Americans have little doubt about the scientific evidence that smoking can cause cancer. However, many Americans still question some of the basic concepts of modern science. AP-GfK poll*
As faith in a supreme being rises, confidence in the Big Bang, climate change and the age of the Earth decline, according to the poll.
"Views on science may be tied to what people see with their own eyes. The closer an issue is to their own bodies, and the less complicated, the easier it is for people to believe." John Staudenmaier
"Science, in its really pure form, is just telling you what the state of the world is. The more in-tune with reality your beliefs are, the more you are in a position to make a wise decision. Ignorance of science could also prove to be dangerous - parents' reluctance towards vaccines can harm others by spreading disease. Science is not meant to dictate policy. Rather, it is used to tell others what the state of the world is, and how officials respond to that is a statement of values." Daniel T. Willingham
"It is enormously distressing that science, which is our most powerful means for gaining insight into the world, insight into truth, is so mistrusted by so many people. Understanding scientific ideas is not just academic, it's essential to a vital democracy. Issues like climate change or nanoscience or genetically modified foods, are scientific at their core." Brian Greene
"Some people may not believe in science because it draws on evidence that they don't experience in their everyday lives. Everyone draws conclusions about the world around them - scientists and non-scientists alike - but non-scientists base those conclusions on much weaker evidence: a single observation, a gut feeling, hearsay from others. When those 'homespun' conclusions contradict the conclusions of science, it's difficult to recognize that they rest on much flimsier grounds." Andrew Shtulman
"Science ignorance is pervasive in our society, and these attitudes are reinforced when some of our leaders are openly antagonistic to established facts." Randy Schekman
Religion tends to play more important role in their lives
Have strong views on the limitations of science and less convinced about the economic benefits of investing in it
Reservations about the intentions of scientists and whether the Government can control them
Around one in four (23%) of the population
Tend to be women aged 16-24 , less affluent (C2DEs) and from BME communities
Implications
Want to hear more about the intentions of scientists, especially those working in controversial areas such as stem cell research or synthetic biology
Want to know how individual scientists and scientific professional bodies , as well as Government, are responding to the public’s concerns
Most engaged Least engaged CONFIDENT ENGAGERS DISTRUSTFUL ENGAGERS LATE ADOPTERS CONCERNED DISENGAGED SCEPTICS INDIFFERENT
Slide 38: From the qualitative work… Participants didn’t know the process of doing science – how funding works and how science gets out into the world… … but they loved talking to scientists!
Slide 21: The kind of formalised process people want to see is often in place, but not known about If I knew that the findings had been formally reviewed by other scientists If I heard the same thing from a number of different sources If they had been published in a scientific journal If they fitted in with other things I know already If I could see the original study for myself If I saw them on a TV programme If the research had been done in the UK If I read them in a broadsheet newspaper If I had heard of the place where the research was done If I saw them on the internet Q Which of these, if any, would make you more likely to believe the findings of scientific studies? Base: 2,103 UK adults aged 16+ Fieldwork dates: 11 October-19 December 2010 Top ten mentions
This suggests to me that Process of Peer Review should be better understood by humanists
But Peter Atkins misses the chance to point out a humanist meme: Whilst the universe has no purpose, we, within it, can decide our own meaning & purpose to life (not relying on a holy book to tell us). Peter Atkins needs to brush up on his Humanism (he is a BHA Distinguished Supporter)
How about this for a strapline for Humanists4Science? 'Is there nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate?'
Reference: Atkins, P., On Being, 2011, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 104 (available from Amazon.co.uk):-
'My own faith, my scientific faith, is that there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate'
Oxford scientist Prof Peter Atkins and philosopher Mary Midgley discuss whether there is anything more than facts, facts and more facts.
my synopsis of interview by John Humphrys, Today. All quotes from Peter Atkins, except where indicated. My additions in [ ].
philosophers have tried for millennia, to answer the great questions e.g. where did we come from?, why are we here?. Should philosophers bother ... just leave it to the scientists who deal in facts? That's the argument of Peter Atkins book 'On Being'. (JH)
3 ways of getting knowledge about the world:
1.refer to holy books [religion]
2.think about what it should be [philosophy]
3.go out and see what it's like [science] - favoured by Peter Atkins - that's what science is all about
Myths that emphasise the importance of these great questions [religion], have given way to truth [revealed by science]
Myths such as? (JH)
myths about afterlife and creation of universe have given way (but not completely) to scientific investigation, not completely but as an optimist, shows the way to the future understanding of the world
As a scientist can you answer: 'why are we here?' (JH)
Yes I could. It's just by accident! We just tumbled into being, the universe somehow came into existence. We don't know that, but its not outside the reach of science to consider the grand question: what is the origin of the universe? Science in due course will come up with verifiable theories about how universe came into being .... it was inevitable that we and our brains would tumble into existence [evolution by natural selection]
this is not a scientific view - a philosophical view - not science! (MM)
imperialistic view (MM)
can physical science give us knowledge about everything eg 'history'? No! (MM)
for a logical or maths question - ask a scientist (MM)
most of the questions we ask are about the working of human life not about physical detail (MM)
philosophical obfustification!
science goes out to answer the really deep questions about existence
whereas a philosopher, typically a pessimist, is like a traffic warden...
Are you an optimist, as a scientist, with all the dire warnings about how the world & universe could end? (JH)
We can have fun before the world expires! Part of the fun is understanding the nature of the world, how it works, how it came into existence!
the really deep questions that philosophers try to answer is 'the meaning of human life' and putting together the elements of the human life so they make sense. These are more important than the causal nature of the universe. (MM)
science identifies the really deep questions of existence, philosophers typically are pessimists (like traffic wardens), philosophers obfuscate, philosophers verge on edge of being theologians!
Science identifies deep questions
there is no meaning of human life (PA) 4m40s
Philosophers focus on the non-questions like the meaning of life. What is the meaning of human life? This is a philosophical non-question! There is no meaning to life!
And you're an optimist? What a bleak assessment! (JH)
Yes, being bleak is part of the pleasure of being alive!
MM get us out of that one! (JH)
This talk about accident is rubbish! You can talk about a car accident but we can't talk about the whole thing being an accident, it's unintelligible. (MM)
it is much more understandable that the universe is an accident, the universe fell into existence somehow, rather than, for example, there being a creator who somehow nudged it into existence.
But you said "I think, not I can prove". Surely science should say more? (JH)
science does not rush into explanations, it edges towards answers in a very self confident authoritative way
humanity should be deeply proud that it stumbled upon a way [the scientific method] of discovering the truth about the universe
Mary Midgley, in less than 30 seconds tell us why we are here! (JH)
New president of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, presents a BBC Horizon programme addressing the erosion of trust in science, asking whether science is under concerted attack, and whether scientists themselves are partly to blame.
Obviously science itself should be deeply sceptical, critical, and self-examining. But Nurse’s focus is on those outright attempts to diminish the whole process of scientific method, and the growth industry in pseudoscientific “denialist” attacks on well-corroborated theories even once the alternatives have been thoroughly discredited, “from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.”
Paul Nurse interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn’t believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS. This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.
Watch on iPlayer until 22 Feb 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack
How should Humanists convey the importance of Science to other Humanists and wider society
The method I've used here is a brief online literature research. I've added links (all except those in red) and my emphasis is in bold.
Later I hope to make podcasts of interviews of Distinguished Supporters, possibly in association with The Pod Delusion.
Blakemore at the Oxford University
Scientific Society social event in 2009
Professor Colin Blakemore is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association:-
'Colin Blakemore was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in June 1944. After winning a place at the King Henry VIII grammar school in Coventry, he went on to win a scholarship to study natural science at Cambridge and then completed a PhD at the University of California in Berkeley. After 11 years in the Department of Physiology at Cambridge University, he became Waynflete Professor of Physiology at Oxford University in 1979. From 1996–2003 he was Director of the Medical Research Council Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at Oxford, and was Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC) from 2003-2010.
Professor Blakemore was President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (now the British Science Association) in 1997-1998 and its Chairman in 2001-2004. He has been described by the Royal Society as “one of Britain 's most influential communicators of science”, and he has been awarded many prizes from medical and scientific academies and societies. He is committed to promoting dialogue between scientists and the public, and to defending medical research using animals despite regularly receiving threats of violence from animal rights extremists. Over the years he has been a frequent contributor to radio and television programmes, including the BBC Reith Lecture in 1976 ('Mechanics of the Mind') and the 13-part BBC2 series The Mind Machine. His books for the general public include Mechanics of the Mind (for which he won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science), Images and Understanding , Mindwaves, The Mind Machine (see 'Look Inside' page 86), Gender and Society and The Oxford Companion to the Body.
In 2004 Colin Blakemore as the new Head of the Medical Research Council, was interviewed and asked in the last question 'Do you feel there is sufficient public understanding in science? How would you encourage more?' Colin Blakemore said:-
It all depends on what one means by “understanding”. There is, contrary to received wisdom, remarkably strong enthusiasm for science amongst the general public, and considerable confidence in scientists.
In opinion polls,
three-quarters of the population said they were “amazed” by the achievements of science.
Another poll found that people admired Einstein more than David Beckham!
an annual Mori poll shows an unchanging two thirds of the public who say that they trust scientists to tell the truth.
On the other hand, the near-hysteria about such topics as
GM foods
MMR vaccination and autism reveals that the public are not well informed about the processes of science.
Understanding of risk and how to assess it is poor.
The public expect infallible pronouncements from scientists and are confused when they hear researchers expressing differences of opinion in areas of genuine uncertainty.
In my opinion, we, the researchers who benefit from public funds, have a responsibility to keep the people informed about how we spend their money.
Even more important, we must trust the public to guide us in areas of ethical concern.
But if we are to have confidence in the public’s rightful role in determining how far science can go, they must understand how science and scientists work.
Of course, busy researchers will ask why they should bother to give their precious time to public communication, when there is no professional recognition for that effort.
I think that the universities, the research councils and other funders... should acknowledge that public communication is a legitimate professional activity.
Watch (9minutes) Colin Blakemore at the 'Science is Vital' rally in London on 9th October 2010 talking about Science Funding in the UK (he is introduced by BHA Vice President Evan Harris):-
