Over at Bad Astronomy Blog, Phil Plait reports on his role on a panel at the AAAS meeting, discussing the attack on science. Almost at the last minute, Phil abandoned his original topic and discussed, among other things, the Deutsch affair, finishing up with what sounds like an impassioned plea for scientists, journalists and educators to beat back the assault on reason. You can read more details on his blog, but I particularly liked his advice to journalists
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”? This administration has put a jack-booted heel to the throat of science for years, and it’s the media’s responsibility to shine a light on it. I’ll admit to not pulling my weight in this issue, but, obviously, that stops today.
Having sat on a panel with Phil, I can testify to his eloquence and passion and guarantee you that this was well worth seeing.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:19 am
hey Mark,
good on you. Thanks. If you hadn’t flagged it, I would have missed that
paragraph of advice to the press. It dawns on me
that if the press does not stand up to pseudochristian
know-nothingry it is letting civilization down. I sent
my first check to truthout.org today. There has to be some
way to reward a stiffer media backbone.
regards,
Who
February 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Very interesting! (I was censored off “bad astronomy” forum – not that blog, but the forum associated with it’s root site – because it was run by people who stubbornly didn’t “believe” in the big bang, but did “believe” that by being bigots, they were being objective.)
February 21st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
On the theme of “how scientists should communicate with the rest of the world,” there are interesting thoughts (I’ve been meaning to blog about) from Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:46 pm
With regards to the question of whether media should try to be balanced: Even if they feel they
do need to give the “other” sides point of view, they should make sure the view they express is,
in fact, the majority view on the other side. For example, with all the noise about Mr Deutsch and
his masters, one is frequently left with the impression that this is a conflict between science and religion.
But most mainstream religions are perfectly comfortable with the scientific perspective on the nature of reality. Last week I took part in an Interfaith symposium on Creation, here in Los Angeles. I figured I was the token atheist and was quite prepared for a pitched battle, but it turned out to be very congenial. Jewish, Catholic, Presbytarian – all the speakers were uniform in their condemnation of the literal readings of the Bible and the fundamental dishonesty inherent in the position and activities of the folks stirring things up in Kansas & Pennsylvania.
We forget sometimes that this “assault on science” is coming from a vocal, but limited, section of the population.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Thanks Mark!
February 21st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
And Science, we’re not bigots at the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum. We just have this predilection for people who can actually back up their claims with evidence.
Also, I just checked, and you are not banned from that forum.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Careful not to let them brainwash you too much. One minute they’re telling you that evolution and faith can coexist, and the bible is meant to be taken as a piece of literature, but the next minute they’re telling you they still believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and the continuation of the soul after death. If you’re free to pick and chose which parts are meant to be taken literally and which parts are just stories, how much truth is in their words when they say ‘we don’t condone the literal interpretation of the bible?’ I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a single religious person say that they interpret the whole bible as a piece of literature.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Are you saying that its “bad” to be skeptical of the Big Bang?
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Yes: it is bad to be skeptical of something which does have evidence, unless there is a better theory with more evidence. Being skeptical is not synonymous with being scientific! If you want to be scientific, be constructive. The flat-earthers are dismissively skeptical of all evidence that contradicts their prejudice, but being that “skeptical” is simply pseudo-scintific. Science has to analyse evidence, not ignore it!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Science:
So, this is the only place where you are still allowed to post?
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I can post occasionally on ‘Not Even Wrong’, I think!