Group 3. We believe there is a war on science. Within the term of "war" we are referring to two sides of the spectrum such as whether or not people believe or disbelieve the information provided by science itself. For instance, the debate on water treatment, climate change, and global warming are drawn by their own personal belief to create "war" between the public and the scientists even though the information is presented as factual and data-based. Achenbach says, "when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions- what researchers call our naive beliefs" (40). Through this we can conclude that facts and opinions attack the free market and the industrial society, creating a divide between the public and the scientists.
Group 5: Yes, there is a war on science because there is a significant divide between individuals, not only scientists but also the public. Achenbach states that there is a "science communication bias" which leads to those who do know the issues to argue with those who have more of a "confirmation bias" (Page 44). Along with this, using the word "war" is counterproductive because it takes the spotlight off of the true issues and places it on the debates themselves. For example, in both the evolution and vaccine debates personal experience and emotions override the true facts. Achenbach states "Science appeals to our rational brains, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers" (Page 45).
We believe that the term "war on science" is a bit too drastic. Rather, we think that the war on science is more a problem of communication between established scientists and the general public. Additionally, there is also an aspect of education. Many people do not possess the proper educational background that is necessary in order to understand various scientific studies and information. Furthermore, it is incredibly hard for people to stay updated with scientific breakthroughs because they are constantly occurring. This also brings into play the issue of news resources. Many different people look to only a handful of news sources, which can cause them to only see one side of the problem. For example, Archenbach notes the "filter bubble", which allows for people to read solely the information they agree with (p. 45). This gap between scientists and citizens is quite significant; therefore, it would take a greater effort from both parties to solve this issue.
While we do not believe there is a war on science, we believe that there is a level of selective neglect of scientific fact and evidence that causes society to believe that the general public discards scientific facts. This is due to because of personal beliefs, and preconceived notion. In many cases, we believe that this is due to outside agendas, such as big oil companies pushing and lobbying for the discarding of well known facts for personal financial gains, and the growth of their market. While many people make attempts to inform themselves, their sources are either inaccurate, or they are looking at sources that solely benefit their side.
Group 2: Alexa, Joe, Jacob, and Leah While we concluded that “war” is an overly strong and polarizing word to describe the public and political resistance to scientific progress, we agreed that the reluctance to embrace and believe science may lead to the perception that our society is fighting against it. For many people, science is hard to understand, due to its complex and ever changing nature. This causes people to subconsciously cling to their own beliefs and to use their anecdotal evidence to challenge the consensus of experts. In addition, people struggle with the “provisional quality of science,” as something that is true today may not be true tomorrow and concepts are rarely proven without a doubt.
Group 1 Calling it a war on science is extreme, although there is a lot of controversy on a wide variety of issues, people aren’t taking up arms against scientist. Our two main points are that science is based on theory not fact and that the average person gets their scientific information from politicians and the media, instead of scientists. As Joel Archenback from National Geographic says, “Scientists love to debunk one another.” Scientists can only prove that something is more likely true than false, and that room for doubt, no matter how small, can be exploited. The media is what peddles those narratives, no matter how controversial. As Archenback says, “The news media give abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers. The media would have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses (pg. 41).” Because of these reasons, the average person has doubt about the validity of science, and can be misinformed by what they see on TV every day.
Group 3.
ReplyDeleteWe believe there is a war on science. Within the term of "war" we are referring to two sides of the spectrum such as whether or not people believe or disbelieve the information provided by science itself. For instance, the debate on water treatment, climate change, and global warming are drawn by their own personal belief to create "war" between the public and the scientists even though the information is presented as factual and data-based. Achenbach says, "when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions- what researchers call our naive beliefs" (40). Through this we can conclude that facts and opinions attack the free market and the industrial society, creating a divide between the public and the scientists.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup 5:
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a war on science because there is a significant divide between individuals, not only scientists but also the public. Achenbach states that there is a "science communication bias" which leads to those who do know the issues to argue with those who have more of a "confirmation bias" (Page 44). Along with this, using the word "war" is counterproductive because it takes the spotlight off of the true issues and places it on the debates themselves. For example, in both the evolution and vaccine debates personal experience and emotions override the true facts. Achenbach states "Science appeals to our rational brains, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers" (Page 45).
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup #4
ReplyDeleteWe believe that the term "war on science" is a bit too drastic. Rather, we think that the war on science is more a problem of communication between established scientists and the general public. Additionally, there is also an aspect of education. Many people do not possess the proper educational background that is necessary in order to understand various scientific studies and information. Furthermore, it is incredibly hard for people to stay updated with scientific breakthroughs because they are constantly occurring. This also brings into play the issue of news resources. Many different people look to only a handful of news sources, which can cause them to only see one side of the problem. For example, Archenbach notes the "filter bubble", which allows for people to read solely the information they agree with (p. 45). This gap between scientists and citizens is quite significant; therefore, it would take a greater effort from both parties to solve this issue.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup 6:
ReplyDeleteWhile we do not believe there is a war on science, we believe that there is a level of selective neglect of scientific fact and evidence that causes society to believe that the general public discards scientific facts. This is due to because of personal beliefs, and preconceived notion. In many cases, we believe that this is due to outside agendas, such as big oil companies pushing and lobbying for the discarding of well known facts for personal financial gains, and the growth of their market. While many people make attempts to inform themselves, their sources are either inaccurate, or they are looking at sources that solely benefit their side.
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup 2: Alexa, Joe, Jacob, and Leah
ReplyDeleteWhile we concluded that “war” is an overly strong and polarizing word to describe the public and political resistance to scientific progress, we agreed that the reluctance to embrace and believe science may lead to the perception that our society is fighting against it. For many people, science is hard to understand, due to its complex and ever changing nature. This causes people to subconsciously cling to their own beliefs and to use their anecdotal evidence to challenge the consensus of experts. In addition, people struggle with the “provisional quality of science,” as something that is true today may not be true tomorrow and concepts are rarely proven without a doubt.
Group 1
ReplyDeleteCalling it a war on science is extreme, although there is a lot of controversy on a wide variety of issues, people aren’t taking up arms against scientist. Our two main points are that science is based on theory not fact and that the average person gets their scientific information from politicians and the media, instead of scientists. As Joel Archenback from National Geographic says, “Scientists love to debunk one another.” Scientists can only prove that something is more likely true than false, and that room for doubt, no matter how small, can be exploited. The media is what peddles those narratives, no matter how controversial. As Archenback says, “The news media give abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers. The media would have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses (pg. 41).” Because of these reasons, the average person has doubt about the validity of science, and can be misinformed by what they see on TV every day.
Group Grade: A
Delete