These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome.<p>Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective values as a society. Those values are fluid, and very frequently in controversy. It seems like the demands to "follow science" are an attempt to sweep some of that controversy under the carpet.<p>In the case of climate change, it's pretending that there's cost/benefit analysis to be done. It ignores the possibility that the cost of doing something will exceed the likely damage expected. (I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that folks are trying to skip that part of the conversation)<p>It pops up in other cases, too. Virtually every economist will tell you that free trade is almost always a net positive for all involved. It harms a few, but on net the entire society is much better off. If we stopped with the science, then we should remove all tariffs and be done with it. But before we do so, there's still a moral question to be resolved: if a few people are paying the price to improve our overall economy, do we owe any debt to them, to make them whole afterwards?<p>So stop pretending that a lack of the policy you want demonstrates that we're scientifically illiterate. Instead, recognize that the science can only inform our debate over the values.
Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal or conservative. For some (my friends on the right, whom I understand and have empathy for more than your average HN reader), scientific thought unfortunately has been so closely tied to liberal ideologies that middle America sees as destructive to families and local economies. Additionally, there is growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals in our universities. This is unacceptable. (This is a great article on the matter <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessio...</a>)<p>In short, we need to stop treating that being "scientific" and "liberal" go hand-in-hand. They don't.<p>To quote the great Serj Tankian:<p><i>Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence</i>
I heard the incoming Vice President, Mike Pence, does not believe in evolution. In fact there's a video of him, admittedly a long while ago now, making a speech where he seems to not understand what the scientific meaning of "theory" is.<p>Are people not concerned about this at all? People in high positions ought to know basic things about how science functions, yet as the article points out, barely a word was said about science.<p>As a European, I think if someone went on a show like Question Time (a UK live debate show) and revealed they didn't believe in evolution, they would be finished in politics. And there would be even more mockery if they said they thought the earth was 6000 years old (though I don't know if Pence believes that).
The impression that schools and media gives of how "science" is being implemented these days is inaccurate enough that I would call it propaganda. The reality is that the research literature is filled with over 90% junk, and a small percent of value, just like everything else.<p>The funding and publication system is set up to force this junk percentage as high as the public will tolerate, so I do not think this "positive-spin" type of propaganda is a good thing.
Most of the comments here are focused on climate change denial and smattering of evolution denial. It often gets painted that science denial (and evolution denial) is something that conservatives do, that liberals are the tribe of science.<p>Here's a link to a talk from Jon Haidt that puts a different perspective on that [0]. I don't want to do his eloquence a disservice, but suffice to say, every group has their own flavors of science denial. The discourse just seems to mostly focus on calling out the conservative forms of it while ignoring the liberal forms.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0</a>
Understanding science requires some scientific mindset.<p>The climate scientists talk about 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures and some react with "I am fine if the temperature would increase by a degree Fahrenheit".<p>Instead, what a person should realise is that an increase in global temperature of a mere 1C is shorthand to trillions of trillions of Joules (energy).
Funny, today on the Drudge Report, I read that we've had record cooling in the past 8 months.<p><a href="http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-the-last-eight-months/" rel="nofollow">http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-...</a><p>There's a large online anti-global warming movement that needs to be addressed. Actually, there's an anti-everyhing movement (e.g vaccines). The general public is not going to know who to believe.<p>Do more people read Drudge or Scientific American?
Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report.<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...</a>