Before someone calls me an ignorant creationist...no, I am not one of those anti-science advocates who try to discredit scientific theory for the benefit of preserving their more traditional beliefs.
A new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, however, has identified the particular method that these people use to discredit scientific ideas. Called "scientific impotence," this method relies on discrediting a particular scientific finding - say, that humanity is causing climate change - to imply that science as a body of knowledge is impotent as a whole.
What's especially worrisome about this study is that it suggests that this phenomenon can be quite contagious. It's not hard to imagine how this can spread like wildfire inside a closely-knit, isolationist, religion-steeped group or community. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I believe that subjecting groups of people to ignorance (at best) or a misguided sense of knowledge and reality is a throwback to the Middle Ages (hmm, maybe that is the intent) and an unfair rejection of the knowledge humanity has acquired over centuries. And it can be quite dangerous too.
On the other hand, you can't really blame people for distrusting science. First off, the scientific community is generally regarded (and generally regards itself) as an elite group that stands way apart society. It can be seen as unapproachable and alien at best, but arrogant mostly. It steeps itself too much in jargon and technicalities to render itself inaccessible, even cold, from the public eye. Yes, science is objective and cold and unfeeling, but that doesn't mean that it has to be elitist too. Call me a humanist, but I believe that the ultimate goal of science is not to further scientific knowledge per se, but to use this knowledge to educate people and to help humanity as a whole.
Second, the peddlers of science (read: corporations) are more widely seen as heartless profit-hungry predators than purveyors of human good. Though this may have some truth to it, the science connected to their products (and perceptions to science as a whole) are seen in a more untrustworthy light too.
I think the whole anti-science debacle is additional proof that scientists and the whole scientific community should rethink its approach to communicating with non-scientists. I know it's hard, but we should stop clinging to our PhDs and ivory-tower mentalities. More than striving for accuracy and reproducibility in our research, we should also try to make what we do more understandable to the people around us.
A new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, however, has identified the particular method that these people use to discredit scientific ideas. Called "scientific impotence," this method relies on discrediting a particular scientific finding - say, that humanity is causing climate change - to imply that science as a body of knowledge is impotent as a whole.
What's especially worrisome about this study is that it suggests that this phenomenon can be quite contagious. It's not hard to imagine how this can spread like wildfire inside a closely-knit, isolationist, religion-steeped group or community. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I believe that subjecting groups of people to ignorance (at best) or a misguided sense of knowledge and reality is a throwback to the Middle Ages (hmm, maybe that is the intent) and an unfair rejection of the knowledge humanity has acquired over centuries. And it can be quite dangerous too.
On the other hand, you can't really blame people for distrusting science. First off, the scientific community is generally regarded (and generally regards itself) as an elite group that stands way apart society. It can be seen as unapproachable and alien at best, but arrogant mostly. It steeps itself too much in jargon and technicalities to render itself inaccessible, even cold, from the public eye. Yes, science is objective and cold and unfeeling, but that doesn't mean that it has to be elitist too. Call me a humanist, but I believe that the ultimate goal of science is not to further scientific knowledge per se, but to use this knowledge to educate people and to help humanity as a whole.
Second, the peddlers of science (read: corporations) are more widely seen as heartless profit-hungry predators than purveyors of human good. Though this may have some truth to it, the science connected to their products (and perceptions to science as a whole) are seen in a more untrustworthy light too.
I think the whole anti-science debacle is additional proof that scientists and the whole scientific community should rethink its approach to communicating with non-scientists. I know it's hard, but we should stop clinging to our PhDs and ivory-tower mentalities. More than striving for accuracy and reproducibility in our research, we should also try to make what we do more understandable to the people around us.
August 26, 2016 at 1:21 PM
That's where people like (science communicator) Karl Kruszelnicki (known as Doctor Karl) comes in. If you want to promote something it's all about attitude. Arrogance and coldness will get you nowhere. Whereas fun and humor gets people engaged. Look at the Beatles.
March 10, 2017 at 3:44 AM
Thank you so much! It is definitely an fantastic online site.
Generic Viagra