Science Fights Back

I had the good fortune to attend the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting this past weekend on behalf of the magazine. One symposium I missed, though, was "Science under Attack", which provided an overview of the current ideologically motivated attacks on both scientific research and science education in the U.S., and provided potential responses from the scientific community. (As I explained to a friend, I figured there was little reason to go to a debate about such matters, as there is really no scientific debate at all.) Looks like I missed a good one. As astronomer Phil Plait explains on his excellent Bad Astronomy weblog, the meeting served as a call to arms to scientists who are tired of having their empirical evidence equivocated with faith-based preconceptions. Specifically, he calls out some in the media who all too often serve as patsies in the fight:

To the media, please, don’t simply take what people say and repeat it. Don’t feel the need to get "balance" in your reporting by talking to "both sides". Sometimes there aren’t two sides! If someone builds a Holocaust museum, would you interview a white supremacist who says the Holocaust never happened to achieve "balance"? When a new vaccine comes out for a virus, would you interview a homeopath so that "both sides are heard"?

I’m curious to see whether this meeting, following closely as it does on the heels of the Dover decision (in which a federal court ruled that the Dover school district could not include Intelligent Design in its science curricula) and the ID retreat in Ohio, will mark a watershed moment in the willingness of scientists to stand up for themselves. Might this mark the beginning of 2006: The Year Science Fought Back? —Michael Moyer

Comments

[Erik]

Isn't science about observation and open-mindedness? It seems scientists are open-minded about everything except for educated faith in the unseen (oh wait, they have that, it's called a theory). The moment science becomes intolerant and close-minded when it comes to theories such as evolution, it ceases to be effective.

I say, if there is evidence to support a creation account (any at all), there should be some room to talk about it in educational institutions.

The problem is, many think that science and faith are incompatible. The truth is that even great and glorious Science depends on faith at some level.

I’m not advocating one view over the other, what I’m saying is that there needs to be some room left in the fields of science to explore issues that might not have an easy, understandable explanation using present empirical evidence.

It used to be that science believed that the world was flat. Was it wrong? You bet it was. Is it possible that current beliefs (there’s faith again) held by science about origins could be off or wrong in some way?

[Steve Barbour]

Trust us. We're scientists.

[Robert]

"It used to be that science believed that the world was flat. Was it wrong? You bet it was."

I presume you refer to the modern mythology that belief in a flat Earth continued to the time of Columbus. Well, that myth could be partially correct . . . for you see, although rational-minded folks like Ptolemy had long since divined the spherical nature of the world, and although even during the Dark Ages its roundness was generally accepted, there were always a few dissenting voices, voices which you identify as scientists. I would question that identification, since of course these "scientists" of yours were invariably full of dogmatic religious zeal. But hey, no matter.

"Is it possible that current beliefs (there’s faith again) held by science about origins could be off or wrong in some way?"

If all of modern cosmology, geology, biology, genetics, and so on were indeed wrong, I can tell you that we would only discover this . . . and indeed, that we could only replace them . . . via the same rational and scientific means by which we got to where our understanding is now. Unlike religions with their articles of faith, heresies, and so on, science is open to change depending on the *objective evidence*. As one's personal faith is subjective evidence proving nothing except the belief itself, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for science to confirm your personal belief system.

A better idea would be to adjust your personal belief system to include the honest, rational, and educated conclusions of science. (Just skip the quantum physics . . . nobody understands that anyway.)

[generic viagra]

The science never give a step back