Dr. Rat Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Thought this might be of interest after our rather rambling evolution discussion: Party hard Ben Goldacre Thursday July 21, 2005 The Guardian · In our eagerness to focus on the supply side of pseudoscience - the dismal outpourings of flaky humanities graduates in the media and the bogus pseudoscience of people with products to sell - we've neglected an important area of study: the impact on the end market. Take this from reader Richard Neville, last weekend, who was simply trying to get a drink: "I was at the bar buying a round," he begins. "'Grapefruit and soda please.' I said. The barman adopted a pained expression. 'I should point out to you, sir, that this juice is 100% pure organic and, therefore, I don't like to add chemicals - you see, I don't know what's in soda water.' 'Well,' I said, 'I think it's mostly water - which, of course, is a chemical plus a little bicarbonate of soda and added carbon dioxide.' He didn't look happy, while I just looked thirsty and persisted: 'Well,' he warned, 'if you'll take full responsibility ...'" · So it occurs to me: if I have a grandiose delusion, it is that we're engaged in a useful project here, the study of the Public Misunderstanding of Science. And this is uncharted territory. So I'm asking for qualitative research; I'm asking for your help in a grand experiment, with the widest possible sampling frame, that is: you. Only you can help me to document the stupidity that's out there. · I'll get the ball rolling. Last week, I was at a party and somebody starting telling me that the theories produced by science would be different if it had been done by women. I asked her whether she thought Newton's three laws of motion might have turned out differently if he had been a woman, and she said yes, of course. I asked her how, exactly, she thought that Newton could single-handedly change the fact that acceleration of a body is proportional to the force acting on it, divided by its mass? And she walked off. Chalk up one to the nerds; and this is only the most stupid thing I've heard this week. Perhaps someone has tried to tell you that "science, you know, it's kind of a belief system, like any other religion," in a way that made you want to slap them particularly hard. Perhaps you did slap them. Perhaps they told you scientists say we're all energy so nothing is real. Perhaps they told you that the stuff they believe is "outside of science". Perhaps they told you that science wants to reduce their life to simple laws. Forget the media, we know we've lost there. I want to know: what's the most stupid thing anyone has ever said to you about science at a party? · Please send your bad science to bad.science@guardian.co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I was at a party once and met this chick that totally blinded me with science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I was at a party once and met this chick that totally blinded me with science. ← Is that you in the video? --eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosco Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 _ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 (edited) Is this guy interested in the dumbest thing a scientist's ever said to you because he's so convinced that he/she knows everything (well, ok, not everything, but enough that he/she figures that he/she knows that anything you say is going to be wrong no matter what it is) and you know nothing that he/she keeps telling you how wrong you are based on what he/she thinks you're saying rather than what you're really saying? You know, the type who hears but doesn't listen? The type that is so convinced that things you say are being presented as statements of fact rather than expressions of perhaps un(der)considered possibilities stemming from the facts already on the table that they just roll up like a tickled doodlebug? Communication is a two-way street, after all... Edited July 21, 2005 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
take5 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 I think part of the problem is that some people don't want to accept that they just don't know stuff; that there are people who are way smarter than them and who study and work their asses off to study the natural world, and so they like to dream up alternative "theories" and get offended when it's not taken as seriously as the ivory-tower eggheads who publish conclusions with their "research" and other snotty elitist stuff. Science is hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Humility is harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 In fact, I'd say that when faced with the chance between displaying humility and coming up with a "snappy" retort, humility is far too often damn near impossible! And THAT I can prove scientifically! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Is this guy interested in the dumbest thing a scientist's ever said to you because he's so convinced that he/she knows everything (well, ok, not everything, but enough that he/she figures that he/she knows that anything you say is going to be wrong no matter what it is) and you know nothing that he/she keeps telling you how wrong you are based on what he/she thinks you're saying rather than what you're really saying? You know, the type who hears but doesn't listen? The type that is so convinced that things you say are being presented as statements of fact rather than expressions of perhaps un(der)considered possibilities stemming from the facts already on the table that they just roll up like a tickled doodlebug? Communication is a two-way street, after all... ← So far, he has seemed most interested in people passing themselves off as science experts who actually don't know what the hell they are talking about (cahrlatans). In this article he's moving into scientific misconceptions of a more pedestrian nature. You should write him suggesting that he further expand his scope to include scientists who think they know something when they don't. Evolutionary psychology would be a ripe field. Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer do a fairly good job of this in the US. --eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregK Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 As a professional scientist, I have seen and worked with some pretty dumb "scientists". everyone is an expert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 As a professional scientist, I have seen and worked with some pretty dumb "scientists". everyone is an expert ← Yep. And the narrower their field of expertise, the broader they think their knowledge is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.