Re: [Phys-L] just for fun?

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/04/2014 02:06 PM, Richard Tarara wrote:
> Let me be clear that my posts are not really about the current
> science of anthropogenic driven global warming but rather about why
> the general public has not bought in 'lock stock and barrel' which
> seems to astound and confuse some here.  For a variety of reasons
> (not all rational or all irrational) the public seems not to hold
> science and scientists in the same awe and trust as in (most of our)
> earlier years. Catching a few mistakes, exaggerations, or
> misdirections is enough to throw a monkey wrench into otherwise
> meaningful communicatio

Well .... that's an important clarification.  Hints of
that appear in a few previous messages, but were buried
under tons of other stuff, so I was nowhere near realizing
that was the topic of discussion.

Let me also add than when we start discussing "what people 
believe, rightly or wrongly" we are no longer doing physics.
Maybe it's a media-studies course:  
  Introduction to Propaganda Video
or maybe a psychology course:
  Introduction to Chop-Logic.

I thought physics was supposed to be based on objective
facts.

Maybe physicists /should/ be trained to have better PR
skills, especially physicists who are working on public
policy issues.  Even so, I'm pretty sure that watching
a bunch of propaganda videos is not the best training.

I'm having an even harder time seeing how this belongs
in a gen-ed course.  Instead I would recommend the time-
honored approach, namely learning to recognize propaganda
and learning to stay away from it.  Kids are really good
at this;  they've been exposed to ads on TV, which
teaches them to be highly skeptical.

In any case, the defense against propaganda is not
watching more propaganda!  The best defense is to
track down the primary sources.  This used to be hard,
but the web has made it ridiculously easy, especially
for current topics.

And I still vehemently object to the double-negative
"reasoning" that says if so-and-so said something not 
quite right, then we should disbelieve everything he
says.  That sort of "reasoning" needs to be squashed
with a sledgehammer.

Also, I still vehemently object to the idea that the
right answer is found by splitting the difference.
Even in the chop-logic propaganda course, that sort 
of thing is not tolerated.  It just gives the biggest 
advantage to the boldest liar.  Every kid who's ever 
dealt with a schoolyard bully knows this is bad policy.
It's the sort of "compromise" we see on Capitol Hill, 
which helps explain why those guys have an approval
rating in the single digits.

The beauty of physics is that it doesn't matter what
the bullies believe, and it doesn't matter what the
ignoramuses believe.  Mother Nature is not easily
bullied, and not easily outvoted.  In physics, we
don't need to counteract propaganda by watching yet
more propaganda;  we have better ways of figuring
out the right answer.