Group 6 - War on Science 9/5

Alie Simpson
Emily Yan
Erica Stanitski
Anna Rekich


Is there a war on science?

We do not think that there is a war on science, rather debates due to diverging perspectives and opinions. We think that the term "an erosion of trust" lends itself better to the issue. As Achenbach discusses, there is a confirmation bias that helps to strengthen either sides of a debate and hinders people from accepting scientific facts. A lack of communication further divides in debates. There is no winner in science, as in a war; every problem should and does end in questions, and peoples' opinions are subject to change many times.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 7, 2019 at 6:45 PM

    Emely Yan
    Sep.7th

    The author of a book called ---The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It, Shawn Otto, firmly supports the idea that there is “A War on Science” in present and it will continue in the future. In his book, Otto thoughtfully demonstrated how the rising power of science generated a series of “wars” with religion, freedom, business, social media and so on. He listed hundreds of debatable and eye-catching issues at the beginning of the book including environmental degradation, economic inequities, nuclear weapons, GMO, etc. Then he pointed out that: “Perhaps the most troubling aspects of problem is the dearth of conversion about the issue in policymaking process.” Personally, I agree with Otto’s statement that policymaking process is a crucial problem which did not raise enough attention from the public.

    I think the “core” of the “war”, no matter which party is evolved, is an inevitable competition for “power” that informed and regulated the crowds. Clearly, the rising power of science has already threaten the dominant position of current “rulers” such as religion, money and military force. I think this competition for ruling power could lead to a "War" in both ideological and physical level, especially when the two parties are not compatible. When an individual is forced to pick up a side, as Achenbach suggested in the article, people are hard to believe and trust science if some “truths” are not aligned with their previous beliefs.
    There are several reasons which are important to consider. First, science and scientific knowledge are not accessible for majority disadvantaged groups and seem remote for their life. Second, people tend to pay more attention to bad outcomes than good aspects of science. People often blame on using automobiles which polluted the environment by generating CO2, but at the same time, they take for granted of fast and convenient transportation. Last but not least, people are feared about uncertainty. Thus, people naturally form a strong connection between certainty and authority, in other words, the "ruler" never seems wrong or make serious mistakes. However, although science is a study based on objective evidence, scientists from the same field often promote theories against each other or even deny their own statements after further investigation. Therefore, it's hard for people to firmly trust a subject which based on constant changes and rapidly evolving.

    Otto, S. (2016). The war on science: who‘s waging it, why it matters, what we can do about it. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2019 at 1:23 PM

    In “Factors Contributing to Adult Knowledge of Science and Technology” (February 5, 2013), John H. Falk and Mark D. Needham discuss different factors that affect public education in science and technology, and how strongly each of these factors correlate with self-reported scientific knowledge. The four main factors that the study focuses on are formal education, informal learning experiences such as reading books or using the internet, demographics, and workplace experience. They argue that there needs to be some kind of “assessment” of these ways in which we learn about science, because in a society where we have much greater access to information, methods of promoting public knowledge of science outside of the school setting are becoming increasingly important. However, we may sometimes run into problems with this trend, because not all of these sources result in equal or correct understandings.
    The findings of Falk and Needham's study were not extremely shocking, but slightly surprising, and I believe that it is important to acknowledge how important our non classroom based ways of learning are, because they ultimately do affect our interpretation of science. Achenbach mentions in his article that confirmation bias is a prevalent issue in developing an understanding of science. He says that “people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview” (Achenbach 44). In other words, people can seek out information through a wide variety of sources that support their beliefs, and the fact that access to this kind of information is easier now than in the past means that people can more easily find evidence for their beliefs, regardless of whether or not that evidence is entirely accurate. What it comes down to is a “scientific communication problem”, which is what John Falk and Mark Needham attempt to address. I believe their study would in fact support Achenbach’s concept of a “war on science”, because the strongest relationship between self-reported knowledge in science and technology was with informal education factors, such as the internet or museums, despite the fact that the most widely accepted factor for being most indicative of self-reported scientific knowledge is formal education, which actually was the least according to the study. However, the fact that most Americans believe that formal education is still the most effective way to gain scientific knowledge shows that people won’t always necessarily believe what is true, rather, what makes sense to them, which is one of Achenbaum’s main arguments.

    Falk, John H. and Mark D. Needham. (2013). “Factors Contributing to Adult Knowledge of Science and Technology.” Journal of Research in Scientific Teaching 50 (4), pp. 431-452.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21080

    ReplyDelete
  3. Erica StanitskiSeptember 8, 2019 at 5:26 PM

    In the article “Is There Really a War on Science?” (February 16, 2016), Robin Lloyd highlights both sides of the spectrum, but sides with the individuals who declare science as not specifically being a war. Lloyd states that mistrust is at the forefront of this so-called battle between individuals and scientists, but it is an exaggeration to call this encounter a war. Instead, this disconnect is just people “who typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole.” The author goes on to include the opinions of opponents of using “war” to describe science and says that socioeconomic status may affect the role that scientists have in society. They are deemed to be “privileged” in comparison to typical individuals and are mistakenly taking a “defensive stance” instead of a supportive one. This conclusion puts the blame directly on the scientists for causing all of this controversy. It is apparent that scientists fail to recognize that other humans do not understand all of the information that they are receiving and that giving them more material is not helping the situation. Lloyd wraps up the article by using the GMO issue to analyze how ethical problems are affecting the public. This is not a war, it is more of a huge misunderstanding between the public and most scientists in her eyes.
    The views in this article do not directly correspond to those in “The Age of Disbelief” by Joel Achenbach. Achenbach uses terminology that treats scientific issues as a battleground and science as a war. The difference between what Achenbach and Lloyd state comes down to the level of intensity put on each side of the non-scientist versus scientist debate. In “The Age of Disbelief,” people are more at fault for using confirmation bias to back up their own beliefs. This mindset is different in “Is There Really a War on Science?” as the blame is put on scientists who do not understand the population that they are serving.
    For me, the interpretation of science as a “war” is extreme. After reading the articles of these two authors, I understand their method of holding only one side responsible but I do not think that only one side is at fault. Both scientists and non-scientists alike are not compromising and communicating enough with each other. This is not a “war,” it is a strong miscommunication made up of many misunderstandings. There is no physical fighting and the battleground is nonexistent as people all over the world on different sides of scientific concepts are mixed in geographically. For problems like climate change and GMOs, I agree with Lloyd when compromise and an increase in understanding are seen as viable options to resolve this roadblock. Although science is inherently a great advancement, each day it causes more and more trouble. Both scientists and non-scientists are disgruntled and fighting to win an argumentative debate, not a war.

    Lloyd, Robin. “Is There Really a War on Science?” Scientific American, 15 Feb. 2016, www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/.

    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