Article

2007-02-18 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Basic-science understanding grows; so does belief in pseudoscience

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2007-02-18 12:43|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The disclosure that former first lady Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer resulted in widespread derision in the media, but few younger people remember that today, she said.

Odd how the good associate professor didn't notice that the younger people were generally born after Nancy Reagan's husband was in office. I recently learnt that one of the mid-century presidents was in the habit of swinging his dogs by their ears. I only hope they were beagles and not german shepherds.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-18 15:07|| 2007-02-18 15:07|| Front Page Top

#2 That'd be LBJ and they were beagles...

Posted by tu3031 2007-02-18 15:09|| 2007-02-18 15:09|| Front Page Top

#3 For example, for many women having a good life still depends on whom they marry, she said.

World ends. Women and children effected most. With thinking like that, the lady is never going to achieve tenure.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-18 15:15|| 2007-02-18 15:15|| Front Page Top

#4 In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005, according to Jon D. Miller, a Michigan State University professor.

There are two ways to interpret this. Since we know from test scores that Americans aren't learning as much math and science as they used to (indeed, imperiling our status as a world leader), I think we can deduce that the level of science reporting has declined.

In addition, there is a much lower threshold for scientists pontificating to the press about tenuous theories which have no experimental basis whatsoever. Example: string theories involving alternate universes in adjacent dimensions. This is close to pseudoscience.

When professional scientists rush to publish highly tentative theories in the press, it becomes harder for them to push back against pseudoscience.

Posted by KBK 2007-02-18 17:08|| 2007-02-18 17:08|| Front Page Top

#5 #3. You meant "without" thinking like that, didn't you TW?

Posted by gromgoru 2007-02-18 17:34|| 2007-02-18 17:34|| Front Page Top

#6 ...The late Carl Sagan was a world-class moonbat - his Nuclear Winter studies were some of the most badly twisted facts masquerading as science anybody's ever seen, worse than the curent Global Warming crap - but towards the end of his life he began to realize that people were turning away from science and turning toward superstition. Get his last book, The Demon-Haunted World and tell me that everything he sees in it hasn't come true.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-18 18:24|| 2007-02-18 18:24|| Front Page Top

#7 The late Carl Sagan was a world-class moonbat

Not compared to Chomsky and his ilk. Sagan was dissed by the scientific community for his approach to popularizing science. IIRC, the nuclear winter theory was based on some Soviet computer models that turned out to be wrong. The basic idea - that dust in the atmosphere has a cooling effect - is sound. Remember the Mount Pinatubo volcano eruption?

Posted by SteveS 2007-02-18 18:37|| 2007-02-18 18:37|| Front Page Top

#8 You meant "without" thinking like that, didn't you TW?

Nope. Everyone of us here does not think like that, excepting, of course, poor Mr. Arabi. I did mean affecting, though, not effecting. PIMF.

Separately, part of the cause of the populace thinking so poorly about science is that the reporters don't know enough science to judge what they're being told, or to report about it intelligently... and I hate to think how many degreed journalists believe in the validity of astrology, and don't understand the critical difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and creationism.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-18 21:06|| 2007-02-18 21:06|| Front Page Top

#9 Nope. Everyone of us here does not think like that

And how many of us have academic tenure?

Posted by gromgoru 2007-02-18 21:50|| 2007-02-18 21:50|| Front Page Top

#10 ART BELL last nite vv Call-in > "I agree that Science, despite all the advancements ever made since the turn of the last century, CAN NOT ANSWER/RESOLVE EVERYTHING".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-02-18 22:11|| 2007-02-18 22:11|| Front Page Top

#11 I do apologize, gromgoru -- I think we're using the language differently to get to the same place. I'll try to be more precise next time.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-18 22:12|| 2007-02-18 22:12|| Front Page Top

#12 :-)

Posted by gromgoru 2007-02-18 23:47|| 2007-02-18 23:47|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:47 gromgoru
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:46 gromgoru
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
22:54 USN, ret.
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:40 Angenter Crolugum3645
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:17 trailing wife
22:14 mrp
22:12 trailing wife
22:11 JosephMendiola
21:50 gromgoru
21:50 KBK
21:46 gromgoru
21:45 USN, ret.
21:44 gromgoru
21:42 Asymmetrical T
21:23 USN, ret.
21:22 Mullah Richard