Group 5 Blog Post War on Science

We discussed the "war on science" and Achenbach's examples. As an opener, we generally agree that there is a war on science, however science is usually winning. In every article we've read so far, we've encountered confirmation bias and not a lack of information, but rather an emphasis on incorrect information. We particularly liked when Achenbach references Dan Kahan, saying that he "found higher literacy was associated with stronger views- at both ends of the spectrum." (44). We find it a little jarring that so many people are well-informed but gain reinforcement of their views from the same sources and people over and over again. The "war on science" may not be able to end as quickly as it should because people who oppose some forms of science are not changing their points of view.

Comments

  1. UnknownSeptember 5, 2019 at 2:36 PM

    I agree with Group 5’s statement. I believe that there is a War on Science. It is a war due to the drastic measures people are willing to take to prevent or limit conversation concerning scientific issues that vary from their beliefs. Achenbach explains that people cling to their own perceptions about science,“naive beliefs,” and use “scientific knowledge to reinforce” their beliefs that already impacts their worldview (Achenbach 41 - 44). Researching or studying only the scientific information that confirms one’s existing beliefs is limiting and prevents any further scientific understanding to develop.

    It is even more concerning and proof of War Against Science when government policies and officials make the process of learning and discussing issues like climate change and fossil fuel inaccessible. Emily Holden reveals in “War on Science: Trump Administration Muzzles Climate Experts, Critics Say,” that “Trump officials are censoring warnings about the climate crisis” and that “an analysis of thousands of government websites shows terms related to climate change have also dropped 26% between 2016 and 2018, according to the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative” (Holden 1). Despite evidence of the beneficial aspects science brings humanity and its warnings to better care for the planet, it appears those who disagree with climate change are finding ways to erase it from the conversation. Erasing climate change and other scientific discussion points does nothing to help our warming world and it has potentially harmful consequences. The War on Science starts with people who cling to their “naive beliefs” and those work to prevent others from challenging their own scientific beliefs as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/26/war-on-science-trump-administration-muzzles-climate-experts-critics-say

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 7, 2019 at 4:18 PM

    Joel Achenback argues that there is a war on science because there is a clear split between those who accepts scientific knowledge and others who questions scientific consensus on specific issues (34). Regarding the “doubters,” Achenback believes that they are capable of understanding science, but they are vulnerable to their emotions (45). Thus, they tend to rely on their intuitions and select information that seems more reasonable and comfortable in order to reinforce their worldview (Achenback: 40). Similarly, scientists are vulnerable to “confirmation bias,” but they are more flexible with accepting the scientific consensus (Achenback: 41).

    In the article, “Week 130: Trump Takes His War on Science on the Road” by Brain Palmer, Palmer agrees with Achenback’s point of view by discussing the Trump administration’s negative attitude on science. More specifically, the Trump administration was trying to relocate researchers who work for the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Washington D.C to Kansas City. USDA is crucial because it is responsible for relevant research on all aspects of food including climate change. This strategic move of the Trump administration shows that they are skeptical of science. Even worse, they cut off resources for the public to learn about new findings and contemplate about new scientific consensus.
    https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/week-130-trump-takes-his-war-science-road
    After reading the Achenback piece and doing research on the topic, I agree that there is a war on science. Currently, we are in a bad position where the government lacks confidence in science, which ultimately worsens the public’s reliance on their intuition. In the future, we should aim to influence people to think rationally about scientific consensus by bridging dialogue between scientists and the public. This helps to reduce information bias through third party channels, such as media, in order to help the public overcome their inner battle.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Henry CookeSeptember 8, 2019 at 5:38 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2019 at 7:56 PM

    Joel Achenback believes that there is always some debate between scientists who work on the same theory. The ideas between scientists are often different, so all sorts of so-called truths are often challenged. (35) At the same time, because even if the scientific conclusions are tested many times, it may still go wrong, which leads to the news and media amplifying it and causing the public or even the government's distrust of science. (41)

    I looked for Harry Collins' article "The Science Wars," in which Collins talked about the commonalities and consequences of war between scientists. At the same time, it is affirmed that the debate between scientists is easily misunderstood, so the government and people will have doubts about scientists. Then there will be various scientists to publish articles to laugh at other scientists. (paragraph1) This is similar to the theme of "War on Science." But through this article, I realized that in fact, in the debate of scientists, other people will pay attention to their concerns and lead to the effect of knowledge science. (paragraph6) For me, although it is true that when this kind of controversy arises, people will feel some doubts about science, but at the same time give some basic knowledge of science. For some unrelated people will also deepen the impression of science. Therefore, it is also possible to let people have a deeper understanding of science, rather than listening to the opinions of the media.

    http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/harrycollins/the-science-wars/
    （link of the article）

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Group 2

Ocean acidification is important because it impacts biodiversity. A falling ph level has detrimental impacts on species that build shells or skeleton based on carbonate. For example, tropical corals. Hence ocean acidification destroys ecosystems, resulting in the ultimate disappearance of certain species. The computer generated evidence predicts that if the carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise exponentially, this will result in the drastic increase in the ocean ph level. The levels of PH are predicted to rise as much as they have in the past 300 million years in the next 1000 years. The computer models used past historical and geographical evidence to see what the natural rise would be and compared it to the rate at which ph levels are rising today. It would be difficult for nature to compensate for these damages. Consequently, resulting in further reduction on the marine biodiversity, specifically, coral reefs. Aidan Coco Grace Miske Jingyi Li Ling Zheng
Read more
Group 5: We misidentified the metal as Iron, when it is in fact Zinc. This occurred because we calculated the volume incorrectly which thereby translated to the wrong density. In addition, we observed that the metal did not melt. Our metal also fell apart onto the table which could have been a sign of possible meltage. As for our mineral, we believed that it was quartz, when it was actually Fluorite. We did not believe it had dissolved into the test tube; however, it in fact was slightly soluble. The largest error we made, which would have helped us determine correctly what the quartz and the metal were, was incorrectly calculating the density. If we would have done this part correctly, we likely would have determined the correct mystery materials.
Read more