I am teaching a summer program at a local community college and one of the other instructors is working on her Dr's. degree. The paper she has to write asks the question: Why are we/people afraid of science/scienists? Would anyone like to comment on this? I will give her all the serious answers or remarks that any one would like to post before 9 pm Thursday evening. I thought that this might be a fun thing to vent about rather then the usual whose the worst candiate stuff going around.
I didn't know "we" are afraid of science/scientists!
Some, not all, are deserving of fear because they can be so involved in their pet project that they get involved in promoting it regardless of the consequences that the pet project can cause or result in, whether social, environmental, or financial to others, now or in the future.
My best guess would boil down to contradictions between some religious beliefs and science, the fear of the unknown, and the inability or unwillingness of many to open the mind and ask questions.
Many religions tend to discourage questions and gaining understanding of the "why" outside of the accepted religious teachings. To ask questions in such a setting is blasphemous and unfaithful.
Non-religious folks might be truly afraid of things, so they don't want to know. For instance, extra terrestrial life, or the potential for large scale natural disaster or disease. It's much more relaxing not to think about this stuff!
Still others be afraid of looking stupid when they can't immediately understand a concept. Further pursuit of knowledge, which also requires effort, is too easy not to do.
I tend to lean towards the Buddhist view of science with religion, which is we are a delicate part of the big picture. We MUST question "why?" in order to try and understand it all and move forward.
Then there's the way science has become politicized...
Gosh, are Scientists getting that vibe? I guess if they act like a politically swayed group, tend to be biased like politically swayed groups they must be a politically swayed groups. Where do they get their funding?
I believe that it is ignorance. People just don't know enough about science and how scientists work. To them, it's all "too complicated" or even in many ways their discoveries or technologies are in opposition of what they WISH to believe. If you're attacking someone's basic beliefs, to many that is frightening and dangerous.
In a related way, Michael Shermer, answers this question in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
I DAGS and found this review of the book that speaks to your friends question:
A few things come to mind. They're loosely connected I suppose, but there could be a myriad of reasons why some people may be threatened by science or scientists. My interpretation would be "threatened by" rather than "afraid of". Maybe they're close enough to mean the same.
Previous perception of arrogance by "higher intellect"
The mystery of science unexplained is unknown, therefore a threat and/or fear.
Science might be at odds with religious beliefs, therefore creating an unsurpassable paradox. (ie. Evolution vs. strict biblical interpretation)
Results of science lead to lifestyle choices and/or changes. (ie belief global warming and the changes that ensues)
There's a starter list. I'm sure there are many more.
I would contend that particular fault is far more prevalent outside the scientific community than in.
I would also say if you really believe that publishing the results of research which are later either modified or maybe even rebutted simply indicates you don't understand the scientific process.
First thing that comes to my mind is why is not the other instructor doing her own work instead of benefitting from yours and ours?
Sort of like someone else doing my homework for me!!
Bob AZ I just found the question intriging and thought I would bring it up before the group and see how it flew. I don't think she has a preconcived answer to this it is a question and she is just throwing it around to see where it lands. Curran Copeland Sweet Sawdust
I agree but that is the answer I got from one group and thought it was interesting. Not trying toprove anything myself just and interesting question no matter what the answer. Curran Copeland Sweetsawdust
Trust me on this: Way too many people equate science with the poor way they learned Mathematics.
And nobody will ever believe anyone who starts off with: "If I let one inch equal the time between now and the 1st Gulf war, then the equivalent in distance between now and the domestication of the dog is......"
(BTW: Everyone knows the 1st Gulf war was SO-o-o- last century and who cares about before that! OMG!!)
May not be and that may be the answer to the question, who knows? A lot of books and movies have been made on science from Frankinstien to the Swarm and all are scary. I think we are scared of "science" until we get used to the new idea and it proves not to be a boogy man under the bed. It was/is an interesting question to think on, sort of like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I am not a scientist. I have been around a long time and here are some of the things people have told me over the years and some of my own thoughts:
Well, let's see:
-Scientists told us early on that AIDS wouldn't become a big deal.
-In 1979 scientists told us the the earth was cooling off. Now they say its heating up. Hmmm.
-I suspect it was scientist that recommended introducing the Japanese beetle (looks like a lady bug) to get rid of aphids or something. Now they are a major pest all over the part of the midwest where I live.
- I just watched "Young Frankenstien last night. She should watch it to get the idea.
-In a "publish or perish" academic world, once a scientists project doesn't pan out, what are they to do? Answer: fudge the data so they get the degree, credit,______ etc.--- you fill in the blanks.
-As a commoner, I don't feel that all scientists are bad, just as I don't feel that all MD's are bad but, the "quality" of both scientists and MD's is probably normally distributed like many other things. This means that while, let's say, 5% of the "science" is super-duper, the 5% at the other end of the distribution is absolutely horrible. Unfortunately for scientists, those "ends" probably both get publicized with equal qusto, but by different methods.
-Lastly, I think they must teach a course to ALL "scientists" where they MUST learn to think of themselves as superhuman (better than everone else) and, by the way, infallible. This is the course where they are taught how to talk down to the rest of us in 10 syllable words and to make abstract jokes that only they can understand.
If she doesn't (or you don't) understand the above, it's because you have already taken the course I mention above.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.