|The Science and Philosophy Forum|
|Author:||Paralith [ March 28th, 2011, 4:34 pm ]|
|Blog Subject:||Loud Mouths (and Heavy Typers)|
During my years on science forums and in the #science chatroom, I have come across a wide variety of those characters which the internets have to offer. It can be both fun and infuriating (not unlike grad school), but in the past year or so it felt like these places were inundated by people with a particular agenda. In general, I refer to them as sci-haters, but they are a fairly diverse group. There's these types:
Some of whom you can reason with, many of whom go into a toddler-esque tantrum rage at the mention that maybe they're wrong and people who have spent a lot of time studying these topics just might know better. Then there's the types who simply want to bash science and/or scientists as wrong, heartless, elitist, biased, a waste of space, etc.
I felt like I was glimpsing into the heart of a country (and perhaps a world) that was deeply suspicious and distrusting of science, and it saddened me very much.
But then I realized that I was making a very n00b scientist mistake - I was assuming that these ornery people were a representative sample of the rest of the country. And apparently it's a mistake that many scientists and science hobbyists make. Enter Matthew C. Nisbet and his blog, Age of Engagement.
In 2009 the Pew Research Center released results from a comprehensive survey of Americans and how they view science. 2009! Even before I started developing my own personal fall-from-grace narrative about sci-haters. Man, I am behind the times.
Long story short, what has been flooding into my little corners of the internet are the people who are extreme enough and angry enough to come search out my compatriots and I, and attempt to give us the what-for. Isn't that always the way?
This has made me much more optimistic about the state of science, at least in the USA. But I still worry about the state of science communication, and the potential damage that these loud mouths and heavy typers could inflict on a public that many scientists address only occasionally and awkwardly. But that's a topic for another post.
|Author:||Anonymous [ October 26th, 2011, 10:49 pm ]|
Where would the world be without science? In darkness and uncomertability that's where. I for one can appreciate the logicalness that scientists often bring to arguements, the same logic that often gets them unnecessarily labeled as heartless or unfeeling. You have my vote ;)
|Author:||zetreque [ May 16th, 2014, 1:41 am ]|
This was in the news again recently. Not sure how biased the poll was though, never looked into it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ng/360976/
I often think back to imagining times of paradise in our history like when the Greeks sat around with food abundant just exploring science and math day in and day out, or the renaissance era of art and science, or the library of Alexandria with people from all over coming together to learn. Then I realize that even back then, things might have not been the paradise we like to imagine them to be, and they struggled with many issues. Just look at what happened to the Library, and great cities all being burned and destroyed.
I still like to try to imagine times like those being paradise though, where they had all the support of the city, and their biggest problem in life was figuring out the circumference of the Earth :)
|All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]|
Powered by phpBB © 2002, 2006 phpBB Group
Blogs powered by User Blog Mod © EXreaction