[Phys-l] Anti-science (Was: Responding to a DJ about science)

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

The big problem is that the US has a history of anti-intellectualism, which
has grown stronger in certain ways.  FDR was educated and talked like an
educated person, but now if you talk in an educated manner you are less
likely to be elected.  The anti-science streak is just part of that general
trend.  In the 50s we had a lot of optimism that science would solve all of
our problems, but that feeling is now gone, and many consider science to be
the enemy.  This is a big contrast to many other countries where if you talk
in an uneducated fashion, you will never be elected.  Obama is a throwback
because he uses very educated speech.  Clinton used his Arkansas roots to
affect a folksy air, and Bush was plain illiterate or sometimes incoherent.
We also have a strong strain of public Puritanism which distrusts too much
education.  In other countries they do not worry about mistresses, but
rather want a competent person.  I was told by an Argentinean that a
mistress was mandatory for the Argentine president.

For a short look at how this plays out do a search on anti-science.  You
will come up with a huge number of blogs and articles about this.  One that
caught my eye said look at the science textbooks.  They are often quite
inaccurate, and the teachers often do not understand the science.  And then
the students when told the facts do not believe them, but just memorize them
for tests.

Science teaching is often a dreary affair where students come away saying
they learned nothing.  And if you use tests like the FCI or FMCE you can
show that this is often true.  You can use the Lawson test to see if the
students improved in thinking ability, and usually you will get ZERO gain.
Actually I recently showed some very good positive gain there, but usually
it is miniscule to zero.  I also had a large amount of anecdotal evidence
that the students thought they improved their thinking.  But all of the
studies show that students dislike science more as they take more courses.

Sooo, the problem is much deeper than just a DJ.  We need to be going after
the educational system which has failed to acquaint students with how
science really works.  Hitting one DJ is like swatting mosquitoes.  More are
on the way.  You need to drain the swampy water in your backyard.  Or use
insect repellant (ignore the DJ), while trying to drain the water.

But there are some signs that things are changing with the younger people.
Many have been turning away from the religious right, and Puritanism is gone
with the majority of them.  But we are not at the stage where an atheist can
get elected to high public office.  It is strange that gays have made much
more progress than atheists or agnostics.  We can have a gay congressperson
as long as they belong to a church.  Now are there any surveys of youngsters
about anti-science attitudes?  I can not judge this by experience because
everyone I know is far from anti-science.  Oh yes, anti-Darwinism has been
gradually decreasing since the 1950s, and that is one reason why the
religious right has been so frantic to inject their point of view into
textbooks.  They know they are losing, which makes them even more militant.
At least they don't have anti-Darwin suicide bombers because they consider
suicide to a grave sin.  Why can't they just have a suicide squad as in the
Life of Brian?  The religious right has lost the Supreme Court here.  In
their zeal to put in anti-abortionists they have a majority Catholic court
which approves of Darwin.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> I actually did call in to a syndicated right-leaning talk show about
> global warming - twice to the same show in fact several months apart.
>
> Here's some advice I would give if you think of doing it yourself
>
> 1) Realize that the playing field is NOT AT ALL FAIR.  This is like a
> verbal boxing match where your opponent has been training for years.  Not
> only that, he is also the referee - so he can "call time-out" at any time
> (by going to commercial or simply cutting you off).  Both times I called
> in, I eventually ended up talking to myself while he went on to
> pontificate on the air.  Furthermore, he most likely has a staff that can
> be googling things to feed to him.
>
> 2) Listen to the show.  The hosts have typical "gotcha" tricks and
> debating tactics that they tend to use.  Be aware of these and be ready
> for them.
>
> 3) Hosts are no dummies  -- they have to be intelligent and driven and
> informed and driven to talk articulately for hours a day.  Don't assume
> that your PhD and 20 years of teaching experience will make you able to
> out-talk them on the air.
>
> 4) Try to keep on topic.  This was one of the lessons I learned on-air.  I
> wanted to "teach" the host and audience, but he wanted to score points by
> finding something that he could use to show his audience that he was
> better and brighter than me.