I find Bryson a fun and engaging writer and I think I learned a lot from the book. More reliable, I think, than Roadrunner cartoons when it comes to physics. P.S. you know you can also get books from your local library or, gasp, buy them from Amazon or a bookstore.
Yes, but does Bryson also tell you that if you fall from a great height and get flattened, you can survive (albeit in the shape of a concertina)? Those three are the way I get all my books. I know I can get a Kindle, but I never bothered, because the small type hurts my eyes.
Yeah, I know, I was being a bit facetious. But I would suggest that you check the book out from your library and give it a glance. You might like it, and I would value your opinion. The local library system here also provides a large number of e-books free of charge. Not always immediately available if someone else checks them out first, of course.
Trump's term may have bent trust in science, but it did not break it. In fact, people got a lot more interested in it. https://www.science.org/content/article/survey-suggests-trump-s-attacks-boosted-public-trust-science
Per the article: I'm surprised that criticism of Fauci is considered an attack on science and scientists. The whole science? All of it? Yes, Trump would deny climate change even if the water was up to his chin—drill baby drill—but I just don't believe the man is disparaging all science when he tells his blatant lies. Interesting. Here they (and/or the survey) place religious fundamental beliefs as the opposite of civic scientific literacy. You know, I would call that a... polarizing stance to take. Okay I'll admit it: I'm just not a fan of the article or the survey. It's more loaded than an overstuffed cheese crust. Except instead of delicious cheese it's partisanship. All you need is N = 3,000 to assist in changing the question from "Why has the public's trust in science(!™) become so polar and what can the scientific community do to address it?" to "What the hell did Trump do to the public's perception of science(!™) this time?" They sort of forgot to ask the first question, and I don't think it's an accident. You can't divorce his effect from the emerging COVID crisis and subsequent policy for example. The art is in changing the question in order to get a preferred answer and wipe out potential unpreferable ones. Classic sleight of hand.
Also, they forget to mention that Science(C) and Religion(TM) can coexist quite happily. Just because a person believes in Science(C) doesn't mean that he/she is Religiously Bankrupt(TM), and vice-versa. All that's needed here is a little more thinking and much less SHOUTING!!!oneoneone!!! Heck, no less a religious authority than the late Pope John Paul II said so (when commenting on evolution). If the Pope can admit that the church was wrong on some points, who are the rest of us to disagree? Disclaimer: I'm not a religious person, per se; I don't subscribe to any church. But on the same token, I don't blindly or fanatically believe that everything scientists do is beyond reproach, criticism or fact-checking. Science is all about allowing other scientists to Check Your Work(TM). What does bother me is when people in both "camps", so to speak, reject EVERYTHING that comes from the other "camp", simply because it stems from "EEEEVIL SCIENTISTS" or "Closed-minded fanatics" etc. I prefer to approach the subject with humility and admit that there is much about both subjects that I do not know, but I'd like to learn. Hopefully, what I learn from both "sides" gives me enough perspective to make up my own mind (which I prefer to do), rather than leap to conclusions based on insufficient information (which is almost always a mistake).
That anti-science attitudes are firmly aligned with ideological viewpoints is firmly established. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsps.2023.1303157/full Fauci went with the science he had, but to those who do not understand how science works, it was seen as something other than what it was. Don't shoot the messenger.
A person does not "believe" in science. Science does not require faith. Faith does not ask for evidence, science does. A person can either accept or reject hypotheses, conclusions and theories based on the evidence that support them.
Probably entering debate room territory, but I just wanted to comment on this: I get what you're saying here in theory, but in practice, yes, accepting a worldview based on The Science absolutely requires belief/faith. I'm not a scientist in any general field or in any specialty. Physics, chemistry, biology, there's just so much. Would I even be capable of becoming an expert in just one niche specialty? I doubt it. I am incapable of "doing my own research" for every study that comes out about anything. I can't fact-check every headline that I see, and how would I effectively do so even if I had the ability? I can see the appeal of, "I dunno, god did it," but that's just not for me. So, how do I build an understanding of the world that makes sense to me, when I can't prove much of anything to myself? I have to believe that there is an honourable scientific community that follows the scientific method to the letter in order to generate hypotheses and publish results, that are then peer-reviewed and are found to be reproducible, and trust that everyone involved is objective and not trying to push some idea that will further their career, agenda, beliefs, etc. Humans are gonna human, so you're getting some outlier results, and some deliberate frauds and fabrications, but generally things make sense and new information will unjarringly slot into one's existing worldview. It's not easy to even reach this point; you usually need a bit of education to develop proper skepticism of all things human. We as individuals cannot properly analyze all scientific data on all subjects and arrive at our own conclusions, so, what's left is to trust The Science and The Experts who decide what is The Science and what is not. I'm fine with that, though it's odd to acknowledge that my worldview is built from so much faith in The Science. A scary thing that's been happening sometimes is when a trusted source of information for The Science (let's say, CBC, CNN, the Guardian, BBC, etc.) starts putting out articles that essentially are informing your curated worldview that actually, grass isn't green, and the sky isn't blue, because that's what we think now and it's The Science and if you question it, well, you are a barbarian. I do think there's a lot of faith put into science, and there's no way around it. And that's fine by me, provided that The Science can maintain the objectivity of its method and prevent people from turning away due to its humanity-driven faults.
You're right, of course, up to a point. It depends on what you mean by "belief" (see Set2Stun's post). If we define "belief" in the same way as "belief in god/a god" (i.e. "faith"), then you're right: a scientific hypothesis that is proved by repeated observation and experimentation, such as gravity, does not require belief. Gravity doesn't stop working if you stop believing in it. Gravity just is. The same thing can be said for other observable scientific facts, such as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or that forms of life evolve from other forms of life. But if we define "belief" in the sense that "we believe that Scientist ABC performed his experiments in good faith, and not -- for instance -- to gain a large cash grant 'for further research' etc..." Well ... I would love to believe that. I'd love to believe that all scientists are motivated by the search for The Truth(TM), not Cold Hard Cash(TM). Unfortunately, as we know, there are some scientists whose motivation is money. But that's true about people in any profession. Show me, for instance, one Olympic athlete who is only competing in order to do the best darn job he/she can. Anyone? If the best explanation you have for something is "I dunno, god did it" ... then what's the difference between that and what TV Tropes calls A Wizard Did It? (In other words, don't you DARE ask awkward questions!!! It was MAGIC, dammit!!!) The trouble is, any supernatural deity is capable of what seems to us mortals as "magic", simply because -- well -- the deity is supernatural. It is capable of things that we are not. In other words ... *puts on a melodramatic tone* OOOoooOOOooohhh! Magic! At least one very famous god, i.e. Odin/Woden, is literally a magic-user. Need I say more? All of this isn't to negate the experience of religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in any deity. The trouble arises when people take religion too far, and start saying, "My god is better than your god!" ... which easily leads to, "You don't believe in my god? DIE, HERETIC!!!" etc. Still, religion itself (and devotion to it) is not to blame. People create beautiful things -- paintings, music, sculpture, buildings -- in the name of religion. People also do horrible things (religious wars, inquisitions etc.) in the name of religion. So, the trouble isn't caused by religion, but by people who take it too far. So to make a long story short (too late): religious zealotry sucks.
You're talking about belief in the scientists, not the body of knowledge accumulated by scientific method. That's what I was referring to. That's how science works. Scientific knowledge advances by evidence. For example, you will hear people say they believe or do not believe in global warming caused by human actions. This ignores the mountain of evidence supporting it. There have been literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last few decades, and the vast majority of them agree global warming is happening and it is human-caused. So there is no need to believe in it blindly. Science offers evidence. Sure, scientists are humans, and may have bias, but a good scientist will seek to eliminate all bias from their work. The use of the words "honourable" and "in good faith" suggests there may be bad actors. I suppose there may very well be. But the overriding majority of scientists are and have been faithful to the scientific method. The evidence for this is in the vast quantity of knowledge science has accumulated - The Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, and so on, and so on. As I read once: I'd rather get a cancer diagnosis from a radiologist than a Ouija board.
It's from this article by Paul Bloom: Scientific Faith Is Different From Religious Faith Also from that article:
This is exactly what any scientist is asking people to do if he or she says "I am the sceience." A bit like saying "Worship me—I am your god."
This is a wholly inaccurate representation of the proceedings of science. No scientist worth his/her salt would say, "I am the science" or "I am your god." If you have any evidence of this, please share it. Science proceeds by skepticism and testing, and then more testing again. The more evidence there is to support a conclusion, the more widely it will be accepted. We accept or reject knowledge based on evidence. Science is not a god, but substantiated knowledge should rule.
My two cents: Belief in the infallibility of science is bad. Not believing in science and flipping it the other way is bad. Believing that science can't be manipulated and cherry-picked to "prove" two disparate hypotheses is bad. Believing that anything in the media regarding science isn't slanted to suit a particular argument is bad. Believing that the organizations who fund scientific research don't have a particular conclusion in mind before they cut the check is really, really, really bad. That's the big one... always look for who paid for the study and see if you can guess the conclusion before it's revealed.
He didn't say "I am science." He said, "I represent the science." and as such he makes a convenient target for the anti-science people.
I knew that was coming. It's no use presenting evidence to people who refuse to accept it or to change their hypothesis. I won't continue to try.
I don't think anything I've written says that science is infallible. I recognized the infallibility of scientists. No person is perfect, intellectually or morally. But at the same time, (as quoted from the article a few posts up),
He was in no way saying, "I am a god. Worship me." He was explaining why he was a target of anti-science people.
There's dishonesty in every walk of life. Here are some examples of crooked scientists: https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2022/06/27/the-slow-corruption-of-science But the actions of these crooks cannot be taken as a reflection of science itself. Science is a method of gaining knowledge through reason and evidence. If there's a bad teacher, do we hold it against education? If there's a bad cop, do we hold it against the laws of the land? There's more at play here, with the denunciation of science itself, with the rejection of scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what it is.
Nor was I directing my thoughts at you or anybody else. They are intended to ensure that people think critically and understand that nobody--priests or scientists--puts any information out into the world for purely informative purposes. There is always an agenda and a monetary impetus somewhere in the chain. I'd like to think those tend to be mild persuasions, but science has been weaponized like everything else in the universe, so use your noodle when evaluating what people tell you, specifically why they are telling you it. Your general edification and enlightenment is rarely the primary motive. Maybe your local high school teacher has altruism in their heart, but that sentiment wanes quickly through the publication chain.
Like for example the supposedly independent research studies that claimed banning glyphosate would be catastrophic for agriculture which turned out to be funded by Monsanto, the manufacturer of glyphosate. ( some sources suggest Monsanto were even given ghost writing or editing privileges on the papers in return for funding)
