Science and the Left
Lengthy but fun read in City Journal that looks at the differences between the Left and Right in regards science. He deals with confirmation bias and other such stuff that can sway scientific opinion:
"My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don’t devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?
My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science."
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:09 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I don't enjoy discussing science with people who have no secondary education in science and I would exclude the social sciences here. While I recognize many of the great scientific thinkers were autodidacts in our past, in the 21st century, I find that a greater level of understanding is necessary to accurately understand what is transpiring in the physical environment.
The science writers and pundits do not have an easy job making complex scientific knowledge understandable to poorly educated Americans.
For the record I have a degree in Civil Engineering from UC and I'm regularly confused by political discussions about science.
How can we get the average voter more informed about science?
While the moose supposedly die off from global warming, New York, Montana, etc is experiencing record snowfalls for this time of year. The earth axis tilted, were the headlines last spring. The media has $$ invested in the warming, could care less about the cooling. The end of the world movie with Quaid strikes a nerve. Either head to Texas, Mexico now, or find yourself hiking cross country to rescue your kids in a NY skyscraper.
Dennis Quaid, The Day After Tomorrow.
Post a Comment
<< Home