Opposition to science in the US

[iceaura]

On the whole, your views are the same as mine. But I thought the importation of scientists had slowed down to a trickle after Werner von Braun and others post WW2.

Are you not overlooking people such as Feynmann, Gould and numerous others I could mention. How about MIT, NASA and many other such institutions. You are surely not suggesting that immigrants constitute the preponderance of the researchers in such places.

I was referring not only to direct immigration of accomplished scientists, but the reliance on recently immigrated ethnic minorities - rather than the demographic and cultural mainstream - to produce children that become American sceintists.

Feynman and Gould were both children of "secular Jewish" homes in ethnic enclaves settled by recent arrivals, for example.

If not the preponderance, my guess is a notably disproportionate fraction of the researchers at MIT at least (dunno about NASA) come from non-mainstream and recently immigrated childhood cultures. The white Anglo-Saxon Christian (and black African Christian) dominant demographics of the US are not proportionately represented, I predict.

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/about/newfaculty.php for a list of names of new hires at one branch of MIT.

 

[Myles]

I was referring not only to direct immigration of accomplished scientists, but the reliance on recently immigrated ethnic minorities - rather than the demographic and cultural mainstream - to produce children that become American sceintists.

Feynman and Gould were both children of "secular Jewish" homes in ethnic enclaves settled by recent arrivals, for example.

If not the preponderance, my guess is a notably disproportionate fraction of the researchers at MIT at least (dunno about NASA) come from non-mainstream and recently immigrated childhood cultures. The white Anglo-Saxon Christian (and black African Christian) dominant demographics of the US are not proportionately represented, I predict.

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/about/newfaculty.php for a list of names of new hires at one branch of MIT.

Thank you for that information. But you must have SOME intelligent Americans. They can't all be going to the movies and eating popcorn. Joking aside, you seem to have made your point. I shall follw up the reference you gave me.

 

[quadraphonics]

On the whole, your views are the same as mine. But I thought the importation of scientists had slowed down to a trickle after Werner von Braun and others post WW2.

Far from it; in fact, it didn't really get up and running until decades after WWII. These days, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers coming to the United States every year.

 

[Myles]

These days, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers coming to the United States every year.

If what you say is true, I am obviously totally ignorant of what is going on in the US. I can only plead that I started this thread seeking information which., I suppose, is a confession of ignorance.

I have heard stories of strong opposition in the US to the practice and teaching of science. This side of the pond ( UK ) the situation is sometimes portrayed as rampant Matthew-Brady type followers wanting certain textbooks banned, and the teaching of evolutionary theory replaced by Creationism. Intelligent Design or Creation Science as it is now being called.

I wonderd how much influence such groups wield . Can they hold your government to ransom vis a vis the allocation of research funds, for example,
as someone on this thread has told me.


I also wished to get some idea of what people who oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory are afraid of. There is an old saying that the truth will out . I believe evolutionary theory to be true , but I have no objection to Creation Science being discussed in schools, as long as all sides of the debate are fairly represented. To me, this is the essence of education. A decision concerning what to believe can be left until people are mature enough to decide for themselves.Spoonfeeding youn minds with received wisdom , from whatever quarter, will only produce a generation incapable of critical thinking. I am saying nothing new when I add that human progress rests largely on the efforts of those who asked ( awkward ? ) questions.


Would I be right to assume there is an ideological battle in progress ? If so , who is in the ascendancy ?

Thanks for your info.

 

[iceaura]

But you must have SOME intelligent Americans. They can't all be going to the movies and eating popcorn.

I doubt intelligence is the pivotal matter.

Or even learning, in its place. Several European intellectuals who wrote home about the peculiarities of America in the early days (especially a Frenchman who was sent by his government to see how prisons worked in a democracy) remarked on the widespread literacy and educational ambition among the peasantry. They saw, in America, young men managing plows in fields (peasant work) with books in their back pockets for when they broke for lunch and to rest the horse. That was something probably never seen before on the planet. That hasn't gone away.

The non-scientists we're talking about are some very capable people, often.

 

[quadraphonics]

I have heard stories of strong opposition in the US to the practice and teaching of science. This side of the pond ( UK ) the situation is sometimes portrayed as rampant Matthew-Brady type followers wanting certain textbooks banned, and the teaching of evolutionary theory replaced by Creationism. Intelligent Design or Creation Science as it is now being called.

Yeah, there are various Christan people and groups that have problems with evolution, but you shouldn't read too much into them. This stuff doesn't amount to an opposition to science in general; these people literally could not care less about any science subjects other than evolution. They've been whipped into a frenzy by various fundamentalist culture warrior types, who try to convince them that evolution goes against the Bible and so is an attack on Christianity, and so on. And so they periodicially stage campaigns in different spots to introduce creationism into public school cirricula, without much success so far.

I wonderd how much influence such groups wield . Can they hold your government to ransom vis a vis the allocation of research funds, for example,
as someone on this thread has told me.

Generally they have zero influence at all at the university and research levels, although there is a ban on federal funding for stem cell research, which was done as a sop to the religious right. Which isn't to say that there arne't legitimate ethical issues related to stem cell research, but the law is not really representative of Americans in general. And, anyway, this law was more to please the anti-abortion crowd than the anti-evolution crowd (although these is significant overlap between the two).

Beyond that, the creationism lobby mostly works to lobby various public school boards at the state or local level, and sponsors the creation of "evolution awareness discussion clubs" at universities. They typically get laughed out of the room, although there have been a couple of occasions where they got some changes through while nobody was looking. Fortunately, those kinds of developments tend to energize the reasonable 90% of society, who then work to undermine them (Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example).

In most states in America, creationists don't stand a chance in hell of influencing school cirricula.

I also wished to get some idea of what people who oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory are afraid of.

They're afraid that science will be accepted as a method for discerning truth that supercedes their religion. So they hope to use the powers of the state to enforce the supremacy of their religion over science. This is doomed to failure for a number of reasons, although it's sad to see educations getting jeopardized in the process.

I believe evolutionary theory to be true , but I have no objection to Creation Science being discussed in schools, as long as all sides of the debate are fairly represented.

Don't be a sucker: that's exactly what they want you to think. In fact, it's illegal to teach "Creation Science" in public schools in America, as the Supreme Court decided ages ago that it amounts to proselytizing in school. That's why they cleaned out the overt religious messages and changed the name to "intelligent design." Either way, however, it doesn't add up to science, and so has no place in a science classroom. Inserting it into a science cirriculum in the name of "fairness" is simply an underhanded method to add unearned scientific credibility to creationism, while unfairly impugning the credentials of evolution. Discuss it in a social studies class if you must, but keep religion out of the science classes.

Would I be right to assume there is an ideological battle in progress ? If so , who is in the ascendancy ?

I would say that only the hard-core creationists see it as an ideological battle. And they're certainly marginalized and ineffective, although much more zealous and active. Which is to say that they make the headlines, but never accomplish much of anything. They've been at it for at least 100 years, and during all that time, education in the Untied States has only gotten less religious. The thousands of schools that continue to teach actual science do not make any headlines, but represent the overwhelming mainstream of American education.

Much more worrisome than the creationist types are the anti-abortion types preventing stem-cell research and the see-no-evil types pushing "abstinence-only" sex education.

 

[S.A.M.]

No trolling Ljeschi.

 

[shichimenshyo]

I see you getting banned very quickly

 

[Myles]

I doubt intelligence is the pivotal matter.

Or even learning, in its place. Several European intellectuals who wrote home about the peculiarities of America in the early days (especially a Frenchman who was sent by his government to see how prisons worked in a democracy) remarked on the widespread literacy and educational ambition among the peasantry. They saw, in America, young men managing plows in fields (peasant work) with books in their back pockets for when they broke for lunch and to rest the horse. That was something probably never seen before on the planet. That hasn't gone away.

The non-scientists we're talking about are some very capable people, often.

That sounds great. I would love to know more about it. Can you recommend a book or two ?

Over here, at the time I believe you are talking about, the working classes were illiterate. They were working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Girls in service wre commonly up at 4 am to light to fires so that the house would be warm when their employers showed their faces. They were lucky if they got to bed by midnight .

A small number managed to break out of this vicious cycle by dint of superhuman effort

 

[Myles]

Much more worrisome than the creationist types are the anti-abortion types preventing stem-cell research and the see-no-evil types pushing "abstinence-only" sex education.

It's like that in holy Ireland where I was born and educated. There was a recent case of a girl of 17 who was seeking an abortion because the child she was carrying had its brain growing outside its skull. I'm not ssure of the name of this rare condition ( encephalopathy ? Children born with such a condition have a life expectancy of a few hours.

As abortion, even in cases where a girl has been raped, is illegal in Ireland , the girl in question was refused permission to leave the country to come to to the UK where abortion is allowed , given that certain criteria have to be satisfied. After a lot of hostile coverage in the "foreign press" , the supreme court granted permission for her to travel. If she returns home she can expect fingers pointed at her.

As to abstinence-only sex education, its promoters are backing a loser. But the upshot will be that young girls will become pregnnant through ignorance .

 

[MetaKron]

I would be gateful if you could give me your reasons for wanting to cancel these programs. In particular, why banish "science fairs " from schools ? What is the problem here ?

These are things that have happened, not things that I want.

 

[Myles]

These are things that have happened, not things that I want.

And the payoff was ?

 

[iceaura]

Generally they have zero influence at all at the university and research levels, although there is a ban on federal funding for stem cell research, which was done as a sop to the religious right. Which isn't to say that there arne't legitimate ethical issues related to stem cell research, but the law is not really representative of Americans in general. And, anyway, this law was more to please the anti-abortion crowd than the anti-evolution crowd (although these is significant overlap between the two).

Beyond that, the creationism lobby mostly works to lobby various public school boards at the state or local level, and sponsors the creation of "evolution awareness discussion clubs" at universities. They typically get laughed out of the room, although there have been a couple of occasions where they got some changes through while nobody was looking. Fortunately, those kinds of developments tend to energize the reasonable 90% of society, who then work to undermine them (Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example).

In most states in America, creationists don't stand a chance in hell of influencing school cirricula.

I wish I could share your optimism.

In surveys, depending on how the question is put, up to two thirds of all US high school biology teachers say they either shortchange evolution or skip it altogether, in fear of parental reaction.

A fair percentage don't "believe in it" themselves.

Meanwhile at the university level in some areas you find such class listings as "temporal phylogenetics" - saves the Dean from having to catch a lof of flak from the regents, improves the fundraising efforts among the alumni, but at a certain cost. And we see such phenomena as graduates of Regent University getting the inside track to positions of power in roles that monitor and administer various Federal scientific agencies.

Can you recommend a book or two ?

I was thinking of Alexis de Tocqueville's accounts, which are very good - "Democracy in America", say - but there are others.

 

[Myles]

I wish I could share your optimism.

In surveys, depending on how the question is put, up to two thirds of all US high school biology teachers say they either shortchange evolution or skip it altogether, in fear of parental reaction.

A fair percentage don't "believe in it" themselves.

Meanwhile at the university level in some areas you find such class listings as "temporal phylogenetics" - saves the Dean from having to catch a lof of flak from the regents, improves the fundraising efforts among the alumni, but at a certain cost. And we see such phenomena as graduates of Regent University getting the inside track to positions of power in roles that monitor and administer various Federal scientific agencies.
I was thinking of Alexis de Tocqueville's accounts, which are very good - "Democracy in America", say - but there are others.

It sounds like there will soon be lectures on spontaneous combustion. Anyone who mentions evolutionary theory will self-ignite.
Joking apart, the picture you paint is disturbing. There are moves afoot over here to set up privately funded "faith schools ". The guy with the dough wants to call the shots. Tony Blair was in favour. He is now on the megabuck lecture circuit so he will be standing well clear if the s*** hits the fan

There is a lot of resistance to these schools but I am not sure where it will end. I think it's fair to say that we are dealing with bigots who , fund a private school and dictate what should be in the syllabus. Sad thing is that likeminded parents will send their kids to these places, thereby creating another generation of bigots.

Thanks for mentioningthe book. I'll order a copy tomorrow if it is still in print. If not I can get hold of a copy through my local publicl ibrary. It's way past my bedtime now.
Thanks again

 

[quadraphonics]

ItThere are moves afoot over here to set up privately funded "faith schools ". The guy with the dough wants to call the shots.

Yeah, we've had those for some time in the United States. They have classes on creation "science", mandatory church services, strict rules to prevent premarital sex, etc. Graduates of such institutions are generally scoffed at, although there is an entire cottage industry that they can work in. And they tend to get a worrisome number of government appointments when the Republicans are in office and need to throw some red meat to the religious right.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are opinions agaisnt science not allowed here?

In case you haven't noticed, SciForums is a gathering place for scientists, future scientists, and people who want to discuss and learn science. Science is a technique for predicting the future behavior of the natural universe by making logical deductions from empirical observations of the way it has behaved in the past. If you don't think that's a reasonable way to deal with life, it's hard to understand why you came here, unless it's simply to cause trouble.

Of course rational debate is always encouraged, so you're certainly welcome to start a rational debate about whether science itself is valid. But that's a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one, and the place for philosophical discussions is in the Philosophy subforum, not one of the subforums about the various sciences. (This one is about sociology, one of the "soft" sciences but a science nonetheless.) There you will find people who have the time and interest to participate in such a debate. And of course you had better be prepared for them. So far you have not exactly impressed anyone with your reasoning and debating skills.

What does "trolling" mean?

Since this is a place of science, the scientific method is to be respected at all times. One type of trolling is to argue in an irrational or otherwise unscientific way. One of the principles of the scientific method is, "Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation." You have made a couple of extraordinary assertions and provided no substantiation at all, much less extraordinary substantiation. That is trolling... unless you immediately desist from advancing your argument and stop to provide the required substantiation for statements you have already made.

Are we not allowed to express opinions here or is the truth not allowed?

Yes we are allowed to express opinions, within certain broad limits such as racism and insults against individual members. But equating your opinion with "the truth" is not the expression of an opinion, it is an assertion that you speak the truth and we do not. If you speak the truth, you should have no problem explaining why it is the truth. Please do so, or what you have just said is a perfect example of trolling.

I am opposed to science or any idea that promotes prejudice and that hurts others, no matter if these others are humans or animals or plants.

Once again, you have made an extraordinary assertion without substantiating it. In accordance with the principles of the scientific method, you are hereby challenged to explain why you believe that science "promotes prejudice and hurts others." Any further promotion of your argument without defending what you have already said is trolling.

Here I am again trying to prove my truth by using the very categories I hate.

You have not attempted to prove anything. All you have done is insist that you are right and we--and apparently virtually all scientists--are wrong.

Science should be opposed. It promotes ideas and ideas are dangerous. Especially the ones that don't make us feel good or that hurt our feelings. The worse thing about science is that it establishes this premise that there are species or categories or differences when religion fights agaisnt these lies.

Another example of trolling. You claim that ideas are dangerous if they don't make us feel good. You claim that there's something wrong with the definition of species and categories. These are all extraordinary assertions which you have not explained. Even if they were ordinary assertions you still have not given us any reason why they might be true. You call science "lies" and presumably hold religion up to be truth, when in fact science is based on empirical observation of the real universe whereas religion is based on the instinct to have faith in the supernatural. Surely you understand that this is a place where fundamentalist religion is treated with hostility because it is the antithesis of science. As a Moderator (fortunately for you not the Moderator of this subforum), one of the few types of hostile remarks I permit without substantiation. are those against religious fundamentalism, precisely because it is the antithesis of science. Your own remarks illustrate this.

Only science that promotes pleasure and niceness should be allowed.

Well let's see. Chemistry is a science, chemists invented LSD, and LSD promotes pleasure and niceness. Cool!

 

[Myles]

. One of the principles of the scientific method is, "Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation." You have made a couple of extraordinary assertions and provided no substantiation at all, much less extraordinary substantiation.

But equating your opinion with "the truth" is not the expression of an opinion, it is an assertion that you speak the truth and we do not. If you speak the truth, you should have no problem explaining why it is the truth.




you are hereby challenged to explain why you believe that science "promotes prejudice and hurts others."

You have not attempted to prove anything. All you have done is insist that you are right and we--and apparently virtually all scientists--are wrong. You claim that ideas are dangerous if they don't make us feel good. You claim that there's something wrong with the definition of species and categories. These are all extraordinary assertions which you have not explained. Even if they were ordinary assertions you still have not given us any reason why they might be true. You call science "lies" and presumably hold religion up to be truth, when in fact science is based on empirical observation of the real universe whereas religion is based on the instinct to have faith in the supernatural. Surely you understand that this is a place where fundamentalist religion is treated with hostility because it is the antithesis of science.

. Cool!

You have put a convincing case but, unfortunately, not one that will convince someone who declares that he is opposed to science. I take that to mean blindly opposed, as he has not offered any reasons to support his opposition. It is highly unlikely that the scientific method of enquiry is of interest to him. He has no need to think because he knows.

I am reminded of the courtroom scene in "Inherit the Wind" where Spencer Tracey asks Frederic Marsh ( ?) whether he ever thinks about certain topics. The answer is revealing, something along the lines of I do not think about things I choose not to think about. That says it all.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You have put a convincing case but, unfortunately, not one that will convince someone who declares that he is opposed to science.

All I intend to convince him of is that we take science seriously here and have rules about it. This is the first step toward banning members who make of habit of serious rule violations: to let them know there is a problem. It's up to them whether they want to solve the problem and remain here. We're trying to clean this place up so we'll attract more science-oriented discussions, since that is the website's purpose. People who come here to participate in such a discussion won't stick around if their post is jumped on by a troll insisting that science is evil and everybody knows it.

 

[CharonZ]

Far from it; in fact, it didn't really get up and running until decades after WWII. These days, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers coming to the United States every year.

Traditionally the USA was dependent on foreign students/scientists to fulfill the demand on research staff.

Just to add some numbers (I happened to stumble across them in a different context):
As of 2001
9% of all citizens of the USA are foreigners but the constitute 16% of all employed in R&D and 21% of all university employees.
Around 50% of all postdocs and around 25% of all university employees in the field of natural sciences and engineering are foreigners.
The majority of foreign postdocs are of Chinese, Japanese and German citizenship (in this order), foregin professors got citizenships from China, India, Taiwan, UK and Germany (in this order).

 

[Myles]

Traditionally the USA was dependent on foreign students/scientists to fulfill the demand on research staff.

Just to add some numbers (I happened to stumble across them in a different context):
As of 2001
9% of all citizens of the USA are foreigners but the constitute 16% of all employed in R&D and 21% of all university employees.
Around 50% of all postdocs and around 25% of all university employees in the field of natural sciences and engineering are foreigners.
The majority of foreign postdocs are of Chinese, Japanese and German citizenship (in this order), foregin professors got citizenships from China, India, Taiwan, UK and Germany (in this order


.

Thank you . Having some numbers such as yours provides more information than any number of post containing non-quantified information