much to be desired.

I do know some people that have made the ludicrous statement "Dinosaurs didn't exist because they aren't in the bible" - I disagree with this person more (actually completely disagree) than someone with a theory of "life started on the backs of crystals" primarily because the former is illogical whereas the latter might be plausible. Being plausible, however, doesn't mean it is correct...let's get real here...it IS plausible that you'll win the lottery...after all someone has to win...but do you want to base our beliefs on something that is simply a mathematical possibility?

theoakman says

Present day science involves people drawing all sorts of unsupported conclusions that they want you to accept as the gospel.

Scientific consensus does not equate to truth. There was consensus that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and spontaneous generate existed. One should not be surprised that Al Gore's declaration of scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming is viewed with a skeptical eye - sometimes the skeptics are right, after all...and if there were no skeptics then the politicization (remember hundreds of years ago when "religion" ruled the politics of the day?) of science would allow all sorts of kooky ideas to run roughshod over society. You can often tell what is politicized and what is not by looking at the solutions to the "problem" - a carbon-credit trading scheme is simply a forced wealth transfer that does nothing to solve the "problem" ... a perfect example that most normal people can understand. A direct tax on coal-fired generated electricity with the funds going towards nuclear-based power generation would not have the same push back as it actually does something to solve the "problem" of CO2 emissions. Even though I'm a anthropogenic skeptic (I don't doubt that is something going on - I'm just not sold on the "consensus" reasoning as to what it is or even that we can do something that will make a difference), I would have no problem with this. Most people have no problem with "doing something just in case" - but that something has to have some chance of success.

I liked watching Bill Ney

Ellie, there are many reasons, why the Liberal have their Ass in a wad believing that every American that isn't a Liberal, must be anti Science. I pointed out religion being one, and others have stated other good reasons.

Pick one for your self and go with it.

Tenouncetrout says

Ellie, there are many reasons, why the Liberal have their Ass in a wad believing that every American that isn’t a Liberal, must be anti Science. I pointed out religion being one, and others have stated other good reasons.
Pick one for your self and go with it.

Not true, my Dad is a staunch conservative and a religious man, but believes in Evolution and Science.

However, it's pretty clear from surveys that the percentages of God-made-the-world-10Kyears-ago are similar in Democrats and independents, but jumps up quite a lot in Republicans.

Evolution is a FACT, as my Dad would say. The theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism was what Darwin came up with. Gravity is a demonstrable FACT of our existence. The theory of gravitation allows you to model and accurately predict outcomes, giving you the ability to do everything from calculate simple terminal velocity to basic orbital mechanics. Most Americans don't understand what a "theory" is in science terms. They think if they burned toast and then wreck their car, they can hypothesize a connection between the two and label it a theory.

Tenouncetrout says

Ellie, there are many reasons, why the Liberal have their Ass in a wad believing that every American that isn’t a Liberal, must be anti Science. I pointed out religion being one, and others have stated other good reasons.
Pick one for your self and go with it.

What planet exactly do you live on? Where is it that anyone believes that every American that isn't a liberal must be anti Science. You need a another hobby other than hating liberals 24/7.

The Christian religion has always been anti science. This was not true of other religions. The muslim religion was very pro science for the first 400 years and made great scientific achievements. Then the fundamentalist leaders became more powerful and gradually shut out science. The Jewish religion has always been pro education and pro science.

Christian anti science stems from the very simple fact that in the early days of Christianity almost all of the educated people like scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. were pagans. The church deeply resented this challenge to church teachings and made it policy that all education for Christians must be done through the church from the bible in order to have tight control over their congregations. As the church gained large amounts of power this led to the dark ages that lasted until the writings of Aquinus suggested that education in secular subjects might be pursued again. If not for the Muslim churches and scholars almost all scientific and philosophical documents that existed would have been destroyed during the dark ages. This anti education anti science attitude of the Christian church has carried on to the present day. The pope did recognize that the church were wrong about Galileo after only 300 years so things are progressing I guess.

So it's not a conservative vs liberal thing. It's a fundamentalist religion vs everyone else thing.

is it not odd that the question posed goes unnoticed? is there any possibilty that the oposing view could pose a question in the same manner? "Where did the antiChristian/Jewish, anti-moral mentality of American society come from?" .... for some, that is a more important question than the other.

bob2356 says

The Christian religion has always been anti science.

Hmm...Kelvin, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Descartes...the list of scientists that saw no conflict with Christianity goes on forever. Try again. If you are going to rewrite history you'll need a lot more ink for your fountain pen and be able to burn more books than the muslims did at the library of alexandria.

EightBall says

What percentage would that be? And what is the percentage that believes that organisms change over time but believe in a divine creator?

Half of Republicans believe God poofed humans onto the planet in recorded history.

Half of Republicans are blithering morons by this.

I don’t think evolution is incongruous with creationism.

It is completely incongruous with the "intelligent designer" hypothesis, since there are so many blind alleys and sub-optimal ad-hoc optimizations evident in life's development over the eons, and also evident in our DNA.

If the religious community offered the "drunk and incompetent, or evidentally totally random designer" hypothesis, the scientific community would not have much to object to.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.

You won’t be able to “prove” either one satisfactorily and in the end it is faith in one idea over the other.

anyone with a functioning brain can see the sheer randomness of the development of life over the past several billions of years.

anyone with knowledge of the near infinity of the cosmos can reasonably assume this same process has occurred countless times in countless other environments.

Only pitiful fools who are blinded by their religious dogma hold onto any idea of special creation or guided evolution.

It is simply an excuse to wedge their beliefs into science, to buffer them from the cold reality that humans are apes, tailless monkeys, mammals, chordates, and animals, and that all of us share an unbroken common ancestry dating back, generation after generation, eon after eon, to the most basic of living organisms on this planet 3-odd billion years ago.

Creationism of any stripe is entirely similar to arguing a supernatural power has been shoving the continents around for billions of years to make interesting shapes on the map.

It is literally moronic, though if you want to argue your God zapped a mud puddle ~3.5 billion years ago and got life started, we can find common ground to very mildly agree to disagree on.

Bap33 says

“Where did the antiChristian/Jewish, anti-moral mentality of American society come from?”

Jefferson and Madison? Thomas Paine? You know, that thing called . . .

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

EightBall says

bob2356 says

The Christian religion has always been anti science.

Hmm…Kelvin, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Descartes…the list of scientists that saw no conflict with Christianity goes on forever. Try again. If you are going to rewrite history you’ll need a lot more ink for your fountain pen and be able to burn more books than the muslims did at the library of alexandria.

That's why Copernicus hid his writings until he died. That's why Descartes abandoned his most signifigent work after Galileo was tortured. The list of educated people persecuted by the church goes on forever.

Maybe you should read this http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm for a little more insight. There is no need to rewrite the history of abuses by the church, it stands on its own just fine.

This thread has gone way off topic, but the premise of the original post is grossly inaccurate. Americans ARE studying science. But for every 3 STEM grads who enter the labor market, there is only one STEM job.

eeeew

I look more like Burt than Ned.

And I like Sally more than Jerry.

EightBall says

Humanity is FAR different than our”closest” genetic bretheren

Humans killed off our closest genetic bretheren (the neanderthals) millenia ago.

Our closest living relatives are far removed from what we are.

Humans are amazingly opposed to the idea of intelligent species that aren't human. That is why we make great strides to either kill people who we perceive as different (see any number of racial genocide incidents), and to have an instant negative reaction to any suggestion of significant genetic variance amongst different ethnic groups.

I hope that we don't ever encounter another intelligent civilization. We'll probably try to kill them before they so much as land a ship.

This topic has grown into a very interesting one, indeed.

Kevin says

and to have an instant negative reaction to any suggestion of significant genetic variance amongst different ethnic groups

I do not feel negative about the significant genetic variances amongst different ethnic groups. But, folks do call me racist for knowing/suggesting that those variances are real. That is very frustrating at times.

We need only look at Venus to see the endpoint of runaway greenhouse.

What matters if it takes 1,000 years or 1 million years to make our planet uninhabitable?

The idea that we should test the limits of what our ecosystem can absorb is insanity.

Cultures in human history have perished by ecocide. Easter Island is one stark example. Conservation can come later is always the argument, until later becomes.... TOO LATE.

I have hope for my species, I think it CAN do better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0&sns=fb

theoakman says

I’m badmouthing the people that look at effects centuries out and try to scare the public into thinking society will be ruined because Avenue A will be the new Ocean Avenue.

The dialog these days is not about that Quincy episode where he explored the deadly consequence of LA pollution.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0681868/

The worst-case endpoint of mucking up our planet, is making it UNINHABITABLE. Not just for us, or our culture, or our species. All life on this rock could be extinguished. What's the tipping point at which an ecosystem can no longer compensate? Even primitives know that pooping in your water supply can have consequences in small scale. We should be thinking longer-term, and largely are not. If someone said "hey let's terraform Mars or Venus and experiment on it to see how a living planet works and play God and see what it's limits are!" I would say hey great give that a try. To endlessly push the limits of the one in which you currently live? Insanity. I vote against running that experiment.

theoakman says

didn’t deny what is a possibility. And...

Here's a vid on one good reason the listen to the global warming arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=channel

and here's an interesting chart via google search on rising sea levels:
timeline for rising sea levels

"Mar 3, 2009 - London, March 3 2009 - Björn Lomborg's claim that sea levels are not rising faster than predicted are unfounded and used by those wanting to downplay climate change, says Stefan Rahmstorf. "Global sea level is rising, and faster than expected. We need to..."

and here's an interesting article on 'The Origin of America’s Intellectual Vacuum' by Chris Hedges:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_origin_of_americas_intellectual_vacuum_20101115/

He argues that political purges by the right in the 50's has contributed to a legacy of anti-intellectualism and focuses on an American professor who was driven out by the McCarthy purges. It doesn't touch much on the strong anti-intellectualism prevalent in US christian society though, which in my opinion contributes a whole lot to the effort.

EightBall says

Stating that is is completely incongruous for other people is forcing your belief on other people.

If you make a stupid assertion, telling you and others why you're wrong about it isn't forcing my belief on you.

I made the assertion that development of life on this planet does not bear any evidence of "intelligent design".

Just the evidence of a random process iterating through trillions of generations of stepwise changes, with the environment culling the variations that didn't work out so well.

As for how life got started on this planet, that's just a question to try to put God back into the picture.

By the evidence we have, Your Creator must have been a really lazy bastard. Zapped life onto Earth and then waited 800 million years to create photosynthesis, one billion years for life to glom together in complex cells, another billion years until these more complex cells started working together in single colonies, 200 million years developing into what we consider independent animals, another 200 million years to get to proto-insects (think silverfish), 200 million years of intensive development for life in the seas (It sure liked fish!), 200 million years for fish to branch off as reptiles, 200 million years for mammals to develop into us humans.

The bottom line is you have to agree that your Creator has given us rational people ABSOLUTELY NO hint that life arose and developed here by anything other than absolutely random happenstance.

And it puzzles me why fundamentalists like you actually disagree with this. The way I see it, your Creator -- these days at least -- is big on Free Will -- making the choice to believe in It require Faith and not mere logical deduction.

Anything less than the scientific record we have now -- indeed, the immense universe we see hurling away from us in all directions -- would make Its game a bit too obvious.

Like I said, If you want to believe your God zapped a mud puddle I don't have any particular problem with that assertion, since as you say science can't go back that far.

But don't be surprised while you're playing this intellectually dishonest little game to find that we eventually do.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

theoakman says

This is not random. It’s energetically favorable and stable. The same type of interactions happen in your DNA, proteins, and what not.

We can all agree that the Creator established an interesting "chemistry set" for Life to explore on its own, in its apparently mindless but certainly relentless manner.

There is even some speculation that the processes of life are leveraging mechanics that humans have yet to fully understand, eg. quantum entanglement.

One similar example of this is the iridescent sheen of insect wings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating#Natural_gratings

Life took a while to find this mechanism, but it has been running with it for hundreds of millions of years.

Troy says

And it puzzles me why fundamentalists like you actually disagree with this.

Who said I was a fundamentalist? Not me I assure you. I guess you think anyone that isn't an atheist is a fundamentalist perhaps? I have more problems with fundamentalists than I would ever have with someone like you. At least you are (most of the time if not the majority) reasonable.

Troy says

The way I see it, your Creator — these days at least — is big on Free Will — making the choice to believe in It require Faith and not mere logical deduction.

Precisely!

Troy says

Like I said, If you want to believe your God zapped a mud puddle I don’t have any particular problem with that assertion, since as you say science can’t go back that far.

Why is it always a zap and a mud puddle - did you see that same reel-to-reel movie that I watched in grade school too referencing the "primordial soup"?

Troy says

But don’t be surprised while your playing this intellectually dishonest little game to find that we eventually do.

I'd find it fascinating if we found life elsewhere. We probably will eventually - if we don't screw ourselves out of existence beforehand. I don't see where I'm being dishonest though - in your view irrational, perhaps, but dishonest?

Troy says

The bottom line is you have to agree that your Creator has given us rational people ABSOLUTELY NO hint that life arose and developed here by anything other than absolutely random happenstance

IF the only way to think about God was as a "being" then I might be an atheist. But from my point of view, I'm happy to just enjoy the mystery. I like being open to the possibility that there are aspects of the universe and life that are so far beyond my comprehension that it would be foolish to commit to an absolute nonbelief. Call it some kind of universal intelligence, or maybe the sum total of all consciousness exerting some influence on the physical world. The definition doesn't have to be the old man in the clouds. In my view, by definition this is beyond description or definition, if it exists.

Call me guilty of magical thinking. Okay.

Maybe my consciousness, and my sense of "self" is just a trick that my brain is playing on me, and it can all be explained as coming about by random happenstance. But I'm not feeling it.

The argument to this might be, "just because it's so far beyond comprehension, doesn't mean that that there is a metaphsical aspect to it." Yes, but if you can agree that there is so much that is far beyond our comprehension, then you can't know that it is not guided by some metaphysical intelligence. Therefore being at least agnostic (or even having faith) makes sense.

In my view the atheist has something in common with the faithful believers, and that is the atheist can't handle not knowing the answer. So their answer is a definitive no.

Guys, the argument about god has been decided. God made bananas perfectly in order for humans to eat, therefore God exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM

Now lets get back to where the anti-science/technology mentality of American society comes from.

kentm says

Guys, the argument about god has been decided. God made bananas perfectly in order for humans to eat, therefore God exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM
Now lets get back to where the anti-science/technology mentality of American society comes from.

Tide goes in, Tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

It's really hard to even have these conversations with people who can't be bothered to learn the stuff that we teach in elementary school.

Kevin says

Tide goes in, Tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

Tidal actions are caused directly by God, by the way. : )

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/bill-oreilly-moon-tides_n_817723.html

or they're a direct result of the mother ship's pull when she circles the earth.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/evolution-classroom-bill-nye-science-education

Bubble Bobble says

I get laid more than my english major friends

well, maybe... but I can describe it more eloquently afterward. ;) Porn written by scientists would be downright icky.

elliemae says

Porn written by scientists would be downright icky.

Don't you live in Utah? A state that I recall is a VERY HIGH consumer of porn. I suppose y'all have the best knowledge base to judge from.

Like everything else, it depends on what turns YOU on:

Vicente says

Don’t you live in Utah? A state that I recall is a VERY HIGH consumer of porn. I suppose y’all have the best knowledge base to judge from.

I know that we have (or once had) the dubious honor of being the state with the highest incidence of prescription drug abuse per capita. Also we excel at multi-level marketing schemes that prey on the very weak via affinity crimes (trusting people met at church). And having worked in the medical field in a few different states, I've never met so many nasty people as when I worked in Utah... Now you tell me we excel at porn?

Things are looking up!

Who knew ? You can process voices and they come out perfectly on key.

http://www.symphonyofscience.com/

and speaking of Carl Sagan, have you seen this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA