Comments on: Summer Reading: Sheril on Science Friday

By: Zephir

Zephir — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:50:18 +0000

Many physicists are dummy trolls, who cannot comprehend things, which cannot be followed in formal mechanical derivation. This problem started before one hundred years by misunderstanding of Aether concept. No wonder, ordinary people tend to ignore counterintuitive formal approach of mainstream physics.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:28:14 +0000

Hi,

I don’t think it is too hard to figure out which I mean, given the amount I’ve said above, the book I’m discussing, and the several other posts I’ve done on this, some of which I’ve pointed to.

Cheers,

-cvj

By: DT

DT — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:21:28 +0000

You are now making two mutually exclusive points.

“It is vitally important, if we are a truly democratic society, for all to participate in the conversations we have about science - whether it be about issues to do with medicine, lifestyle, environment, energy, or just for its own sake: it is part of our culture.”

and

DT:- “How can people with no knowledge about a given subject contribute to the discussion about it?”
CJ: Exactly.

Either you want everyone to contribute or only those who know enough to have an informed opinion - experts.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:19:42 +0000

DT:- “How can people with no knowledge about a given subject contribute to the discussion about it?”

Exactly.

-cvj

By: DT

DT — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:15:11 +0000

How can people with no knowledge about a given subject contribute to the discussion about it? And why do you think having them contribute is vitally important?

This seems like a very idealistic view of democracy which considers it a goal in it’s own right. It is interesting that thanks to the internet we now have means to realize “absolute democracy” - one in which there are no representatives and everyone can vote on every single proposal, budget or law. Such a system would certainly be much more democratic but do you think it would be better? Would it be better for science for example? String theory?

By: Clifford

Clifford — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:00:27 +0000

Hi Per,

Thanks, but as I said, there were other just as significant reasons we parted ways. It’s all fine, and I’ve no interest in making a big deal of this - There’s really nothing wrong with (or unusual about) people disagreeing on things. It is how the disagreement is managed that is the issue… which brings us back to the science outreach matters…

Best,

-cvj

By: per

per — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:31:50 +0000

Hi Clifford,

I think it was really strong of you to leave Cosmicvariance (CV) for the reasons you just mentioned. I am myself a researcher in string theory and I also have the impression that the arrogance towards everything spiritual (right or wrong) on CV is a bit to much sometimes.

Thanks for a nice blog.

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:34:05 +0000

Oops, I meant to link to my comments here for the “hagiography of Carl Sagan” bit.

It may be just my cynical side talking, but I can’t escape the feeling that complaints about how “scientists punish those among them who popularize science” are like the accusations that “STRING THEORY IS DOOOOMMMED!!” They’re much better at selling the product than they are at conveying the nuances of truth.

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:25:27 +0000

I gotta say, I’ve found M&K’s writings to be an exasperatingly superficial treatment of an important topic. This has little to do with the science/religion question or the “how nice do we try to be?” question. (Isn’t it odd that the single most divisive argument among science bloggers, beating out even “is string theory a waste of time”, is about the importance of being polite?) Overall, they seem to substitute simple narratives for real explorations of complicated problems. From their version of the Pluto business to their hagiography of Carl Sagan, it just hasn’t lived up to what I wanted this conversation to be.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:12:07 +0000

james - not a problem.

Best,

-cvj

By: james

james — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:24:38 +0000

Perhaps I came over as a bit aggressive in that comment - my apologies.

That was my apology to you, but when have physicists apologised for beheading people for violating the 2nd the second law of thermodynamics, or mathematicians for burning people at the stake for spreading rumours about the axiom of choice…

People should have the courage of their convictions; and just not silence other opinions.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:43:14 +0000

Hi James,

The reason is, in my opinion, that we all share the same planet and must find ways to live together. I think that is good motivation for trying to find a way to have a civilized conversation, etc, etc. The alternative is neither pleasant nor productive, I find.

Best,

-cvj

By: james

james — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:40:06 +0000

There is no common ground between science and religion. This should not even need to be stated these days. Perhaps they share a quest to find the answers to life the Universe and everything? Well perhaps, but religious thinking doesn’t go anywhere (it’s all in a book conveniently provided by super-cosmic beings), whereas science tries to follow a practical way of going about it (which ultimately may lead nowhere - but at least it tries, and it’s track record so far is pretty good)

Personally I do take the obnoxious route and regard religious beliefs as stupid at the outset. After all, like many people, I was brought up with them. I probably spent more time being taught religious voodoo-hoodoo than maths, English, and music pit together. So, as an adult, I see any reason to waste any more time with the stuff.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:32:37 +0000

Hi Arun,

Thanks. I think a variety of approaches is healthiest, but I’m pretty sure that the hard-headed “you’re stupid and wrong, now let’s talk” approach produces next to nothing (besides lots of shouting), whereas trying to find a place from where you can launch even a limited sort of conversation at least has a *chance* of producing results.

I’m not sure what the relevance of whether they read blogs or not is though. I’m talking about (and I think Chris and Sheril are too) discourse in any sphere, not blogs in particular.

Best,

-cvj

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:00:35 +0000

Some people are not approachable by reason or by trying to find a common ground. A good current public example is Obama and the Republicans - to be specific - those in the Senate. Another would be - how do you build common ground with the birthers - probably a good 30% of the US population?

Similarly if you wander among the religious, there are 20-30% of them for which there is no reasonable approach.

Of course, one might argue that such people don’t read blogs. Since such people include Congress persons, I can’t agree with that.

If we assume that we’re writing off this 30% then I agree that finding common ground is the way to go.

By: Summer Reading: KC on Science Friday at Asymptotia

Summer Reading: KC on Science Friday at Asymptotia — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:56:28 +0000

[...] « Summer Reading: Sheril on Science Friday [...]

By: robert

robert — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:32:39 +0000

I am aware that this is not the place for solipsism - nonetheless the ‘try growing some - even just a few herbs on the window sill - at home’ hurts. The output from recent attempts at sustenance gardening - potaytoes and tomartoes - has been ravaged by blight, while exotica like figs, chillies and aubergines have flourished. That put to one side I’m sure that you are right: it’s a softly softly game - to which this book appears to contribute - that is more likely to win through in the end.