Is there a war on science?
Group post: Achenbach suggests that there is a "war on science." Do you agree or disagree?
For your individual post find another article related to the theme "war on science." Briefly summarize the ideas of this author. Does (s)he agree or disagree with Achenbach? Finally, state your own opinion.
For your individual post find another article related to the theme "war on science." Briefly summarize the ideas of this author. Does (s)he agree or disagree with Achenbach? Finally, state your own opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup 1: We believe that there is a war on science in that people are sometimes overtaken by their emotions and disregard objective facts. Many issues in science are highly debated. When an issue is divisive, it is a natural response to be emotional. Due to recent technological developments, people have the ability to access information that fuels their emotions, even if the information may not be accurate. The war on science exists because objective facts and emotion are both strong motivators for conflict. The debate will continue because in addition to emotions, politics, and community influences will continue to fuel both sides of the debate which can cause more harm than good. Although debate and discussion can be healthy, the polarization caused by the war on science should not be ignored.
ReplyDeleteWe said a war is an extreme terminology. People seem to be polarized along certain issues more than generally anti science. We do find it alarming that the current administration does not support efforts to combat climate change when over 90% of scientists think it is real. A lot of the issues Achenbach discussed seem like more of a vocal minority than an all out war. Unfortunately in the cases of things like vaccines a strong minority of the population can still present a signifigant danger. We also found it surprising that people become polarized as they get more educated rather than that they are more supportive of science as they get more educated.
ReplyDeletethis is group 2
Deletehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
DeleteRobin Llyod came to a similar conclusion as us in her article is there really a war on science. She believe the "war on science" is overblown because people against GMOs, global warming and vaccines are often single issue advocates and not against science as a whole. She also brought up that at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, scientists advocated against such rhetoric. They believe taking an embattled stance fails to realize Scientists privileged position to inform the public. Its dangerous to threaten this position buy declaring a war. People against GMO's vaccines and global warming all still attempt to rely on science to bolster their position. Lloyd noted that attacking people often only makes them support their position more. War is dangerous rhetorical device that could permanently effect the relationship between science and the public. Lloyd also brought up a dangerous side effect of GMO pushback that I had not considered, that as GMO's have become less popular, GMO research may slow down which may limit countless innovations.
I think both Robin Lloyd and my group raise good points. It may be unwise to call it a war on science as it alienates scientists and the general public. If it should not be called a war then what should be done? Obviously with the current administration being against funding anti climate change initiatives, there are real consequences to the disbelief of common science consensus. I think scientists need to keep doing what they're doing and expanding evidence. Peoples minds are not going to change unfortunately until they face real consequence, but inflammatory rhetoric will only make the problem worse.
aidan coco
DeleteIn Robin Lloyd’s article, “Is There Really a War on Science,” he argues that there may not be a war on science as a whole but there are individuals who ‘protest single issues.’ These issues may include the most popular issues of anti vaccination, anti GMO’s, and climate change. He argues that there are some individuals who are reading the facts but they disagree on the “interpretation of the significance of specific findings, events or risk statements...” Other individuals trust research that is “considered flawed or manufactured.” Overall, he does not think that there is a war on science, there are just individuals with different interpretation to what they read. Lloyd would agree with Anchebach in the sense that people are misinterpreting research facts and they are encountering confirmation bias.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with Achenbach and Lloyd when they state that there is a misinterpretation of facts which cause individuals to oppose certain issues. But I don’t believe there is a “war on science.” People are not opposing science as a whole they are just rejecting some facts because they have different experiences and when they read research they fall into confirmation bias.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
In his article “Rejecting Climate Change,” Edward Rubin specifically focuses on the root causes of climate change denial. He argues that this movement is not hostile toward science, but perceives attempts to address climate change as hostile towards their lifestyles and morals. Rubin supports his argument by explaining that other scientific consensuses and technological advances are accepted by the public. Climate change deniers are opposed to increased regulations, not the basic idea of global warming or the concept of scientific fact. While Rubin recognizes that climate change denial poses a serious threat, he puts the onus of the problem on disagreements over government action.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Achenbach that there is a war on science. Advocates for theories clearly not based in fact often avidly conduct research that supports their ideas and engage in discourse. While they may also be opposed to government regulation, as Rubin argues, they deliberately ignore legitimate scientific research. This goes beyond disagreements over lifestyle choices. These groups are misinformed, and their strategy of ignoring data supported by the vast majority of scientists constitutes a war on science. The anti-vaccination movement, climate change deniers, and others have a dangerous amount of influence that does not seem to be decreasing.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26618629
The article I found in relation to the theme “war on science” was one by a group of authors called “Calling it a ‘war on science’ has consequences”. Essentially, the authors argued that calling this issue a war “might make finding a reasonable path forward harder by suggesting that people need to choose sides and vanquish their opponents in order to succeed” (Besley et al). They agreed that the emphasis should be placed on encouraging members of the scientific community to not “rely on aggressive communication tactics” and focus on creating a positive environment where the base of support can broaden. While these authors believed that current tactics to manage the current science issues are “deeply problematic” they don’t agree with Achenbach’s terminology of calling it a full-on war.
ReplyDeleteThere are topics like climate change that do serious have negative effects on the world we live in but using the term “war” is going to do more harm than good. It will constitute fear in the people we need most to combat issues like these. There is however a need for a sense of urgency to fight these major issues that are time-sensitive. So no I don’t think there is a full-on “war” on science, no one is directly opposing science as a whole. Every single person has completely different life experiences and various views that make combating issues like these difficult but not impossible.
https://theconversation.com/calling-it-a-war-on-science-has-consequences-108302
The authors of the article "Congress Can Stop The War on Science," Romany Webb and Lauren Kurtz, claim that the wagers of the "war on science" are those with political power, namely The President. Although their argument is politically-fueled, (both authors are climate change researchers), they are imploring congress to check The President's power and emphasize the importance of scientific research. This article was written in January 2019, during the government shutdown. Webb and Kurtz highlight how the shutdown affected scientists through the stopping of grant proposals and access to important data needed for research. Several scientists were forced to miss the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting. Important ideas and discussions were not able to be had because of these absences. The authors continuously point out how President Trump has stalled climate change research, censored government websites and platforms from sharing climate change-related information, and even reassigned scientists from one sector to another in order to stall their efforts. Professor Leber gave a great example of this censorship when she explained that The Department of Defense no longer has climate change information on their current website. The authors of this article from The Hill are not questioning whether there is a "war on science." Instead, they are writing with the notion that there is definitely a war on science and that congress is in the only position to stop it.
DeleteLink to outside article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/425707-congress-can-stop-the-war-on-science
In the article, "Is There Really a War on Science?" Robin Lloyd argues that although there may be an issue concerning science and public opinions, the phrasing of this problem as a war on science is counterproductive and works to further polarize people around sensitive issues. Scientists, according to Lloyd has an immense power in the average and daily life of individuals. Lloyd states the problem is not necessarily a war on science but rather "the very attempt to marshal even bogus science in their favor shows that they oppose a specific issue, not science as a whole." This can be compatible with Joel Achenbach's assessment that these issues may arise because of emotion rather than scientific illiteracy or disdain. When it comes to issues with science that are in high contention, I believe it is important in how one phrases the problem. The idea of having a war on science further exacerbates the problem, having non-climate change believers, and anti- vacinators grasping at scientific straws. By renaming the problem, we may be able to decrease some of the polarization between issues when concerning science.
ReplyDeleteLink to outside article:
Deletehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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
In his article “The Age of Disbelief,” Joel Achenbach discusses the disconnect between the field of science and public opinion. There are many instances when the public disagrees with scientists or refuses to accept their expertise, especially regarding controversial biomedical issues such as pesticides, GMO foods, and vaccines. For example, the anti-vaccination debate began with a scientific study indicated that there may be a connection between vaccines and autism. Even though that study has been debunked and the scientific community accepts that vaccines are healthy, some groups still refuse to vaccinate their children. The discrepancies between scientific expertise and public opinion indicate that their may be a “war on science,” in which the public trusts scientists’ opinions less now than it previously had. This can be for many reasons. One reason is that scientists are no longer the gate-keepers of information, and the public can find vast amounts of information online that could possibly be misleading or untrue. The public interprets this information in a way that makes sense with them and their beliefs, and they often seek out opinions that are similar to their own.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in an article from Scientific American titled “Is There Really a War on Science?,” Robin Lloyd disagrees with the term “war on science,” saying that it is counterproductive and creates a division among the scientists and the public. This makes it harder for the public to be educated about science. He claims that most members of the public who disagree with scientific beliefs are concerned with only specific topic and are not opposed to science as a whole. For this reason, the term “war on science” is an exaggeration.
There has been a long history of the public rejecting scientific claims that do not support their personal beliefs. But does this mean that there’s a war on science? Scientists are still respected for their work. The public still largely trusts the opinions of their doctors and other professionals. However, as more scientific information becomes accessible to the public, members of the public will continue to do their own research and interpretations as they please. The disconnect between scientists and the public could potentially be dangerous. However, in my opinion, the term “war on science” is an overstatement: it is too aggressive a term to be used to describe the public’s lack of education on some scientific issues.
Link to outside article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/?print=true
In an article titled “It’s not a War on Science”, Clark Miller offers a unique take on the idea that society opposes science, whether it be through ignorance, disbelief, or an inefficient distribution of research by the media, schools, and scientists themselves. Instead, Miller posits there is no war on science, simply a war on government. Looking at the issue from a historical viewpoint, Miller explains the transformation of the United States government as it became a larger, more powerful and influential institution over the past century. Relating this change to science and the notion that despite certain evidence, science is not widely accepted today, the article discusses how various leaders and the nature of politics has impacted the government’s ability to support scientific research, education, and regulation. Miller writes how science is only a priority in certain administrations. Others seek to minimize the power of groups such as the EPA. With a large population against the expansion of government and the creation of more regulations or taxes, many leaders do not support certain scientific efforts, forcing them to take a back seat to other issues. While presidents like Roosevelt bolstered conservation efforts and created new bureaus to discover and solve food, water, and environmental issues, others sought to combat these programs. Because these approaches go back and forth with the elections, Miller argues that there is not a war on science, just a war on government.
ReplyDeleteThe article is more of an observation than a persuasive essay, and although I believe Miller disagrees with Achenbach in terms of who to blame, I think he would agree with many of Achenbach’s suggestions about how we can help society become more aware of pressing scientific issues. I think Miller has a great point as he acknowledges government’s role in the so called “war on science”. As we noted, today’s research is largely funded by the federal government. Since some groups staunchly oppose tax increases or other expansions of government power, less funding is given to scientific projects. In turn, it might seem like the public is misinformed or ignorant, but there is really a lack of government support for the topic, and its communication to the people falls short. Presidents live and die by the economy. If it is good, they are praised, but if it is bad, they are blamed. For this reason, presidents must focus heavily on executing what they feel are the best economic policies. If the president’s support group is comprised of people working in anti-environmental industries such as coal mining or oil drilling, he or she is not likely to raise taxes in support of regulatory policies or massive conservation efforts. The prevalence of science in our communities is dependent on who is in office. I do not believe there is an outright war on science, I believe Miller’s ideas are mostly correct. The recognition science receives is subject to change as different factions fight over the proper way to organize government.
Article Link: https://issues.org/perspective-its-not-a-war-on-science/
Clark A. Miller from Issues In Science and Technology (March 2017)in his article, “It’s Not a War on Science”, expresses how there is a war, but not on what people think. He believes that it is not on science, but on government that science is heavily aligned with. Throughout the article it discusses how conservatives are not trying to undermine science and truth, but “weaken the federal agencies that rely on them”. However, the science that created these federal agencies are also intertwined in the businesses they want to use to boost the economy. Finally he ends the article discussing how today’s industries aligned with science are allies of freedom as much as their government equivalents. This means that science, technology, and politics have developed the world, but it means that it must recorrect the path we are on to make sure future generations are “worth inhabiting”.
ReplyDeleteThe “War on Science” suggests that there is an active attack on science and truth, but in actuality there is just a neglect of these two subjects. In the modern world, there is a lack of respect taken by individuals about scientific research because even though it is factual they just want to use it to prove their own personal belief. The “war” is between the two polar ends of beliefs “proven” by scientific research. Science is not under attack, but the legitimacy is ignored. We are spiraling down and the aftereffects of this opinionated war will soon be felt.
Outside Article: https://issues.org/perspective-its-not-a-war-on-science/
In "Is there really a war on science" Robin Lloyd address people who oppose vaccines, GMOs, and climate change. These opinions can start an uproar of argument in the science world. Lloyd said calling it a war on science is "counterproductive". I disagree with Lloyd, there most definitely is a war on science and calling it so is not counterproductive. Addressing the war is the first step to ending the war . People are always challenging and putting scientific ideas to the test. People are biased and have a lack of accurate information. Some people are arrogant and are not going to change their point of views. I agree with Achenbach and Lloyd when they state that some people are arrogant and are not going to change their views because of a lack of knowledge. In the end I believe there is a "war" on science and it will not be an easy fight to win.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
Deletehttps://ideas.ted.com/the-quiet-war-on-science/
ReplyDelete"The Quiet War on Science" by David Biello discusses how politics and the media essentially cause a war on science, which leads the public to blatantly ignore scientific facts. For instance, Trump continually denies climate change, connects vaccines and autism, and rejects other scientific controversies. This, in turn, causes the supporters of Trump and other political figures to think similarly. Not only is this evident in the United States, but this is seen globally: "In the past five years, the people and government of Germany have turned against nuclear power; Thabo Mbeki, while president of South Africa, denied that HIV causes AIDS; and the Harper administration of Canada forbade its scientists to speak freely about climate change (this went on for nearly a decade), among other examples." Biello believes that the public is no longer thinking curiously which is leading to the decline of the scientific method. He encourages the public to question rather than to blindly follow the beliefs of leaders. Achenbach agrees with Biello as he feels people are stubborn and unwilling to do research about science, leading to controversy. Achenbach stated that people subconsciously cling to their institution which also leads to scientific ignorance. This also leads to the decline of the scientific method.
I feel that there is an indefinite war on science. People constantly combat the scientifically confirmed views for a number of reasons, usually being a lack of knowledge. This is seen in the flat earth movement, the anti-vaccination movement, and when people reject climate change. Though I have never encountered anyone with these views, I've seen a number of people who support this on social media. People disagree on scientific evidence without doing research which in turn decelerates scientific progress and hurts scientific funding.
"Is There Really a War on Science?" by Avery Foley was an interesting read. Foley's argument is that the perceived "War on Science" really is a term that is is used in our country because there are people who deny/question climate change and evolution. Foley explains that questions surrounding these highly debated topics does not mean that there is a widespread denial of scientific fact in our country. In other words, these issues should not be representative of the acceptance of science as a whole because there is more to science than these two theories. The author goes on to explain how science is diverse and there are many different methods that can be used to draw conclusions. As a result, various intelligent people with different belief systems can draw varying scientific conclusions and by having these differing conclusions does not always mean all people have to accept only one. Foley concludes the article by saying that some religious scientists who reject/question evolution are still interested in science and new discoveries. In addition, the author writes that even some atheists question the theory of evolution. The main point of her article was to show that science is complicated and diverse, and there are far too many different approaches and interpretations of science to declare that the country is truly engaged in a "War on Science." Foley feels it is a far too limited and simplistic claim for such a complex field of study that the country is engaging with in many ways. Thus, the author would not agree with Achenbach.
ReplyDeleteI think the "War on Science" is a divisive term. A "war" indicates a battle between two sides. It suggests that there is no middle ground, only science deniers and supporters in this case. I have a more optimistic view on this issue. I think the "War on Science" is mostly brought up when it comes to domestic public policy. Many policy makers try to influence the media/American people into thinking that every person that does not support their initiative must be on the far end of one spectrum. Their goal is to try to simplify an often complicated issue in order to receive more support for a policy initiative. For example, when it comes to climate change, some politicians are painting the picture that the country is deeply divided between those who believe in climate change and those who reject it, fueling this "War on Science" idea. I think that this is not true. I think most Americans believe in the reality of climate change. However, I think the "War on Science" occurs when it comes time to agreeing to a policy to address the issue. Struggling to agree to a policy idea is not a "War on Science" but a battle in Congress. I do not believe the country is experiencing a "War on Science" as much as it is experiencing politicians that are unable to agree and battling each other, causing the country to think that the American people are in the midst of a "War on Science."
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/there-really-war-science/
Robin Lloyd's 2016 article "Is There Really a War on Science?" published in the Scientific American iterates that there is not a war on science, or "calling it such is “counterproductive” ." Lloyd is here quoting a scientist speaking at a panel, where the resounding agreement was that their is not in fact a war on science. Yet, this does not stop people, dubbed "anti-vaxxers" by the internet from fighting vaccination of their kids, and thus perpetuating diseases. The most shocking - or unsettling - fact is that most of the people fighting vaccinations are well educated and scientifically aware; one wonders if this a war on science or a war on something deeper. Lloyd then goes on to discuss the fight against genetically modified crops (GMOs), and how it is becoming an ethical issue. The fight against GMOs are negatively impacting campaigns to end hunger, especially in developing countries. These scenarios are just a handful of a larger pattern in which controversy, spewed on by the internet, gets in the way of science and effective policy.
ReplyDeleteI think that Lloyd's article agrees with Achenbach's article discussing a war on science. Lloyd quotes science historian Mark Largent who calls for people to" stop with the hubris and stop with the bold confidence that everything you say and do is right." In his article Achenbach talks of confirmation bias, in which people only believe what they want to believe, or what they are predisposed to believe. People are influenced by the prejudices and ideas that they have formed over their lifetime, and human nature is quite narcissistic, making it difficult for people to change their opinions - even in the face of hard scientific truths.
In my opinion, I do not think there is a definitive "war on science," but rather a war on ideas and on people coming from both sides. Non-scientists tend to attack ideas, such as vaccines or GMOs. However, they are supported by "science" that they have created, and cultivate amongst each other. Thus, it is not a war on science as a subject, but a war on the accurate science. On the other hand, I think that scientists need to bridge the gap between themselves and non-scientists. Scientists are highly trusted, yet intimidating, figures in our society. If both groups could meet in the middle, I think that the hostilities could begin to diminish.
Robin Lloyd, "Is There Really a War on Science?" Scientific American, Feb 15. 2016.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete