The anti-science movement.

steddyeddy

In the last few decades we have made extraordinary advances in science. We can treat diseases more effectively, we know more about our evolutionary past and we know more about the world and universe around us.

Despite this there seems to be an increase in what I call anti-science (I'm open to debate on my labelling), Creationism in some countries is flourishing, measles in America is on the rise, NASA and meteorological agencies around the world have to argue the case for man made climate change and we still have the situation where scientists have to argue that science in itself has value and needs to be funded.

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developed countries? It would be easy to say religion but I don't think religion plays a part in the climate change or vaccination argument.

Zamboni

Because the majority of the human species are fcuktards.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ach, leave them alone in their ignorance. All the more science for the rest of us.

newmug

Denial. In the case of climate change and realising that we descended from monkeys anyway.

steddyeddy

Aubrie Big Wildebeest wrote: »

Ach, leave them alone in their ignorance. All the more science for the rest of us.

Their ignorance isn't leaving us alone. In America we have the measles outbreak, some people want to teach creationism in schools and the climate change sceptics are denying a that human activity is accelerating climate change. This all bears a heavy cost for the enlightened.

KomradeBishop

I posted this in A&A recently, which ties into this:

Fantastic article here on how people - throughout the ideological spectrum - who hold conspiratorial/crank views about many topics (anti-vax, climate change denial), often hold those views due to a 'crisis of authority', i.e. (if I'm understand this right) distrust of an authority (often for good reason), whether that authority be government, religion, or even science itself:
www.salon.com/2015/02/07/anti_vaxxers_climate_deniers_and_the_crisis_of_authority

Never thought of it from that angle before, as the author ties a lot of related things together very well.

I think that politics is the main driver of anti-science views: In order to justify political/economic policies that harm people and the world, you need to be able to deny and spread doubt, about the evidence discrediting your political views - and fooling people into rejecting science itself, and making sure they aren't properly taught the critical thinking abilities they need to discern 'good science' from 'bad science', is an excellent way of making people pliable to propaganda/bullshít, on a population-wide scale.

Shenshen

Because people generally don't want to believe things they don't like.

And people don't like being the baddies who are ruining the planet, they don't like being "just another animal", and they generally don't like things that can't be explained in a single sentence using only monosyllabic words.

Harry Palmr

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developing countries? It would be easy to say religion but I don't think religion plays a part in the climate change or vaccination argument.

Because it happening so damned fast, once upon a time and not very long ago, the rate of development was fairly leisurely now we are seeing genuine world changing technology rushing at us - the emerging worlds of biotech and nano tech is going to be incredible once its fully understood for example. Now at the same time we have this piece of trickery - the web. Upon which people who think "they" (intelligence agencies, politicians, businessmen, the media, the Jews) are out to get us in this new epoch convince us its all the work of the devil.

My name is URL

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developing countries

I was with you up until that bit. People in developing countries can be forgiven for having anti-scientific views, given that the (now) developed world has by and large fcuked them over for the last couple of centuries.

There's a growing mistrust of science in developed countries... and it's mainly down to the same sort of greedy anarcho-capitalist people who have been fcuking people in developing countries over for so long.

One just has to look at the oil industry to see it. For so long they didn't pay much attention to what people in the West thought, because we had no alternatives.. they just focused on taking from the 'developing world', promising the moon and stars in return. Now that viable alternatives exist, they focus their attention on denying the science and economics behind them instead. And developing economies have little or nothing to show for their sacrifices.. the corrupt and powerful became super rich while ordinary people in those places realised nothing in the way of progress.

KomradeBishop

Shenshen wrote: »

Because people generally don't want to believe things they don't like.

And people don't like being the baddies who are ruining the planet, they don't like being "just another animal", and they generally don't like things that can't be explained in a single sentence using only monosyllabic words.

You also have a lot of people whose personal belief systems (and potentially much of their self esteem), may be based on ideas/beliefs that are threatened by science as well - i.e. practically all religions, many 'New Age' beliefs, and cults (like Scientology or Libertarianism), even well respected fields of study (like mainstream/neoclassical economics) - so they have to tie themselves in knots intellectually, in order to defend their beliefs and possibly self esteem.

This is why it can sometimes be so so hard to get things through to such people - for a lot of them, it'd probably be a big impact personally, to accept that what they believe is false (especially if they invested a lot of time in those beliefs).

Buford T. Justice XIX

We live in a very disconnected society where there is relatively little interaction with people outside our own belief systems.

There is little opportunity to sit and debate rationally and calmly with someone of an opposing viewpoint and where those that shout loudest are viewed as leaders despite having little knowledge or balance about a subject.

I despair at times reading and listening to reports on subjects that I would have a fair degree of knowledge on, just the sheer populism and vested interest angles that seems to dominate and drive an agenda.

steddyeddy

Hang on guys I meant developed countries! Not developing ones.

KomradeBishop

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

We live in a very disconnected society where there is relatively little interaction with people outside our own belief systems.

There is little opportunity to sit and debate rationally and calmly with someone of an opposing viewpoint and where those that shout loudest are viewed as leaders despite having little knowledge or balance about a subject.

I despair at times reading and listening to reports on subjects that I would have a fair degree of knowledge on, just the sheer populism and vested interest angles that seems to dominate and drive an agenda.

I'd agree with all of that except for the first sentence: I think that the Internet, means everyone is more exposed to different belief systems, than ever before (though yes, that doesn't necessarily lead to productive discussion ).

expectationlost

its not anti-science, creationism is linked to dominionism which is fueled by rich industrialist who want to continue to mine and pollute the earth resources, anti-vaccination in the UK and the US is about undermining the public health system and government control of it, and leftwing anti-vax/anti-fluoride/anti-gmo is a distrust of corporations/government and an undermining of them.

Harry Palmr

Oh I also blame the stupification of mass media, why engage in debate about the big issues when Kim Kardashian's arse can be talked about? The big issues are debated but they are squeezed to the edge by passing sensation.

hfallada

I think the problem lies with the internet. Any idiot can write a blog and people will believe it. There is thousands of sites against vaccines, etc. But even when the smallpox vaccine was introduced, people were against it. Now smallpox is completely gone

I dont think there is a rise in anti-science. But more people hear about it, as its more acceptable.

Buford T. Justice XIX

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'd agree with all of that except for the first sentence: I think that the Internet, means everyone is more exposed to different belief systems, than ever before (though yes, that doesn't necessarily lead to productive discussion ).

As far as I can tell, people only seek information on subjects that interest them from sites that already have agreeable viewpoints to their beliefs.

It's almost impossible to find a balanced site on the Web or, at least, I haven't found one.

And reading 'information' that correspond to your own views only reinforces that view rather than explore the nuances of of a subject.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Oh I also blame the stupification of mass media, why engage in debate about the big issues when Kim Kardashian's arse can be talked about? The big issues are debated but they are squeezed to the edge by passing sensation.

Well, with the size of her arse, most things would be pushed to the side...

Shenshen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'd agree with all of that except for the first sentence: I think that the Internet, means everyone is more exposed to different belief systems, than ever before (though yes, that doesn't necessarily lead to productive discussion ).

Yes and no - having the internet means people CAN expose themselves to all sorts of different belief systems, but I think very very few actually do.

I might be cynical, but I expect the majority of people use the internet to connect to people they already know via facebook, and read the Daily Mail online rather than go out and buy it.

The_Valeyard

The intro for the film idiocracy makes a good case about this

Dave0301

I agree with what other posters have said. The advent of social media and the ability for all manner of people to have a platform from which to speak will allow misinformation to be spread. I actually did some research for my dissertation on how it is important in the modern digital age to be able to discern what sources of information are credible

Unfortunately there will be a lot of people that don't so that. I present exhibit A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

Desolation Of Smug

Zamboni wrote: »

Because the majority of the human species are fcuktards.

yes, but fcuktards didn't invent nuclear weapons and let hundreds of them off to "test" them. The fcuktards would have toddled on forever. It's the "clever" cnuts that feck it up for everyone.

ash23

Science has also become very profitable. With the drive for profit also comes shady decisions and a certain amount of deception. And that breeds mistrust.

I'm very grateful for advances in science. Its given me a treatment option that wasn't available ten years ago. I'm also aware that the treatment I'm on is driven by money for the company who manufacturer it and the glossy brochures and marketing to convince me it's the best choice. And at 50k a year it's not peanuts we're talking. These companies have a motive and it's money at the end of the day.
The scientists working on it might have the best of intentions and be noble but the manufacturers are not so noble at all times.

KomradeBishop

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

As far as I can tell, people only seek information on subjects that interest them from sites that already have agreeable viewpoints to their beliefs.

It's almost impossible to find a balanced site on the Web or, at least, I haven't found one.

And reading 'information' that correspond to your own views only reinforces that view rather than explore the nuances of of a subject.

Some people do that, sure - but then you also have Google and relatively-authoritative sources of information like Wikipedia (not perfect, but a very good guideline/starting-point for reading up on stuff), and people can't easily ignore these sources, and challenges to their views that derive from them.

There's a lot of garbage on the Internet, but it's not a monoculture like e.g. TV is.

coolhull

Dave0301 wrote: »

I agree with what other posters have said. The advent of social media and the ability for all manner of people to have a platform from which to speak will allow misinformation to be spread. I actually did some research for my dissertation on how it is important in the modern digital age to be able to discern what sources of information are credible

Unfortunately there will be a lot of people that don't so that. I present exhibit A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

The siren sounds in the background is hopefully the men in white coats coming to collect her

My name is URL

I guess the reason the Koch brothers etc are trying to limit internet freedoms and accessibility is because so many people are 'anti-science' these days :rolleyes:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-neutrality-is-marxist-according-to-this-koch-backed-astroturf-group

Or could it be because more people are aware of their own ant-scientific agendas and lobbying exercises?

Funny how it's neo-cons that want an end to net neutrality... considering how they let on to be all about 'freedom' in other areas... like their own freedom to do business without regulation and out of sight of critics etc.

I think it's a lot to do with people's perceptions of their own individuality with one group, and with poverty of intellectual freedom with another.

People who are devoutly religious (to the point of believing the Earth is a few thousand years old not the majority) in the West are often so because of two factors, lack of intellectual curiosity and education, and a lack of social supports. When the State or society doesn't provide, some people cling to their faith and hope that God will instead. Blind faith is a comforting thing, bringing with it an assurance that everything will be all right in the end. No wonder so many want to hang on to that thought, when they might have very little else going for them.

The more 'alternative' group are ones who see themselves as perhaps more enlightened, and might consider science to be somewhat empty of spiritual insight and free thought, and tend to belong to the more 'natural'-leaning school of absolute idiot. These are the folks who are adamantly anti-vax, without having enough insight to realise that the only reason anti-vaxers don't have their kids dropping off in droves (exceptions everywhere) is because the rest of us are smart enough to vaccinate, or the reason they can follow their dreams to achieve that degree in Clown and Circus Skills is because the rest of us did useful degrees and now pay the tax to indulge them. They're all about the freedom, not so much about the responsibility. Something the parenting styles of the sixties and seventies child rearing gurus like Dr Spock actively encouraged amongst the baby boomers without realising the consequences.

I'm not a great supporter of big pharma with their astronomical profits while 39 million people live with HIV and AIDS, most of them without the access to cheap generic drugs that would bring this worldwide atrocity to an end, but... without drug companies and their research the world health map would look very different. It's hard to fathom why people would trust magic water, and yet that is exactly what they do.

Personally I don't understand how anyone could prefer the concept of Fry's capricious, angry God to the knowledge that we are each made of stardust, or prefer the concept of magic water to real-life miracle potions made in labs that save humanity from disease, deformity or death.

Wibbs

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Because it happening so damned fast, once upon a time and not very long ago, the rate of development was fairly leisurely now we are seeing genuine world changing technology rushing at us.

Yes and no HP. For much of the 20th century it was arguably happening faster than today across more areas and more obviously. EG my oul lad who was born pre 1920 saw biplanes cross the sky, including a memory of Lucky Lindy getting across the Atlantic, then monoplanes, then jets, concorde, the Jumbo and watched men stand on the moon. He also went from the wireless run off an accumulator, to transistors and TV and ZX81'a and Apple Macs(and used all of the above). Never mind the massive rise of personal communications, or the medical breakthroughs like antibiotics and mass immunisation, or the huge changes in the arts. And that's in one lifetime and folks like him weren't anti science for the most part(and were generally more religious, so it's not that). Today we perceive any changes more IMHO. The mass media and online media makes us feel that way and more and more consumerism tells us changes are happening faster(and we must buy them). Put it another way, the world of today across the board isn't very different to the world of a decade ago and if I transported someone through time from say 05 to today, they'd hardly get future shock with the changes. If I transported someone from 1955 to 1965, they would. If I did the same with someone from 1955 and brought them to 1975 it would feel like an alien world.

Much of the anti science stuff is US based and that's down to their increasingly dumbed down education system in primary and secondary and increasingly at third level too. Their media is getting "dumber" by the year and more lower common denominator. And their is an undercurrent of fear laced through their media on many subjects. And this is the culture that put the aforementioned men on the moon, who drove the IT world, who impacted world culture in a big and usually positive way. Oh and most of those working on projects like Apollo were god fearing "good ol boys" from outside the east/west coasts. A culture that would be more likely to believe in angels and creationism today. It's a damned waste IMH.

Calibos

Desolation Of Smug wrote: »

yes, but fcuktards didn't invent nuclear weapons and let hundreds of them off to "test" them. The fcuktards would have toddled on forever. It's the "clever" cnuts that feck it up for everyone.

The fcuktards haven't had a world war with a few 10's of million deaths since.

The M.A.D. principle........Its FANtastic!!

SpaceSasqwatch

expectationlost wrote: »

and leftwing anti-vax/anti-fluoride/anti-gmo is a distrust of corporations/government and an undermining of them.

where you going with leftwing?If anything they are capitalists.
Most of the muppets that are against flouride and vacinations have an agenda..ie peddling bollox as an alternative for $$$$$.


Take our own special fuktard aisling fitzgibbon aka The Girl Against Flouride.She repeatedly repeats debunked studies(peer reviewed I might add) to back up her fuktardness.Shes a qaulified angel healer,nutritionist(not a dietician,similar to the difference between a toothologist and a dentist) .The campaign manager for her anti-flouride campaign is her mother and she believes the pill can cause homosexuality.

The mother/daughter pair are also making money selling a cure for autism.
http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2014/03/gaps-in-thinking-irish-times-promoting.html

It would be funny if it wasnt peoples health they fukking about with.

steddyeddy

Well scientists shouldn't make government policy IMO but they should advise on it. Feynman and the rest of them were geniuses and they worked on the Manhattan project, later claiming they didn't think of the implications. I'd well believe that. Some scientists only focus on the science and little else. One of Einstein's colleagues in Germany Fritz Haber was a chemist who designed toxic gases upon the outbreak of WW1. Einstein said Haber was a mild mannered man until the outbreak of the war.

Einstein said Haber insisted on being on the front line in order to see the effects of his newly invented chlorine gas. Chlorine is a inhibitory neurotransmitter and inhalation will lead to paralysis, blindness and suffocation as the victim is unable to breathe. So in short it's a nasty weapon. Haber later became known as the father of chemical warfare. This is off topic I know but I wonder how many scientists would go against their ethics when given the chance to study something that fascinates them.

Sand

Increasing democratisation of everything from politics to education to culture to economics - there are probably less uneducated, superstitious, fanatical idiots out there. But nobody ever asked them for their opinion before - until the last 40-50 years, the idea of everyone having a valuable opinion that ought to be listened and indulged wasn't taken seriously.

Another aspect of the above is the attack on the very concept of elites in any sphere of life, including science and policy making. Elites throughout history tended to be more liberal, better educated, more cosmopolitan and more rational than the vast majority of people. Again, in the last 40-50 years the idea of elites has been entirely undermined and discredited as has the idea of aspiring to join the elite.

Turtwig

There are varying degrees of scientific literacy. People tend to trust their experiences. Science is very often counter intuitive. Science does have a prior history of abuse. Ultimately, we're a superstitious species who seems obsessed with group mentalities where everyone else bar members of the group is against the group. That was great in the distant past for helping us survive but sociologically it's now holding us back.

Tarzana2

I don't have a huge problem with climate change being questioned. Not because I don't believe in it, but because it's an area that is relatively new and will require long-term study so we are still in the very early stages of investigation.

I believe skepticism is a good thing in science because it ensures that the science is rigorous to disprove those skeptics. (or not, if the science turns out to be shaky) Evolution took a long time to be accepted and this was by the scientific establishment of the day. Any scientist who is confident in their methods and hypotheses has nothing to fear from doubting voices.

bpmurray

Dave0301 wrote: »

I present exhibit A

And exhibit B ... :-)

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

Increasing democratisation of everything from politics to education to culture to economics - there are probably less uneducated, superstitious, fanatical idiots out there. But nobody ever asked them for their opinion before - until the last 40-50 years, the idea of everyone having a valuable opinion that ought to be listened and indulged wasn't taken seriously.

Another aspect of the above is the attack on the very concept of elites in any sphere of life, including science and policy making. Elites throughout history tended to be more liberal, better educated, more cosmopolitan and more rational than the vast majority of people. Again, in the last 40-50 years the idea of elites has been entirely undermined and discredited as has the idea of aspiring to join the elite.

I would disagree on the elite thing and to be honest I don't know what your definition of an elite is. Some of those described by some as "elite" Mitt Romney and Palin for example are notoriously thick when it comes to science. I was dismayed to find out the Romney attended Stanford .

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was dismayed to find out the Romney attended Stanford .

If science isn't your major, you can easily be quite ignorant of it whilst being an intelligent person. I know I had an immature, underdeveloped view of science before I started to study it in college. And there are many fields I haven't a clue about because I didn't study them (economics, architecture, philosophy etc. etc.) and simply won't have the time to study them all in my lifetime. Do you know everything about all the subjects?

Tarzana2

Turtwig wrote: »

Science does have a prior history of abuse.

Yeah, I recall attending a very illuminating lecture on scientific fraud in college. Some of the stuff that went on, some of it recent! :eek: And by respected scientists too. And crappy science can end up in peer-reviewed journals too. Science isn't free of politics and ego, it's not always noble.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

If science isn't your major, you can easily be quite ignorant of it whilst being an intelligent person. I know I had an immature, underdeveloped view of science before I started to study it in college. And there are many fields I haven't a clue about because I didn't study them (economics, architecture, philosophy etc. etc.) and simply won't have the time to study them all in my lifetime. Do you know everything about all the subjects?

No I don't but I I'm not as massively stupid as Romney. I think the American education system has a lot to answer for. There's a massive difference between knowing something about ever subject and being incredibly thick when it comes to coming to conclusions based on facts that are readily available to the public.

I don't say things like this for example

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no -- and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem."

Harry Palmr

Speaking ignorance there is story in todays Sunday Times about how the wisdom of Jenny McCarthy (a dizty pin up mother) allied to the finding of the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield is causing a drop in immunisation rates in the States with the inevitable forthcoming consequences.

Turtwig

There's far too much made of "publishing". As a result journals are often saturated with shtye.

steddyeddy

Misuse of science and scientific fraud is very different from denying scientifically established facts.

steddyeddy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Speaking ignorance there is story in todays Sunday Times about how the wisdom of Jenny McCarthy (a dizty pin up mother) allied to the finding of the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield is causing a drop in immunisation rates in the States with the inevitable forthcoming consequences.

Yep stuff like that makes me wonder. Why do they want to believe this stuff?

shruikan2553

Im not sure if its a new thing but everyone seems to think that their opinion is to be as respected as others. We end up in a situation where a debate is being broadcast and we can have someone arguing 1+1=2 against another person saying 1+1=potato.

The former can have all the logic and evidence in the world but the later can just say its what they think and all your evidence is wrong and if you dont respect it you are being intolerant, close minded or trying to remove their freedom of speech. They can be free to say whatever stupid ideas they have but by treating them as serious we give some sort of credibility.

Sand

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would disagree on the elite thing and to be honest I don't know what your definition of an elite is. Some of those described by some as "elite" Mitt Romney and Palin for example are notoriously thick when it comes to science. I was dismayed to find out the Romney attended Stanford .

My definition of an elite is a recognised authority in any sphere who tells the rest of society what is good, what people *ought* to like, and is considered qualified to do so by the rest of society. I.E. A scientist in a scientific field for example The inverse of democratisation where its a given that if its popular, its good. I.E. a talking head idiot for the anti-vaccination movement for example.

I wouldn't necessarily have included Mitt Romney as I believe he is a symptom of the democratisation of politics, but I'd point out that politicians in general are absolutely terrified of appearing smarter than the average voter. American politicians in general have tried to hone a folksy, good ol boy, homespun wisdom where the voter is always right rather trying to be seen as intelligent - that can be threatening to voters. Mitt Romney may be an idiot, or he may simply find it politically advantageous to be seen as dim. Better that than than an up himself Stanford college boy.

Manach

Rather odd by atheists who continuous flog the horse of Region and Science being mutually opposed. The latter at its core is about the physical world while the latter is about the meta-physical. As the great science writer SJ Gould stated, these magisteriums are complementary and not hostile.

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

My definition of an elite is a recognised authority in any sphere who tells the rest of society what is good, what people *ought* to like, and is considered qualified to do so by the rest of society. The inverse of democratisation where its a given that if its popular, its good.

Well in terms of science the scientists are elite. I think they should be more media friendly IMHO. They can be the only recognised authority in science.

I wouldn't necessarily have included Mitt Romney as I believe he is a symptom of the democratisation of politics, but I'd point out that politicians in general are absolutely terrified of appearing smarter than the average voter. American politicians in general have tried to hone a folksy, good ol boy, homespun wisdom where the voter is always right rather trying to be seen as intelligent - that can be threatening to voters. Mitt Romney may be an idiot, or he may simply find it politically advantageous to be seen as dim. Better that than than an up himself Stanford college boy.

Oh yea I would certainly think they are smarter than they let on. If only slightly. I also think that Palin doesn't believe half the tea party stuff she spouts.

tritium

I guess there's a few reasons that all add up to greater than the sum of the parts. Some of them (IMHO):

• Consensus led politics that becomes a popularity contest. Basically it becomes politically career limiting to dismiss or refute something that is 'popular'. As a result pretty dubious practices or beliefs get far more air time and endorsement than they really should.
  
  
• People believe the numbers - any numbers . Statistics and data are so important, but people rarely actually check these. As a result it becomes easy to put any particular spin you like and hey, with facebook/ twitter etc., you can send that spin to half the planet.
  
  
• The 'everyone's opinion is equally valid' and 'lessons from lost antiquity' worldviews. We've become fairly poor at telling anybody that what they're peddling is pure snake oil. In tandem with, as a society we've kind of assumed that some of the older civilisations are so cool that they must have known and lost all these great secrets that we just have to rediscover and unlock! As a result Reiki, Angel readings, Astral projection etc. is often presented as the most reasonable and legitimate thing under the sun
  
  
• Science just got too damn complicated and too damn accessible! No really! 200 years ago we more of less thought we knew it all and were just smoothing out a few small cracks. It wasn't overly complex and in addition the fact that the only people who really had enough time or education to care deeply were (more than likely) somewhat scientists meant that it had a degree of integrity- basically not everyone could just google every idea under the sun. Fast forward 200 years. Science is complex! We have quantum physics! we have dark matter! Not just that, the basic level of education is much higher, the basic level of access to information is much higher. And I stress basic! You have people who love the sound of words like quantum, quark, singularity but who don't have enough time, learning or inclination to understand them. And when some schyster peddles how quantum physics explains away how esp/ reiki/ divining works, well, that sounds cool so it must be plausible. Its not necessarily that people are easier duped than before, its just easier to try to dupe lots of them and you have a nice flashy toolbox to help!

So basically, a complex world, which can be instantaneously presented to anyone who wants it, being delivered by folks with an agenda to people who are incapable of critically processing that level of complexity. And the bad news is that that trajectory is only going one way.

Tarzana2

I think science can seem quite esoteric to laypeople, even if they are intelligent.

I have a science degree, I did well at it but it wasn't easy. It took a lot of work, of training my mind to understand many different theories. And I'm someone who studied it.

It'd no wonder the general public can find it so bamboozling. A little recognition of this would be helpful, I think.

tritium

Sand wrote: »

My definition of an elite is a recognised authority in any sphere who tells the rest of society what is good, what people *ought* to like, and is considered qualified to do so by the rest of society. I.E. A scientist in a scientific field for example The inverse of democratisation where its a given that if its popular, its good. I.E. a talking head idiot for the anti-vaccination movement for example.

I wouldn't necessarily have included Mitt Romney as I believe he is a symptom of the democratisation of politics, but I'd point out that politicians in general are absolutely terrified of appearing smarter than the average voter. American politicians in general have tried to hone a folksy, good ol boy, homespun wisdom where the voter is always right rather trying to be seen as intelligent - that can be threatening to voters. Mitt Romney may be an idiot, or he may simply find it politically advantageous to be seen as dim. Better that than than an up himself Stanford college boy.

Yeah that's a fairly general problem. Its basically political suicide to appear brighter than the herd. People like to think that their politicians are 'one of them'. Popularity contests rarely give the best candidate, only the most likeable candidate

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developed countries? It would be easy to say religion but I don't think religion plays a part in the climate change or vaccination argument.

I am stealing from another poster here - but I have seen it suggested that a lot of the anti science mentality is rooted in a refusal to accept we are animals - albeit animals with a few unique characteristics in our world.

With our civilisation and our manners and our clothes and much more we hide the fact from ourselves that we are animals. We like to see ourselves as a species as being something more - something special. And a quick look in recent threads on things like Breast Feeding will show you how unerved people get by any display of anything which reminds us of our animal origins.

And while the likes of Brian Cox can talk wonderfully about how our science can show us the specialness we DO have and our place of importance in the universe as perhaps even being unique in being conscious - science is also a nail in the coffin of the idea we are anything as special as many of us want to believe.

And I feel much anti science rhetoric is grounded heavily in this.