I know that it’s just a TV show meant for the general public, but Ancient Astronauts and that Dogon hoax? The series didn’t take very long to descend into woo-ville. I kept watching it, hoping for some reasonable counter balance, but they didn’t even try to provide any sort of scientific explanation/balance.

Please don’t misunderstand….I’m not pointing any fingers at Phil Plait, he sure didn’t say anything like the tabloid-like stuff they were just uncritically shoveling to the public. I also have to wonder if some of the quotes from the scientists were being made out of context, to make it look like they were endorsing something that they actually didn’t. It wouldn’t be the first time a TV show pulled something like that.

I’m just disappointed in the change of direction for a cheap ratings grab at the expense of science and reason.

Apparently medicine that works doesn’t actually work.

*over 9000 facepalms*

Just a sample of Steven Novella’s vocabulary: “the most prominent anti-scientific venue on the web”, “a horrid straw man”, “hogwash”, “only someone largely naive”, “devoid of any true experience or insight about science”.

When it would suffice to say that somebody is wrong, what is the point of stating that somebody is “horridly, naively, devoidedly” wrong?

And so we are supposed to identify the actual arguments, hidden behind a barrage of superlatives and exaggerations…presumably that’s where one can glimpse at how much blogs could gain in the hands of proper editors!

The point is that the way we teach science to children, much like everything else in the educational system is a complete mindf**k. No attention is payed to the kids natural talent and curiosity; instead everyone is put in a desk and told the world works a certain way. It’s not worth trying to learn anything on your own, kids. You’ll probably be wrong anyways.

You look back at the great scientists, and you see they all shared one common thread: great intuition and great curiosity about the world. How can we expect to train great scientists if we spend so much effort on crushing and marginalizing the most important talents of the scientist?

A significant percentage of the people I know, when talked to about science, bring up Einstein or Christopher Lloyd’s character from Back to the Future. They see scientists as people who talk about things that are too complicated to understand….

Yup.

And most mainstream reporters are the same. I recently chided a local newspaper for its coverage of a huge science fair held here. The reporter made the stereotypical comment about kids using big words that nobody could understand but them. He then proceeded to give the example, “the second law of thermodynamics.”

Seriously. Since when is basic high school science something “nobody could understand”?

When are people going to realize that the scientific method is the same method (and the only method) that plumbers use to find leaks in your pipes, that mechanics use to determine whether your transmission or clutch is the problem, or that any child uses to determine factually, by counting oranges or circles, that, yes, two plus two does indeed equal four!

Does Chris Mooney know about this?

No. Why would debate be sad?

A blogging “shock and awe” that strikes as a lot of noise hiding the arguments away

Arguments aren’t being hidden away just because you want to talk about a different subject entirely.

@MadScientist: what about the stuff that can’t be quantified? What of the experiences that happen only once?

My preferred color is deep blue. Is that scientific knowledge? Yes? No? If it is not, is that still part of reality? Or maybe not? Shall we define “reality” as the subset of phenomena that can be experienced by one or more observer using the scientific method?

from astronomy to zoology

Wouldn’t “from astrology to Zoroastrianism” be an even wider A-Z range?

@Maurizio: what is subjective can also be quantified and analyzed. What’s your favorite color M&M? What can I do to get more people to buy a Wendy burger than a Big Mac? How do I market something so that more people’s subjective evaluation will lead them to my product? One very clever guy made a fortune from his ability to work out such questions – and the quantitative answers may be very unexpected (but demonstrably correct).

Speaking of Newton, it would be nice for once to hear less shouting and more insight about the underlying issue here…the scientific method is of course the best way to learn the world as it objectively is. What about what is subjective then? Is it bound to be ignored simply because impossible to investigate with the scientific method?

There are many things that happen in one’s life that can’t be repeated in a controlled environment, or in any way objectively investigated. What shall one make of those? Do they actually exist?

And yes, I am asking questions.

http://www.military.com/news/article/af-launches-space-plane-amid-secrecy.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

“Dossey posits that one reason “many young people see themselves as foreigners in the world of science” is the “separateness, distance, and aloofness required to do science.” What in the world is he talking about?”

a little ignorant. I’ve encountered this problem before. A significant percentage of the people I know, when talked to about science, bring up Einstein or Christopher Lloyd’s character from Back to the Future. They see scientists as people who talk about things that are too complicated to understand, and just shut out the idea of science altogether, and go on thinking things like gravity being a force of repulsion.

All I see in Newton’s article is a stream of insults with some arguments being no more in depth than “So what?” and “What in the world is he talking about.” I find I cannot take his article seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/pbs-frontline-show-about_b_554691.html

… and really would like to see Phil give his perspective.

It is a little weird though – I would have thought that singling out individuals gives science a more human feel, rather than less – eg, Rutherford’s early experiments resonate more with me than “the Cavendish team’s early experiment’s”.