I just wanted to clamber up onto my pedestal for a moment (it’s rented – I don’t actually possess one) and shout at the very top of my voice that Simon Jenkins has written an article in The Guardian that has made me VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY CROSS!!!
I’ve already commented there (as scww) and have nothing more to say on the matter tonight. Is it just that Jenkins is an ignoramus when it comes to science or is this sort of awful ‘journalism’ somehow our fault?
Thank you. I’m feeling a bit better already.
Well if you wil read that commie pinko rag, Scurry…
I missed the article in today’s Guardian – too busy dragging children to school to read it over breakfast. However, it makes the usual depressing reading. I am not sure what Simon Jenkins has it in for science and scientists. I find it hard to believe that all his friends’ children are taught it so badly at the (I assume private) schools that they all wish to give it up immediately, as he states. I suspect Jenkinist pressure…
I think Stephen, you have taken his bait judging by the sccw comment. His blog refers to intemperate comments to his thread as coming from scientists and i fear you will just confirm his belief. There are some more reflective criticisms in other comments that might be more effective in influencing his opinions. The sad thing is his selective memory. I believe in his earlier editorial incarnation he was sympathetic to Wakefield’s MMR “studies”, whereas in this piece he criticises the Royal Free Hospital for not tar and feathering the Doctor.
Jenkins’ view of science leans well over to conspiracy and not at all towards cock up. It is almost as if there is an evil conspiracy of scientists aiming to control the world, are there any Illuminati out there?
Jenkins starts off frothing at the mouth, but after he has you hooked he’s completely right. Start with the paragraph
and read on. He is completely on the ball. There isn’t enough self-criticism higher up, and maybe especially in the areas of Science to do with Public Engagement. I think maybe the Ri took a step in the right direction here.
I’m not familiar with whatever piece of climate change news has inspired this piece, but if you look beyond the rudeness and conspiracy-theory angle of his comments, there might be a core of truth there about some scientists being a bit arrogant and beyond criticism – the whole priesthood mentality is still alive and well in some disciplines. Again, I don’t know the details but I do recognize some of the symptoms he’s describing. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
I don’t agree with his idea that scientists are the heroes of society, however – and that TV and media coverage of us is pervasive. If he were a scientist he wouldn’t be saying this, I don’t think. Because relatively speaking, behind Victoria Beckham’s bunions, X-factor winners bedding Jordan and footballers cheating with “former lingerie models”, we are relegated to only a few column inches/broadcast minutes.
Sorry Richard, our post crossed. You said it better than I did.
the whole priesthood mentality is still alive and well in some disciplines
Amen.
I would have said more, but it would have been in Hebrew.
I have just read the article – it is provocotive of course. There are some good comments under it (and some poor ones, and others that are simply ignorant or irrelevant).
I think there are some good points in what he writes (eg the paragraph copied above by Richard) but there are a lot of poor ones. He makes many separate points about completely different areas of science, and confounds them all (eg what have the complaints of stem cell scientists that their papers are being too rigorously peer-reviewed for their taste, to do with alleged inaccuracies in IPCC reports? And, he ignores the inquiry results into Michael Mann’s work, etc).
He also misses out a lot of aspects that do not suit his case, as is common with these articles.
If you look at the piece from the point of view of being accurate, fair and correct, there is a heck of a lot wrong with it, and one or two things right.
But, if you look at it from the point of view of science’s public image, I think he’s articulating what a lot of people think. It is telling to me that the examples he gives of “scientists” who in his view are given carte blanche to dictate to the masses are Carol Voredeman, Melvyn Bragg and one or two others who are not professional scientists, rather they are people who are interested in science (and maths) in our culture and daily life.
Where are the actual scientists who are standing up to promote science, not in a pedagogical sense, but in the inspirational sense? That’s what I would like to see more of (particularly if they are not white, 45-plus males 😉 ).
Nature ran an editorial last week about the need for scientists to adopt a positive tone – this editorial was about the funding situation but it could just as easily be applied here.
Brian – maybe I did take the bait but I was angry and see no harm in letting him know how upsetting and destructive an ill-judged tirade can be. I did at least – at the end of my comment – invite him to talk to some real scientists.
There is certainly a relevant point about the poor impression given by the recent scandals afflicting climate science but, as Maxine has said, he generalises and conflates without much critical thought.
Yes the paragraph Richard refers to has a point but it comes more than half-way through the article. By that time Jenkins has slung so much crap that it’s difficult to take him seriously.
Jenny and Henry – this priesthood issue – are you thinking of examples beyond the defensiveness of the climate change scientists at East Anglia and the IPCC (and Dawkins)? Looking to my own field, I’ve seen plenty of examples of arrogance and crass stupidity among my peers in structural biology but my overwhelming view of the scientists I know is that they have great reverence, not for themselves, but for the data.
Maxine – agree with every word (apart perhaps from the while male +45 thing since I am now 46 (!) but I know and sympathise with what you’re getting at there). As I tried to intimate at the end of my very short post (bleet?), I guess I have to wonder if we scientists are not doing enough to get the message out. Richard is right that the SMC set up by Greenfield at the RI has done some very good work but clearly we need to do more.
I think you’re being a little naive, Stephen. Jenkin’s article is in the ‘Comment is free’ section. It’s not journalism. We should not expect even the nuances ‘proper’ journalism gives us. The piece is designed to be deliberatively provocative, and it has worked.
The only way to combat the false perceptions (because there will be a nugget of truth at the bottom of the midden) is to act how we believe, as scientists. Not to get embroiled in mouth-frothing.
Stephen, on the white male thing ;-), maybe I will make an exception in your case as I learned recently that people who have beautiful ginger hair (which I would love to have) are apparently a bone-fide oppressed minority. I had always thought them impossibly glamorous myself.
Why, thank you, Maxine.
I am 47 and come from an oppressed minority. Just sayin’.
You’re being too kind to Jenkins Richard. Is is naive to expect an opinion piece to be grounded in a decent consideration of the evidence. Jenkins is adept at rhetorical tricks and selectivity. If he wants to make a serious point, let him take the matter seriously.
Is there froth on my beard? I thought I had wiped it all off! 😉
Maxine – truth be told I have never felt oppressed by that particular strand of prejudice. As a child I had occasion to wish that Duracell had adopted a different colour scheme for their batteries but never really took the epithets seriously. These days I have something of a superiority complex about my (no longer quite luxuriant) red hair!
Oh Henry – for the last time: Tolkien lovers are not oppressed!
Stephen, I have seen various scientists act as if they were beyond criticism, in various fields – enough so that I don’t think it’s just an aberration. Of course the bulk are not ‘priests’, but they are knocking about.
With climate change in general, I have noticed on Twitter that if anyone dares to even slightly hint that every piece of evidence for manmade change is not 100% sacrosanct, there is a massive pile-up by all the scientists. I’m sorry I can’t give you specific links to this, but I’ve seen in recently in response to someone’s Radio4 piece. Oh, I think it was Clive James. The piece wasn’t great, but again, I thought there were a few valid points about us not being 100% certain – which of course no science ever is. I think the problem is that the public doesn’t understand that science isn’t black and white, so some scientists feel it’s a slippery slope to admit that there is some margin for doubt on various pieces of evidence. That the aggregate is fairly sound is perceived as a safe platform – I think the public see any flaw as permanently damning. And since they’re not taught otherwise, it’s hard to blame them.
I feel so young and dark-haired.
I think Science is in a bit of a bind with regards to communicating to the public. We have to inspire people with the ideas of science, to get them excited, but if we are to be honest we also have to show science’s imperfections, and that we can be wrong (but self-correcting). How can we get this into a fairly simple narrative? “Hey, isn’t it wonderful that squelchiblobs are hydromorphic … but we might be wrong about that”.
I guess a historical approach could be taken, which links into something Eric wrote.
Sorry, typo above, that should read “That the aggregate is fairly sound is NOT perceived as a safe platform”.
Stephen, I’m not being kind to Jenkins. I’m merely pointing out that this is what we should expect from him, in that particular forum. I’m by no means condoning it; but you may as well read the Daily Mail as that column, to be blunt.
@Richard – you may as well read the Daily Mail as that column, to be blunt
That’s perhaps where I’m being naive: expecting The Guardian to be a bit better than The Daily Mail!
Heh!
Thanks to all above for generating such a thoughtful discussion of the issues arising from Jenkins piece. I’m off for a run now to work off a bit more of this frustration!
How much do you think Jenkins’ article is a backlash from the dogmatic way athiest scientists seem to be tackling religion by bellowing that science is “fact” and that everything else is rubbish? Even a BA air steward on a recent flight I was on started on about Richard Dawkins being a fundamentalist when he saw my bag had “cell biology” written on it. This central Dawkins-type message about scientists seeing themselves as absolutely right is getting through loud and clear.
But is this really how we want science potrayed? At what point are we going to wrest back control of the image of sicence from those who are shouting loudest? Most practising scientists seem to understand that our “facts” are a a best model to describe what we see – and certainly it’s been a successful approach – but our models aren’t perfect.
Time for a fight back?
Yeah. I propose a new slogan:
“We’re more sure of our uncertainty than you are”
Maria – I’ll try not to write this too loudly in case I wake Henry but I do think that Dawkins has done science a disservice to the extent that he come across as just as fundamentalist as the religious types that he likes to skewer. As for the militant atheists who award themselves moniker of ‘brights’, the name alone gives an indication of their arrogance.
As Jenny and Henry have mentioned above, Dawkins is by no means alone in his priestly attitude. But it’s a shame if that is the impression that the profession is giving to the outside world (your story about the stewardess was quite telling!).
Perhaps part of the difficulty is that the scientists who are most often in the news are being called upon to pronounce on highly controversial topics such as climate change, cloning, GM foods etc and are maybe not doing a good enough job of communicating the risks and the conditional nature of what we ‘know’. I’ve never had to do that myself since much of my work is rather technical and doesn’t generate a narrative that is going to grab the headlines.
Time for a fight back? Well, I have stamped my foot and now calmed down a bit. I don’t wish to fight but I do want to respond. Jenkins’ piece throws down a challenge for all bloggers who claim that we want to show the public what science is really like.
I’ll try not to write this too loudly in case I wake Henry
Wha….? I was asleep. But now I’m awake, and I find myself agreeing with you completely. I also like Richard’s slogan.
At root is the problem that science is all about doubt when out there in the real world people think it’s all about facts, and, like Mr Gradgrind, facts that we tell you are true, without any possibility that we can be wrong, because you, the unwashed proles, know no better.
The problem is that not all the proles are unwashed, and, believe it or not, quite a few are bright, and, like Mr Jenkins, are trained to pick holes in arguments. And when they do, they see scientists presenting a dogmatic, united front to the public, but behind the scenes they are (quite properly, because science is about doubt) arguing among themselves. The questioning non-scientist will see through the united front, look at the argument, and think ‘cover-up’. This scenario, although admittedly very simple, is seen repeatedly in fields as diverse as evolution, climate change, stem cells, risks of BSE (and many other diseases), the anti-VAX business, and so on and so forth.
I’m going back to sleep now.
I have some sympathy with the risk aspect of dealing with science in the media that Stephen refers to. When I recently was on local radio talking about the safety of WiFi, they were quite generous with time (I was on between 5 and 10 minutes), but that just wasn’t enough to go into risk properly, so rather than detail that RF can do some damage with really high signal strength (my radio ham father has the burns to prove it), but there is no known risk from WiFi, I had to just effectively say ‘there is no risk from WiFi’, myself being in danger of coming across as arrogant and plonking. I was being a ‘fact’ meister in the way, I suspect, Henry dislikes, but whereas in writing a popular science book I’ve the time and space to go into this sort of subtlety it really isn’t possible in a short radio/TV segment.
Perhaps by “oppressed minority” he meant ‘Ones that are not crowned by a halo of golden, silver, ginger, black or brown, or for that matter, any, hair’.
Actually, I’m with Stephen on this. Jenkins has gone way beyond any reasonable point about how we all need to be more humble and less priestly. Read his recent stuff about pandemics and ask if you would trust him running WHO.
Having said that, several people here have noted how far Jenkins’ characterisation is from real working scientists. I think Henry has it absolutely right in his 1439 comment. But somebody must point this out, and forcefully, yet not dogmatically.
(and can we do it without mentioning Dawkins? The man’s media profile is quite high enough without our help)
Agree with Bill re. Henry’s spot-on 1439 characterization of the “recurring problem” of presenting science, and the “united public front vs intra-professional doubt” thingy.
The other point I would make is that the commentators are mostly “trained” on politics. In the political arena the journalistic watch-word was always famously said to be (when talking to any politician or official spokesperson):
The commentators and journos are thus attuned to apply a version of the same default logic:
– when dealing with anything scientific. As Henry says, the whole anti-vaccine farrago, especially with MMR, is testament to this.
Of course, the above only applies once they think there is a “story” there. The rest of the time, they just re-print official press releases or repeat the briefings. Which makes for a rather schizophrenic approach to political news. And indeed to science.
Anyway – since HG put it so well, perhaps he could write to the Graun and put the point?
Good points Austin and Henry – I hadn’t really thought about the impact of journalistic training in tackling politicians.
Bill and I have thought about responding, though – we’re going to try to cobble something together. Will no doubt draw heavily on the wisdom arrayed above.
Maria – I’ll try not to write this too loudly in case I wake Henry but I do think that Dawkins has done science a disservice to the extent that he come across as just as fundamentalist as the religious types that he likes to skewer.
Bwaaa ha ha ha ha! I just finished reading the last chapter of Henry’s excellent book, in which he makes exactly this point.
Look guys, please can you stop bashing Richard Dawkins? I don’t obsessively follow everything he writes, but I have read lots of fantastic and beautifully written articles celebrating the wonders of science by him – and also some very clearly argued pieces on belief and science.
Surely we should not degenerate into bolstering prejudices that have been rehashed so many times by some people on NN? Stephen and others are making a very good point here – let’s be more inspiring about science and less whingy. This is exactly the kind of image that science does not need.
Kausik andStephenPerhaps by “oppressed minority” he meant ‘Ones that are not crowned by a halo of golden, silver, ginger, black or brown, or for that matter, any, hair’
It’s not the hair, it’s the pointy ears.
@Richard W: Bwaaa ha ha ha ha! I just finished reading the last chapter of Henry’s excellent book, in which he makes exactly this point.
Thanks, Richard, for that testimonial. The cheque is in the post. The book, however, is in the proverbial all good bookshops, and if it isn’t, storm around saying things like ‘they call this a bookshop? Why! They don’t they stock that excellent ‘The Science of Middle-earth’ by Henry Gee’, or words to that effect.
@Maxine – Richard Dawkins is a fabulous writer. When anyone asks me for my favourite pop-science books, The Blind Watchmaker is always in my top three (and if you haven’t read The Greatest Show On Earth – you should. It’s great). As a writer, Dawkins can charm the birds out of the trees, and one can only envy his command of English, and his marvelous facility. However, he has used this facility to take a stance on science which many in science see as destructive, and because he is well known as a writer – and writes so well – his ideas have, to use a word from genetics, greater ‘penetrance’ than those of lesser writers. I don’t think we’re getting at Dawkins in particular, though – but he is a very good exemplar of a type and an attitude in science which, some people think, open scientists up to the kind of critique levelled by Simon Jenkins (who’s no slouch as a writer, either).
Every article Simon Jenkins writes on science is garbage.
He is not the only UK columnist to write controversial and foolish articles (his are quite tame really).
Most of these articles get hundreds, if not thousands, of comments from the likes of us.
The newspaper industry, which currently has no idea of how to make money, gets some evidence that people love using their site.
Is this analysis a bit simple?
This might be a stupid question, but when Jenkins was bashing epidemiologists, was he talking about the swine flu response? If so, I would say it’s a bit silly to say they’re rubbish because swine flu didn’t kill enough people (as some media types seem to be implying) because (a) how do you know how much worse it might have been without the quarantine/tamiflu strategy, and (b) even if it wasn’t as bad as it could have been, surely the whole point of a contingency plan is just in case the worst case scenario happens (and we got off lightly this time)?
If that wasn’t what he was on about, nothing to see here, move along.
I’m sure Richard Dawkins is a very good writer. However, he is precisely the kind of image that science does not need. Bashing is in order.
@Andrew – that is a tad too cynical for me. But Jenkins’ approach to science seems to me to be an exercise in easy cynicism. I just wish that, like most scientists, he would grapple with the evidence.
Jenny – Jenkins’ earlier article was about the swine-flu response. It was pretty dreadful – but met with a very robust response.
On the Dawkins front – I don’t think anyone was really bashing him, but making reasonable criticism of the stridency of some of his public statements on religion. Well, that’s what I was doing. He scores highly in my book too for his superb writing skills but that doesn’t give him (or anyone) a priestly mantle.
But Maxine makes a very good point that we do need to respond positively to attacks like Jenkins’s on science – a totally human enterprise. Science is intrinsically a self-critical process (even if individual scientists sometimes lapse from that standard) but this point seems to have been lost on the journalist.
RPG:
Why?
I think, Kausik, because we don’t want science to be presented as a rant, but logically and clearly. If we aim to encourage the understanding of science in the public (Dawkins was a Prof of Public Understanding of Science!) we don’t do that well by telling people they are idiots if they believe something that has nothing to do with science, immediately turning half the audience off. It’s counterproductive.
What Brian said, but also: what makes you think his mouth-frothing is anything but bad for our image?
I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. However, Dawkins’ public emphasis has shifted towards discussions of science vs. religion, and those arguments, as well as the parade of media attention and blogging that envelopes them, are of little or no interest to me. Not a criticism by any means, but rather just my opinion and personal preferences. I’m more interested in reading and discussing the publications and opinions of those actually doing the science and treating the patients, or of those who write directly about science and medicine in an engaging manner.
Not a criticism by any means, but rather just my opinion and personal preferences.
Why are people afraid of being seen to be criticizing?
Because we’re jolly nice people, Richard. We drink tea and stuff. And eat chip butties.
Watercress sandwich anyone? 😉
Help! Help! I’m being
forced to eat watercress sandwichesculturally reprogrammed!Kristi, please be quiet, take your elbows off the table, and pass the crumpets, there’s a dear.
p.s. I’ve never actually seen Richard Dawkins frothing at the mouth before, but then he’s not on Canadian and US TV all that much. I did see him very elegantly destroy Bill Maher’s anti-vaccine, anti-Western medicine “arguments” once without raising his voice or otherwise getting heated. It didn’t seem to dent Maher’s stance at all, although there was some appreciation from the audience.
Crumpets! Heh. Pan dulce, more likely. 😉
I really, really want a crumpet now and all we have in the house is bagels.
Stoopid colonies.
I should never have mentioned the D word.
I think that science has an image problem. If all scientists are seen to to by the newspaper-reading public is argue among themselves, I think it’s a poor show. As Stephen says, a better approach in my view is for everyone who cares about science, and society’s investment in it as worthwhile activity, to tell the world why this is a good thing. I think Jenny is correct – there was a strategy in place to cope with swine flu, but sadly nobody gets kudos for being prepared for something that might happen but didn’t. They do, however, get the opposite for not having been prepared when the worst happens (and could have been predicted at some degree or other of probability).
Cath – it probably is a bit parochial to mention Dawkins, sorry- but I just get tired of seeing him being lambasted at Nature Network, given nasty nicknames etc. In the UK, the “scientists” who are famous, it seems to me, are not scientists, they are naturalists (David Attenborough) or people who aren’t professional scientists (Carol Vordeman, Melvyn Bragg, Bill Bryson etc). Where are our present-day Carl Sagans? Hopefully, here on Nature Network. But nobody looks good by attacking other people. If you don’t agree with someone’s views on belief systems (which is all rather theoretical and subjective) then move on and focus on what you think is important.
Squabbles are never edifying from the outside, whoever is “right”.
Speaking of cultural reprogramming, I think I’ll wear my Barbour Thornproof for trail riding this afternoon.
Are they boring genuine bagels, or the interesting mutated kind, with yummy ingredients like raisins, blueberries, cranberries, pumpkin, or walnuts?
No worries Maxine, Dawkins is famous enough everywhere, we just see less of him in the media here!
Kristi, they’re “everything” bagels (mostly onion, poppy seeds and sesame seeds). A staple for easy breakfasts but nothing special.
Maxine, please would you
stop going on about Dawkinscut the crusts off these cucumber sandwiches?@Maxine – I think that science has an image problem. If all scientists are seen to to by the newspaper-reading public is argue among themselves, I think it’s a poor show.
There is an image problem but (to blatantly distort your point), I think it is nevertheless important to show the public that sometimes scientists do argue amongst themselves, since argument on the finer points of data and experimental interpretation is an important part of scientific activity. It’s how to show the value in that discourse without giving the public the excuse to say ‘well the scientists don’t agree so why should I listen’ that is tricky.
Agreed Stephen (with your point and that you blatantly distorted mine!) Of course, having written what I did about arguments, I have to agree, don’t I? But, as it happens, I do. Scientists can and show show how they work things out, develop and exclude hypotheses, etc – without being “priests” as the anti-science lot calls them, and ideally by being relatively measured about it – given that a lot of science these days is highly technical and genuinely difficult for the non-trained to understand it, particularly concepts like probability, risk and so on – this is a difficult path to tread.
But I think it can be done – without either cucumber/watercress sandwiches or being reduced to petty name-calling etc, which is funny in a “cheap joke” kind of way but not much else.
There was an interesting podcast (20 min) from The Guardian (that I listened to on my run today) about impact of ‘climategate’ on the image of scientists. Some thoughtful points from their science/environment correspondents. Good to know that there are journalists out there with a sophisticated understanding of science.
Maxine – I guess we’ll have to agree that we have different tastes when it comes to humour…! 😉
Scientists that descend from the pedestal put themselves at risk. Those of my age may remember Heinz Wolf from numerous appearances on kids science TV shows. I guess he was never a great academic scientist/engineer but he was one of the first to apply physical sciences/engineering approaches to medical research in the early 1960s. However, his TV appearances were often used as evidence that he was not a real scientist.
I know what you mean Brian but I wouldn’t regard Wolf’s move to TV as a descent from a pedestal (since I am holding firmly to the view that we don’t use pedestals in science!). But yes, there is quite a bit of snootiness among scientists about those who have gone onto the telly. I think most of it is jealousy.
I have made it on to telly, but it was only North West news lunchtime. i may have said this before but the only reason they came to the university was because they had a spare crew that should have been covering an attempted murder case at Manchester Crown Court (just over the street) and when this was downgraded to GBH they were sent to cover a story based on a university press release.
An interesting point on this, is that when they interviewed me,they insisted that I wear a white lab coat. That way the audience would know that a scientist was speaking.
I think most of it is jealousy.
Agreed. Just like those that complain about the peer review process {dons asbestos suit}.
they insisted that I wear a white lab coat. That way the audience would know that a scientist was speaking.
Oooh that makes me so cross.
Easy tiger.
And an asbestos suit is no protection from Cameron Neylon…
easy tiger? I love your straight face.
Yeah, I saw Cameron’s piece. I even mentioned it at the Other Place. He’s wrong, of course.
Richard G, Stephen C, Cath E and others: Please do not think I ran away from the discussion. I’ll be back… to deliver a devastating downer, a reverberating rejoinder that I shall relish – just in a little while longer. Currently, we are completely snowed-in in Northern Baltimore, and considerable efforts need to be spent towards amelioration of that situation.
Maxine:
Whoa! Did you say that with a serious face? I guess, irreverent Pythonesque humor isn’t to your taste?
Currently, we are completely snowed-in in Northern Baltimore, and considerable efforts need to be spent towards amelioration of that situation.
Keep digging, Kausik!
Henry,
Was that sage advice real-life or metaphorical?
(Given my oft-demonstrated talent of digging myself into a hole…)
Hmmm…
Looks suspiciously
There’s a good piece in “today’s Times by John Krebs”: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018438.ece
..and nary a mention of a watercress sandwich.
Sorry, here is the correct link to the John Krebs Times piece
Incidentally, never mind the telly, plenty of scientists get stick from their peers for being so populist as to write a News and Views piece, a book review, or, heaven forbid, a book. Sad, as communication of science as widely as possible is surely part and parcel of being a scientist.
That is a good article, Maxine. Bill Hanage and I have sent the Guardian a direct response to Jenkins’s article. I hope they’ll run it.
I was aware of the snootiness about telly scientists but hadn’t heard of people who write N&V articles etc. being castigated. That’s quite shocking. Goes to show that Krebs is right – scientists are a mixed bunch and some of them are “a bit thick”.
Krebs’ article is an excellent reply to Simon Jenkins comment. A reasoned voice from one who has had much experience in dealing with the unreasonable.
Oh that is a superb article. Hoorah.
How awful. I just read this Great Beyond post on “Climategate” in which Phil Jones, currently stood down head of the East Anglia climate unit, said that he thought of committing suicide more than once in the light of events. Poor man. Where does all this viciousness get anyone, there are only victims?
@Henry – storm around saying things like ‘they call this a bookshop? Why! They don’t they stock that excellent ‘The Science of Middle-earth’ by Henry Gee’, or words to that effect.
What makes you think I don’t do this all the time already?
@Cath – we can revoke that Citizenship, you know. 😉
Only just got round to reading the Krebs article: excellent.
Maxine – that is a sobering reminder (though none should be needed) that scientists are human…
It does feel slightly odd to state that:
As far as I am concerned. “The reality of flu” is the result of science. WHO’s ties with others are part of the science that result in statements about flu. Flu and flu science are not entities that are detached from one another. Flu science has made the reality of flu the way we know it.
Similarly is peer review influencing the material that exists out there to read. The part of the material not peer reviwed is considered less credible according to scientific standards and is therefore not shortlisted for acquiring the status of “truth”.
Global warming is a reality we experience because of the science performed by many, including the IPCC and the University of East Anglia. Their science and the science of many others has made what we know of global warming into what it is.
Science has the power to determine how we experience reality. Because of that, a healthy dose of reflection and introspection is in order. After all, we all lead our lives based upon what science tells us about reality.
In the paragraph that you quote Bart, Jenkins seems to be all over the place. Does he or doesn’t he trust scientists? He doesn’t seem to be sure. He should at least be able/willing to interrogate them and to get answers that he is satisfied with.
As for your statement, “after all, we all lead our lives based upon what science tells us about reality“, that is only true for some (see here!)
@Stephen: probebly the homeopaths would agree with that statement but disagree with my/your/our demarcation of science from non/pseudoscience…