I have been posting a bit more on religion and politics lately, mostly because there has been, in my opinion, an accelerated attack on science by them. This has generated a lot of, um, interesting comments both here on the BABlog as well as on Digg, where the readers are maybe even more opinionated. Some of these comments have chastised me for any number of reasons, but thankfully there has been a significant drop in those saying I shouldn’t be posting on these topics (which is fine by me, because I have a few more in the hopper).
Karl Mogel of Innoculated Mind posted on this topic recently, and has some great things to say about it. In essence, how dare us scientists have opinions, especially ones based on evidence, observations, and rationality!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Wouldn’t it be nice if religion and politics were opinion free? Maybe before holding someone to a certain arbitrary standard the politicians and the religious people should try it themselves first?
Fact is, all of these things are intertwined in opinion and politics, and that’s how we’re supposed to work things out as a society, not by hobbling scientists and saying “no, you can’t express an opinion on that topic”.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
There’s an understandable confusion that explains all of this.
When scientists write papers they’re encouraged to present their results in a dispassionate and objective manner, whilst keeping opinions down to a bare minimum. (Whether that ideal is ever reached, or is even desirous- I’m not sure.)
Being scientific has become to some extent synonymous in the public mind with recording observations in a detached and cool manner. Thus- some people get confused when they encounter Blogs or books or newspaper columns which show scientists to be every bit as opinionated as everyone else.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Maybe that’s the case, but IMHO good scientists keep opinions and results or science work separate.
In other words, scientists “flip-flop” on issues if there are actual quality information that proves or disproves something.
I always hated word “flip-flop” because it shows people wants rigidity.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Christian:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, but what I don’t understand is how a scientific discover standing on its own is lauded as a great benefit to mankind of a breakthrough or a boon to our understanding of whatever or what have you, but when wielded to some tangible end, it becomes a point of contention, meaningless, transient or trite.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I tend to go along with those that think you’re:
1. Way over-reacting to a few whackos in regards to the creation stuff. Most of the country discounts creation as a desperate grab at “education” by religious fanatics. Say it once, it stays in Google cache forever and anyone researching it will know your opinion. Saying it every single day just sort of makes you sound a bit paranoid.
2. Blinded by politics. Democrats are as likely to put the screws to science as Republicans. The first parting shots the new Democrats took in office was threatening to slash the hell out of NASA’s budget. Where was the outcry over that? Meanwhile, a few peeps in South Dakota mention “creation” and you go bonkers. Just doesn’t seem that balanced to be coming from someone who’s supposed to analyze the DATA. You should be alarmed at how the Democrat primary candidates are ditching their liberal ways to appear much more conservative. When that happens, the easiest target is science. That would alarm me a lot more than a bunch of whackos in South Dakota. But, for SOME reason, it’s not bothering you at all. If you’re not going to address politics in a scientific fashion, that’s really disappointing to those looking for anectdotes from a scientist. Could you be as biased in scientific issues as well?
3. Well, speak of the devil, and he comes running every time. A lot of people have concerns about HOW environmental issues are being addressed. Calling them silly childish names doesn’t address those concerns. Lumping them in with the lunatic fringe doesn’t work any better. Rather than following the Al Gore model of diplomacy, how’s about addressing some of those issues in a scientific way? You know, research the issue, put some data to it, and then maybe hypothesize a way to make it better? I think that’d be swell coming from a scientist and all. Telling us the world’s getting hotter and all we have to do to make it all better is buy carbon offsets just ain’t cutting it for the people that will actually make a difference. I am those people. I just built a super-efficient house, am using geo-thermal heat/air that is about 30% powered by hydro-electric power. If it were up to me, the other 70% would be nuclear. However, according to you, I’m a whacko who sits in Arizona looking for alien spacecraft flying over the end of the Earth because I don’t buy into giving a bunch of money to people like Al Gore instead of using it to actually solve the problem. Remember hydrogen fuel cells that were the cure-all for all global warming not too long ago? They destroy the ozone faster than all the aerosols man ever used. Brazil is destroying their rain forests to make products that are “green”. And, most of those “green” light bulbs can be as dangerous to the environment as regular bulbs ever were. So, rather than relying on bullying whenever someone questions actions regarding global warming, let’s talk like, oh, a scientist perhaps and see if we can win over a few peeps who don’t like being bullied?
So, yeah, I agree with your summation. You, moreso than most bloggers, need to be posting on the topics. However, I think you’d be better served to discuss those topics as a scientist and not a lay-politician. There’s too many of those already.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Phil, I love that you are opinionated and that you post your opinions on your blog. I think thats why I like to read it so often, because you always have a variety of things to read about, all of which I generally
I don’t see how a scientist can keep opinions seperate from results, the opinions are as Phil said “based on evidence, observations, and rationality”. Where else do you get you opinion but from results? Its no wonder scientists “flip-flop”, as the observations change so do the ideas and theories and thus the opinions.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Judging from this article, Phil isn’t doing nearly enough
to keep the religious fanatics at bay:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=220960
August 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Opinions are not the problem,its how those opinions are formed. Research,facts and logic should be what determine opinions,not the other way around.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Moonage- why do you think you get to decide what the BA should or shouldn’t be doing?
You’re confused. Being a scientist does not mean you have to be a soulless robot. We don’t check our humanity at the door.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Thanks for the linkage, I was wondering where everyone came from!
August 8th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Apropos of this, from a Daily Mail columnist Aug 5:
When a columnist in a newspaper can publish the italicized phrase with a (presumably) straight face, then there’s too little bashing of the ignorant and irrational, not too much.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Hm. Didn’t realize that italics tags don’t provide emphasis inside quote tags. The “italicized phrase” was “the totally perverse grounds that this argument does not conform to the rules of science which require evidence to support a theory.”
Anyone who can write that with a straight face deserves all the bashing, snark, and derision available.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
And let’s not forget that some of those religious people are violent, or at least threaten violence:
http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/weekly-wtf-more-threats-by-creationists/
Creationism needs to be taken very seriously.
(Also, the fact that as a science blogger I have not one but 3 ranting categories should tell you how I feel about the “blogging while opinionated” debate :p )
August 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
RBH, are you sure the columnist wasn’t being sarcastic? Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation 150 years ago.
Moonage, I don’t know where to start. Have you looked at *any* of
the data? Do you have any idea how science works? Or are you just spouting Fox News factoids? BTW, Al Gore did not invent global warming nor does anything he says about it have any scientific validity except as a popular summary. As far as I know, he has never asked for any money except for book sales, movie tickets, etc., just like anyone else who writes a book or makes a movie on any subject. Do you also attack Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson for asking for your money? Sheesh!
And I don’t think any serious environmentalist ever thought hydrogen fuel cells are any sort of cure-all. There isn’t any free hydrogen floating around in the environment waiting to be oxidized. You have to *make* the hydrogen from something else (H2O, CH4, etc.) which takes energy. Lots of energy. Unless you make the hydrogen by electrolysis of water using renewable (solar, wind, etc.) power source, you will produce *more* greenhouse gases using it, not less. Hydrogen fuel cells are a shell game being perpetrated by the big energy companies. (This is not to say they are completely useless, but what they are competing with is batteries in rechargeable electric vehicles, and will suceed or fail depending on whether they can safely store more energy than batteries can for the same mass and overall efficiency.)
August 8th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I’ve recently decided to increase my own blogging and have had concerns about these issues in the past. Perhaps I’ll be granted more leeway, as a science fiction novelist rather than just being an astronomer, to pursue a broader range of topics and to have actual opinions about them. In any event, I support this direction in general. If scientists can’t have opinions about the appropriate role of science in the greater world, no one deserves to have them.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Moonage, they’re DemocratICcandidates; we don’t call you folks Republic now, do we? You may interpret the middle of the road D’s as having a professed desire to cut funding for governmental programs, but you sure don’t find the Democrats (a legit use of the noun) trashing science like the current administration. Look to the left side of the podium for some D’s who aren’t mealy-mouthed next time. You won’t find anyone on the R’s lecture circuit who will echo those D’s, but you sure will find a few Creationists.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
psst… one ‘n’ in inoculated. I was never here.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Why Phil, how dare you have an(informed) opinion on anything and being so unfair as to quote real, hard core FACTS. Why, that’s just despicable,,,dad gum facts. Always getting in the way of a good fairy god story,,,
Someday, we may have a mythology that not only inspires people but also encourages them to think.Then maybe we can really get something constructive done,,,
GAry 7
August 9th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Like Karl and the other bloggers he mentions (including you), I also believe that a blogger should write whatever he or she wants to write. THAT’S what blogging is about. The problem comes up when people try to focus their blogs to a specific topic (for example, astronomy) and they occasionally wander a bit to other topics that, although they may be related, they’re not related enough for some people.
I actually enjoy your political and anti-creationist ramblings and links MORE than the astronomy stuff. (When you start talking about physics, my eyes glaze over.) So I’m not “some people.” I’m the other people.
It kills me when all these “Pro bloggers” keep saying that you need to find a niche and specialize on a single topic. Don’t they see the box we’d be putting ourselves into as bloggers? Unless, of course, they expect us to start a separate blog about each and every topic that interests us. Let’s see…with one post a day on 15 different blogs…well, I might be able to squeeze in dinner once in a while, but I wouldn’t have time to get any paying work done to pay for it!
Anyway, blog about whatever you like. And please keep those skepticism-based posts and links coming. The people who don’t like it can go read another blog.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Buzz Parsec said:
> RBH, are you sure the columnist wasn’t being sarcastic? Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation 150 years ago.
No, the columnist was being sincere. Spontaneous generation is the creationist description for how Evolution “claims” that life originated. It is a distortion of the scientific, naturalist premise that however life formed from organic molecules, there is a description in naturalistic terms. The biological topic is called biogenesis, and it is an open topic under investigation. No one has the answers, though there are some neat clues that have been uncovered.
The Creationists harp on this step because it is unanswered, so it is a great Gap into which to sqeeze their God.
August 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Astrogeek -
Ignoring politics – which is all about who can tell the best lies… (and thus generating opinions about who is the best liar), religion is ALL about opinions. The difference? Actually, I’m not sure there is one.. Well, sometimes a person in office (note, I specifically didn’t say ‘politician’. Politicians are like bacteria – and about as smart) might actually have some contact with reality. Ok.. I can’t prove that. My head hurts…
I think I’ll just stop here and thank BA (and others like him) who have taken up the Syssiphusian task of educating the willfully ignorant. I can only hope that the boulder of ignorance squashes them not.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
[...] 5,000 people read my post about opinionated scientists! Phil Plait is directly responsible responsible for a good chunk of that, but indirectly, a bunch of other people helped [...]