How To Communicate Science to a Polarized US Audience 584
Prescott writes "Given the divisions in the US around subjects like evolution and climate change, scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public. Speakers at the recent AAAS meeting talked about how scientific information is delivered to and understood by a public that interprets it via personal beliefs, religious and otherwise. 'The talks were organized by Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communications who is a proponent of the framing of science, in which communications techniques borrowed from the political realm are applied to promote scientific understanding. As such, a number of speakers advocated specific frames for publicly controversial scientific issues. Unfortunately, the use of those frames appears likely to generate controversy within the scientific community, and several speakers noted that science faces challenges that go well beyond communicating knowledge to the public. There were some hints of a way forward that might work for both the scientific community and the public, but the challenges appear significant.'"
Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He just spoke the truth and passed on the knowledge to anyone who would listen.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we should have some forum on transmitting accurate historical information to a deeply confused audience.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Informative)
You are not confusing him with Copernicus, by any chance?
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Funny)
However, he possibly *did* care that somebody didn't even do the fundamental research to be able to distinguish between himself and Galileo.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Informative)
First, Newton lived in Protestant England. He didn't have to care about the Pope. Second, Newton did care a lot about the opinion of others, which is why his Alchemical and mystical writings were hidden for so long.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Funny)
No, Newton said that Leibniz was not the center of the universe.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember Ross Perot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I look at this issue this way.
1. Many of the people don't care, don't even try to inform them.
2. Don't insult the rest by assuming anything
3. Don't come at it from the angle that religious beliefs cloud their judgment, the approach I have seen from some anti-religious showed more ignorance than die-hard believers
The real questions, how to present this in school in an environment hostile to achievement? I think religions are the least of our problems with upcoming generations. The real problem is this idea that we cannot acknowledge the fact that some kids are genuinely better than others. Worse is getting past the idea that hard work really does pay off. I can't tell you how many kids won't put the effort forward because they are told it doesn't matter. Hell a school system which does not celebrate hard work is not going to do squat with science.
You were right in a way, keep the politicians away from science and the schools and the problem might solve itself. Politicians do as much if not more damage to the acceptance science than religious zealots... While one may not want it the other burdens it with too many requirements to overcome
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes: the public and scientists expect science to be objective and independent of judgments by those outside the scientific community. In order to function effectively, scientists and others must believe the myth of scientific objectivity.
But: science and politics are inseparable. Science has political motivations and political effects. Without the politics, it is meaningless. For example, one of the scholars quoted in the article suggests that "scientists should present scientific progress as
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Can I have some of what he's smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not like we're moving into an era dominated by superstition
What's it like in your world? And can you beam me up? Cause down here on Earth, we're not moving into an era dominated by superstition; we're already there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can I have some of what he's smoking? (Score:4, Informative)
It's so easy to forget how incredibly secular we are here, and how incredibly religious the rest of the world are in comparison. However, all studies show that people are becoming more and more secular. Religiosity drops ~10% per generation, you in the US are just a few generations behind us in Europe, but you'll be at our position soon, and then you won't really have this problem anymore.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point, I met someone who was a die hard "believer" who was attempting to get me to "believe". Yes, he actually believed (or so he claimed) that the world was created by a god about 6000 years ago. He said that the tools used today to carbon date objects were "flawed" and that "scientists simply made machines that looked like they did something [he didn't get it when I asked if they go "PING!"... go figure], but all they did was churn out answers the scientists want", and that mankind couldn't measure the speed of light (after I'd pointed out that we could easily find objects in the sky well over 6k light years away, and if they were in fact several million/billion light years away, how could the light be reaching us if the universe were only 6k years old?). I explained that he himself could measure the speed of light with rather simply tools, and suggested he look into the methods used by folks like Armand Fizeau. Needless to say, the guy just said "No, I don't need to. It's all in the Bible."
What I'm getting at is that you can't communicate to some people, regardless of how good your data is, your evidence, or your argument. If a person flat out refuses to hear counter to their belief because of "faith", there is nothing you can do. Faith is, after all, accepting something as fact which observation and evidence prove to be false.
"If a person walks on water, they'll sink."
"No, the Bible said Christ did."
"OK, if a person can, and you've got faith, the Charles is right over there. Knock yourself out."
"I'm not Christ!"
"No shit. You're no Einstein, either."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Wow. I feel really sorry that you're going to die a God-damned ignorant mystic. Pardon the pun."
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many Christians can't get that right but one of those traits the Bible commends while the other is harshly criticized.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the faith the Bible extols is never accepting something as fact despite a lack of evidence. Nor is it refusing to reason. No one is condemned in the Bible for not believing what they don't know. They're condemned for not believing what they do or could know, or in abandoning the knowledge that they have.
Have you ever seriously asked why people are willing to believe in Christianity over Evolution? The main reason, as far as I can tell is that belief in evolution has no perceived impact on their lives. Christianity gives them hope, comfort, healing, strength, a way to understand the world, a way to improve themselves and their life. They have direct, first-hand experience of this help to them. Evolution gives them none of that; worse, it tells them that there's no real hope at all: they're just animals, doing what animals do; there's no hope for anything other than this life, and no hope even for humanity in the long run. Given the choice between some insulting theoretical interpretation of the past which they've never had any personal experience with, and a life-giving present help and future hope they have had experience with, is it any wonder that they chose Christianity over evolution?
There are lots of intelligent Christians who don't believe that it's necessary to cho0se -- who believe that God created the world and that the Bible is God's word, but still believe in evolution as the basic way most species became the way they are. Those who do believe in evolution believe it because they themselves have some experience in it -- they've at least talked to scientists and studied geology, history, biology, and so on.
Until people attempting to persuade people about evolution realize where people who believe in Christianity are coming from, there's not much real hope of doing it. People like Dawkins seem to think that people believe in Christianity only because they don't know any better, and that if they just showed them evidence or asserted their authority as scientists, people should just accept what they say. But many people's faith in Christianity actually rests on a solid foundation of experience, evidence and reason (not at all "believing in somthing despite lack of evidence"), compared with which all the clever arguments about bones and canyons and radioactive stuff is just an illusion.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Funny)
You can always communicate (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not strictly true. You can't communicate with argument, true, but you can always communicate. When you meet a real hard case, then perhaps you can flatly say "Oh yeah." and smile mysteriously.
If a person flat out refuses to hear counter to their belief because of "faith", there is nothing you can do. Faith is, after all, accepting something as fact which obser
You can walk on water.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Up in Canada we regularly walk on water, although usually only from November to March. Now if you remember Christ was around 2,000 years ago before all this global warming....
On a more serious note though it illustrates the point that, looked at in a different context, things are not always as impossible as they may at first seem.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science has a stranglehold on the modern mind?
And yet, horoscopes/astrology/tarot cards are all read by uncounted millions every day, and a not insignificant number of those people believe them. Not just reading them for a laugh, but because the fact that they're a Scorpio means that they'll have certain events happen to them, and should react in a certain way. People believe in spirits, and luck(most especially when gambling, but other times a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't blame Indians for this, of course. There are a-scientific morons everywhere. Some of them even post on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That sounds like ethylene glycol [wikipedia.org], which is used as an antifreeze, particularly in automotive applications. It is well known to taste sweet because it has two hydroxyl groups close to each other, resembling a structure common to many suga
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Funny)
*POP* Damn this Coca Cola is good, gotta get my fix of this...
Okay, back to my rant... I mean really, that has to be the definition of stupid!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Skepticism based on lack of evidence or falsifiability (or any of the idea's own merits) is a different beast from skepticism based on personal convictions. The problem most people seem to have with string theory is that it is not falsifiable - no one has any religious or political stake in the question of whether the universe is made of tiny vibrating strings. Evolution is different because many people believe it incompatible with creationism, although some argue on the basis of the idea itself.
I have no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science goes a great distance with the "why" (Score:3, Interesting)
For example:
We might be able to say why air has weight - but not at the ultimate level. Weight is associated with mass and gravity. The elementary particles of air have mass. Since the air particles are in a gravity field, they have "weight". But our "why" reasoning bre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it fatalistic or nihilistic. Science is a tool, a means of understanding the universe.
I'll tell you what's fatalistic; the theology of your average Evangelical Christian. As to nihilism, science is distinctly anti-nihilistic. Those who invoke nihilistic arguments tend to be those f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is nihilistic because it has an inherent skepticism about all ideas. If an idea cannot be deconstructed and reproduced within the scientific method, it is considered without value. But the value of an idea doesn't spring from its inherent truth, but from the utility to which the idea can be put to use when you embrace it. If embracing a bunch of nonsense as gospel makes you survive, reproduce and thrive whe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no, it's considered not scientific. Big difference. You're confusing science with what is sometimes called 'scientism' (of which there are far fewer practitioners in reality than in the minds of those who use that term).
That book I recommended? "Evolution For Everyone" by David Sloan Wilson? It covers your point about utility, but he uses the terms "practical realism" (useful in the real wo
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
I generally think this post is spot on. Humanity has been religious since prehistory, and that suggests there is some kind of evolutionary benefit to it. Presumably it offers some practical advice on living one's life.
But I disagree here:
> there is just as much need for the scientific community to acknowledge that
> there are things that science cannot answer as there is for the religious community
> to stop interpreting things in such a literal and close-minded fashion.
Religion and Science clash when they try to do each others' jobs. If there's a question to which current science doesn't have an answer, and we let religion answer it for us, then once science does figure out the answer, the religious will of course reject it.
Science should be wide open to all curiosity, humble enough to know its limitations, and bold enough to say what it knows. Religion should provide pathways for philosophy, service, and self-improvement. Using religion to fill in science's blanks just sets us up for these social disasters we've seen time after time.
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:4, Interesting)
> should reinterpret their worldview to embrace it.
So suppose I've been raised as a fundamentalist evangelical christian. Say I've been taught that God created the entire universe in just six days for the express purpose of putting humans here to test their mettle, and our world will endure only until humanity degenerates into a bunch of Sodomites. Then some guys come along telling me the human species is an adaptation of a mutant fish who had no particular plan for us, and the Earth's expiration date has little to do with gay marriage. How can I possibly reconcile that to my worldview?
Re:Jinns (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I've done some inspired coding with Bombay Sapphire. Tanqueray, not so much, and the ol' Knotty Head will have you debugging for a week after.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science of Political Agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Colling the atmosphere by venting of CO2 from ocean water is immaterial, since it does not change the net energy of the system (earth + atmosphere). In the long run, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would result in more energy, and hence higher temperatures, in the atmosphere. And even if it did matter, then it would still be idiotic to wantonly release CO2 in to the atmosphere, since that would shift the equilibrium of CO2... and more CO2 would remain dissolved in the ocean... hence less cooling effect.
Maybe you are unaware that the reason acid rain is less of a problem now is precisely because of legislation enacted to prevent it? I visited lakes in the 80s in Wisconsin that could not support much life because of acidity from acid rain. We're damn lucky that it became a big enough issue that we took action.
Funny, it was a Republican administration that oversaw banning of CFCs. And also, a non-event because action was taken.
I think you're either trolling, or willfully ignorant. Any of the examples you mentioned would have become a real problem if action had not been taken. Your argument is not supported by your evidence -- it's refuted by your evidence. Never mind the 'vote Democratic' claptrap you've inserted that doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with your points.
For someone of a scientific bent, you're sorely lacking in logical thought.
How? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Don't say "you're as dense as a Pomeranian" when "as a dog" will do.
Maybe not the best example (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
My little how-to (Score:5, Funny)
Therefore, communicating with a highly polar audience requires a highly polar solvent. I find that ethanol works wonders in that regard.
Who exactly proposed this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Who exactly proposed this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the present conflicts that the AAAS is considering are not science versus non-science, but science versus a belief system wedded to scientism. I think they know they've really dropped the ball -- the real problem isn't that people don't know what acids and bases are, it's that they don't know why and they assume any system with big terminology and internal consistency is science, too.
Re:Who exactly proposed this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with professor Larry Moran here, commenting on Nisbet:
Also see this blog [blogspot.com].
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Who exactly proposed this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Religion is a type of philosophical dualism. You believe in physical stuff, and you believe in spiritual stuff. There is no inherent problem with this because they have no points of congruity; science describes the physical, religion describes the spiritual. Simple. Even if you don't believe in the sky fairy or whatever, it's still somewhat beneficial to put some skull sweat into truth, beauty, morality, etc, so this is an idea that most people wouldn't find offensive. Likewise, even if you're a hardcore sky fairyist, you still need to be able to work your toaster, so it's important to understand the physical world.
But there is a certain type of person who is just unable to let it slide. They spend their time trying to say that their favorite side of the coin is the only side of the coin, and every other opinion is wrong; basically trying to turn a perfectly sensible and unobjectionable dualism into a crappy monism.
It's human nature. You can't fix it, and there is no way to sugar coat it so that the zealots will agree with you.
Kinda Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, avoid divisive figures. It's possible to talk about climatology without bringing up Al Gore, in fact we'd all probably be a little better off if we didn't. No disrespect to the man's scientific endeavors, but it's probably best to leave Richard Dawkins out of your discourse as well. Figures like Dawkins and Gore only add political, religious, and whatever other fires to already testy subjects. You have to stress the point that science isn't based on emotion and feeling. In short, keep it academic and logical. Don't use ad hominems or appeals to emotion.
Re:Kinda Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with avoiding "divisive" figures is that anyone becomes "divisive" when the other side (i.e. the anti-scientific side) attacks them. Then any effort anyone makes to correct the record becomes part of the "controversy."
If you jettison anyone fighting for your side (i.e. science) as soon as they are attacked, you will very soon run out of smart people like Gore and Dawkins. We get a Sagan once a generation, and to remain above the fray he had to go so far as refusing to denounce astrology. That was his choice, but I think more smart people should denounce astrology, and other dumb things, and I will support them when they do, even if they get attacked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We get a Sagan once a generation, and to remain above the fray he had to go so far as refusing to denounce astrolog
Uhh, Sagan did denouce astrology. He devoted a part of his Cosmos series to it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515801214674828336&q=sagan+astrology&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 [google.com]
Re:Kinda Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I tried to tell you that Elvis Presley was going to return next week and rule the Earth for a thousand years, you'd laugh at me and call me crazy.
Well, that's "theism," and it's semantically indistinguishable from any other religious point of view. By mocking me, you would have just done exactly what you accuse Dawkins of doing. What would make you right, and him wrong?
It's 2008, and religious thought processes a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but if you start spouting off more nonsense than sense, you don't deserve the appelation "smart". If Dawkins had restricted himself to defending evolution, that would be fine. Unfortunately, most of his time now is dedicated to lame attacks against theism in general.
So, you're demonstrating that you aren't smart by saying spouting off nonsense about the man?
Re: (Score:3)
At one speech I heard him give, he said that religion doesn't actually change people's behaviors. That people will do whatever they do regardless of religion.
And yes, this is about as dumb a statement as they get, in my opinion. Not even looking at the huge nu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be defining religion rather narrowly from the traditional Abrahamic mindset, and from that mindset religion often does conflict with science. Take a r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the problem transcends the delivery; it think the message itself is a little broken. Scientists know what science is, they know the scientific method, they could write you a ten-page paper on the meaning of
Re:Kinda Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider this a non-issue. How do you explain science that may conflict with personal beliefs? "Welcome to wrongville, population: You. I'll give you a free bus ticket out, but if you don't want to ride, please feel free to go to the edge of a cliff and disbelieve in gravity".
Less irreverently... You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it".
Re:Simple, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
No AC, you tried, but no (Score:3, Interesting)
Name some AC. I realize I'm responding to an AC, who is most likely AC because they believe in fairy tales but don't want to admit it so you post AC with an observation of how many "facts" get shot down every week.
So now that we all know what the real deal is, name some of those "facts" AC. You talk about the importance of discerning between
Scarey that this is an issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there's only one way: (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it about the science only. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what makes you think that it is the way you think it is.
I think the real problem with, for example, talking about Global Climate Change, is that people don't discuss it as a scientific issue, but as a moral or political idea. If you're going to discuss science, discuss the science only, and then make sure everyone knows when you change the subject to politics or religion.
Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the summary is wrong, cause it makes this guy sounds like an idiot. Communications techniques borrowed from the political realm will not help to promote scientific understanding, because those techniques were not designed to promote understanding.
Politicians don't want you to understand them. They want you to feel like they understand you. They want you to feel protected by them, or to feel afraid of the other guy. The last thing any politician wants is to promote understanding.
The feelings politicians target with their communications techniques have no place in science. If you feel the Earth is 6000 years old, science isn't going to try to make you feel understood, because science doesn't understand your feelings. If the science says our climate is warming, it doesn't matter if you're happy all those wacky liberals in California are facing 100 years of drought. Science doesn't care.
Re:Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so (Score:5, Interesting)
Poli-comm may not have been designed to promote understanding, but that does not mean it cannot be used as such by clever people. I can see how methods designed to obscure facts and be use to instead reveal them.
Are people really debating the science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many viewpoints that are portrayed as anti-science are nothing of the sort.
Many people, for example, accept global warming while at the same time relying on economic estimates that say guarding against global warming would be more expensive than dealing with it. For rejecting a "Manhattan Project" sized government response they are dubbed "anti-science" even though they accept the science.
Likewise, people that are opposed to stem-cell research on ethical grounds are called "anti-science". These people, again, do not doubt that the science they oppose is sound. They have moral objections that should be easier to understand than the science, but evidently aren't.
Science consists of looking at the evidence... (Score:3, Interesting)
This quote, about how science is actually done, is one I put on my quotable quotes page [sff.net]. It's worth reminding people that the "eureak" model of science is a little bit simplistic.
"The work of real science is hard and often for long intervals frustrating...
"Keep in mind that new ideas are commonplace, and almost always wrong. Most flashes of insight lead nowhere; statistically, they have a half-life of hours or maybe days. Most experiments to follow up the surviving insights are tedious and consume large amounts of time, only to yield negative or (worse!) ambiguous results.""
-Edward O. Wilson
"Scientists, Scholars, Knaves, and Fools," in American Scientist 86 (1998)
But, as has been pointed out by Michael White [scientificblogging.com], journalism is more about a "good story" than about accuracy about how science is done.
Re:Science consists of looking at the evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course here we are debating the merits of the movie instead of the actual scientific data. So at least we have real evidence for the part we agree on.
Not as polarized as you might think (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, the system does tend to be self correcting - a little bit of embarrassment goes a long way.
Scientists are people too (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientific consensus has a history of being wrong on many fronts at any given time. Given time, the scientific method gets it right, because it is constantly changing to fit new observations. But at times, people have had everything from bleedings to thyroid irradiation, to hysterectomies based on scientific consensus that is later proven incorrect.
The hot-button issues are hot buttons for a reason. I am an atheist and agree with Dawkins on the blind watchmakers and other facts of evolution point away from an intelligent creator, but I no longer believe science will ever prove atheists are correct. I now understand that spirituality is a response to a nihilistic, pointless existence. Some people will always fill that void with some form of religion no matter how much science may prove that point.
And the global warming crowd seems way too tied up in non-scientific anti-capitalism and irrational hydrocarbon and nuclear hatred. And too many of the supposed outcomes are projected towards total Armageddon and wrapped in Malthusian hysteria, and just reeks of religion.
Perhaps scientists need to spend more time looking in the mirror, and less time figuring out how to talk down to the proles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Communicating science to a national audience (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Show the evidence.
. . . That's pretty much it.
How NOT to commmunicate science to a national audience
1. Tell the theory.
2. If people think "theory" = "guess", call them stupid.
3. Force children to learn that their parents' beliefs are wrong.
(The last step is essential if your goal is to NOT communicate science.)
Do not annoy the pig (Score:4, Funny)
-- Robert Heinlein
It's a social problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If slashdot is any indication of the communication skills and social expectations of scientists then I think the scientists might be the ones that need to develop an understanding -- of people. People are not always logical. Even technical people are influenced by emotion. I offer as evidence OS preference flame wars -- if we were purely logical we would just share FACTS regarding each OS and not get into flame wars (but it's just the OTHER people being illogical, right?).
In the context of this article, what is the goal of communication? It it just to convey information or to convince people or to persuade them to take some action? Whatever the goal is you need to realize that some people won't listen/agree/act and that doesn't necessarily make them idiots. Try to see if from their point of view: you hear some guy claiming to be very qualified saying something you don't quite understand that possibly conflicts with your world view. What are you going to do? Get your own Ph.D. and do your own research so you can see if the guy really knows what he's talking about? No, you've got your own life to live so you've just got to decide at the time -- Is this something I need to care about? Is this guy really qualified? Is he biased AGAINST what I believe in a way that would influence his interpretation of the facts? Is he being paid to say this? I'm sure most of you ask yourself these questions when you hear about research "proving" something you don't agree with (or "disproving" something you did agree with).
Polarized? (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? 90% of us are just fine. It's the 10% of idiots on either side of any issue who won't STFU that are "polarized."
Give the People What they Want (Score:4, Insightful)
They need to feel embraced by Nature and Nature's God. Randomness and chaos scares them.
We should point out that each and every random mutation obeys the Laws of Chemistry and the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Mathematics as far as we know.
That mutations happen in accordance with Natural Laws.
Are the Laws of Chemistry random? No, they derive from the Laws of Physics. Are the Laws of Physics random? We do not know, many physicists say they seem "dialed in," so this question is still in the province of metaphysics, and far removed from questions regarding biological evolution. This should be taught in a way that does not smell of a passed buck; students should be encouraged to explore these questions with faculty whose subjects are closer to physics and philosophy.
From mathematics, biology teachers should teach a proper understanding of the word "random." That random processes can at least be modeled with mathematics, and math is all about Laws and Proofs and other certainties which should appeal to the Lawful Good Authoritarian mindset. Get out the 2d6 and show how 7 is the peak of their Gaussian distribution! That "random" is not scary at all and obeys Mathematical Laws.
As an aside, usually the Republicans promote freer markets. If you can understand Adam Smith, you can understand biological evolution! Crappy companies go out of business, crappy species go extinct. Public tastes are often inexplicable and at least as random as any mutation (the solution space is larger, as a base pair can mutate to only one of three other pairs). Many ideas of trade and evolution are quite parallel, even running on the same conceptual engine, selfishness.
The selfishness of genes leads directly to Cain's Question and answers in the affirmative: from the gene's viewpoint we are certainly our brother's keeper.
Stipulating some game theoretic insights, many other Moral Laws can be derived - the Prisoner's Dilemma brings forth some reasons for cooperation.
And always, when a student's question is really beyond what the teacher and even science knows, the answer should be "I don't know" or "we don't know." Honesty and no buck passing! They may need a knowledge gap to house their God, and a militantly agnostic attitude should be taken by teachers when the students ask Those Big Questions. Did God "dial in" the physical constants? We do not know we are literally agnostic.
Is it really that bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I live in the wrong part of the country, but I still think there's a bit of sensationalism going on here. I've found people to be informed, to varying degrees of course, thanks to television and especially the internet. A quick search of the internet can uncover quite a bit of information, and disinformation as well, I'll admit.
What I've found interesting while living in Asia is how much more pervasive spirituality and religion is there. It's embedded in the culture. Astrology there is more complex and taken more seriously there. You can buy books on how to use spiritual guides to help win the lottery. They still believe in things like phrenology. I can't count the times I've heard people say that a taller forehead means you're more intelligent. In China a school recently stated that kids with flatter heads were more apt to do poorly in school. Pretty much any part of someone's body can supposedly signify something.
No one really seems to question it. They just see it as another way to view the world I guess. And these notions are prevalent everywhere in east Asia, even in Japan. I'm not passing judgment one way or another, but pointing out that this certainly isn't unique to the United States.
Although I admit recent efforts to force creationism into the science class is concerning, to say the least. And while I think something needs to be done to stop that sort of nonsense I don't think it's a major problem yet. I'm more concerned about influences from popular culture. Look at all the attention given to garbage like American Idol. I'm more concerned about celebrities and athletes get all the attention but we barely hear anything about science and technology. We don't hear anything in the popular media about all the scientific progress being made and the valuable role scientists play in our society.
Start with honesty! (Score:3, Insightful)
Even laymen aren't as stupid as many in the science crowd might believe. After being told that fusion power, flying cars and fabulous discovery X are just 10 years away for multiple decades, some cynicism sets in. If articles could just present the honest progress and verified science that really has been done, everyone would be the better for it. People shouldn't be expected to have to go in and read the scientific journal for every new science article they read just understand what really has and has not been discovered.
Bi-partisan? (Score:3, Insightful)
In keeping with the political notion, I think the biggest problem is that, like everything else in the US, there is no middle ground. We drive people to make uneducated choices simply so they can buy the t-shirt and blindly root for their 'team'.
We are constantly told that if we're not in favor of fighting overseas, then we're in favor of terrorism. If we believe in a god of some sort, then we have to be anti-science. That if we're not 'for the children' then we're automatically against them.
And how much have we actually proven, versus simply not being able to disprove? Does my belief that the theory of evolution is probably correct somehow prohibit me from seeking a spiritual understanding of the world around me?
One of the wondrous aspects of the human mind is the ability to operate equally well in the realm of concrete truths (fire is hot) and the the realm of imagination or unprovable concepts (is fire hot and why? What if it weren't?). And yet, we do all that we can to divorce ourselves from this in favor of being either-or.
Re:sad state of affairs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Media exaggeration (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason science doesn't get taught effectively in the US is plain old laziness, apathy, and stupidity.
If the same proportion of secular parents gave a shit about their child's education as the proportion of religious nuts homeschooling their kids about how their grampa warn't no monkey this problem would largely be solved.
Re:Media exaggeration (Score:4, Informative)
I have to agree with you there. It really doesn't matter all that much whether the public schools teach evolution or not...there are very few teachers in these schools who are remotely qualified to teach just about any subject. I would put more of the blame on the educational establishment—particularly the NEA (National Education Associaton) than on the parents. They've been brainwashed into believing that it's solely the State's prerogative to educate their kids.
That's why we home-schooled our youngest daughter. Yes, both my wife and I are Christians, so I guess we're unqualified "religious nuts" in your view. We did teach her Biology, including the standard scientific accounts of evolution. I communicated to her my opinion that faith in divine creation isn't at odds with science in this (or any) regard. After all, God could will evolution to take place, could he not? (I understand this is similar to the Catholic Church's official opinion on the subject.) In any case, it's probably too late for you to call the cops and have her taken away from us...she's almost 18 now, and Junior at the University of Texas (Dallas).
Re:sad state of affairs. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is from a Christopher Hitchens fan who agree that "religion poisons everything."
Draw a rude picture of Jesus and post it. OK, now draw a rude picture of Mohammad.
Re:And the Point Is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that science cannot be "communicated", it has to be taught. You cannot "communicate" the theory of evolution and expect people to believe in it. We are talking about studying the matter for a year just to scratch the surface. It gets worse. Some things are just unbelievable, regardless of how many times you studied them and seen them work: even relatively old ideas like the nature of light and the Euler's formula.
Your, or anyone else's uneducated belief in evolution because of the scientific c