March For Science, April 22, 2017

[russ_watters]

And who gets to decide which scientist has a valid opinion and which does not?

I already said it: that's what the scientific consensus is.

Are the regulations going to be based off of the idea that laypeople are incapable of comprehending the actual concepts?

To be blunt, yes. Becoming a true expert in a scientific field requires a decade of full time study. No one else is equipped to decide the validity of scientific research. That is, at least in theory, what the March for science is about: Scientists need tof give good guidance and politicians and voters should utilize that guidance in decision making.

How can it be ethical to pass a sweeping (potentially destructive) regulation based on votes from laypeople that you know do not understand the very basis for the policies that they're advocating for? Seems like a politician's golden opportunity for smoke and mirrors.

That is largely beyond the scope of the thread/movement. All scientists can do is provide good advice. It is up to the voters and leaders how it gets used. That said, my criticisms are based on wanting to ensure the advice given is actually good/scientific.

 

[Evo]

I think a lot of the posts in this thread are getting way off of the topic of what the March is about. It appears it will be a fun "learning" event

The activities may include “teach-ins,” science events, open houses and rallies.

 

[OmCheeto]

This might be interesting to watch:

JOIN AAAS FOR A LIVE CHAT ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSAL MEANS FOR SCIENCE --
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22ND, 1PM EDT
ON THE AAAS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ACCOUNTS.

Now more than ever, we must demonstrate the importance of science to policymakers and the public.​

 

[Evo]

Off topic/too political posts have been removed, let's please stay on the topic of what the organizers and partners have actually said about the march.

Thank you.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think a lot of the posts in this thread are getting way off of the topic of what the March is about. It appears it will be a fun "learning" event

I submit that most can learn more from carefully reading most PF threads (including this one) that attending a "March for Science (welfare)."

 

[Evo]

I submit that most can learn more from carefully reading most PF threads (including this one) that attending a "March for Science (welfare)."

Well, from what I gather, it's not meant to teach other scientists, so yes, PF is a great source for learning.

 

[OmCheeto]

This might be interesting to watch:

JOIN AAAS FOR A LIVE CHAT ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSAL MEANS FOR SCIENCE --
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22ND, 1PM EDT
ON THE AAAS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ACCOUNTS.

Now more than ever, we must demonstrate the importance of science to policymakers and the public.​

Live now!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Off topic/too political posts have been removed, let's please stay on the topic of what the organizers and partners have actually said about the march.

Thank you.

OK. The March organizers said the following:

The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.

This lovely article, copied from Reuters, demonstrates there are concerned Republicans organizing to counter anthropogenic climate change:

http://kgmi.com/news/030030-republican-green-groups-seek-to-temper-trump-on-climate-change/

The various groups represent conservatives, Catholics and the younger generation of Republicans who, unlike Trump, not only recognize the science of climate change but want to see their party wrest the initiative from Democrats and lead efforts to combat global warming.

Conservative green groups such as ConservAmerica and republicEn, along with politically neutral religious groups such as Catholic Climate Covenant and bipartisan groups such as the Citizens Climate Lobby, have ramped up efforts to recruit more congressional Republicans to work on addressing climate change since Trump’s election.

Conservative environmental advocates promote what they call “free enterprise” solutions to climate change, like a carbon tax. That stands in contrast to the approach of liberal environmentalists under former President Barack Obama, who backed bans on certain kinds of oil drilling and regulations aimed at discouraging petroleum use.

But whatever their differences, the conservative groups say they have an important role to play...

And:

“It’s like Alcoholics Anonymous — you’ve got to first recognize you’ve got a problem before you can deal with it,” said Mark Sanford, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina who signed the resolution.

The suggested solutions may break apart on partisan lines, but the non-partisan issue to be addressed first is that, contrary to Trump's assertions, there is a problem.

 

[collinsmark]

Gaah!

Why is this even an issue on Physics Forums?! Of all places.

One of the march's principle goals is to celebrate and promote the "... use of peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus, not personal whims and decrees." [Source: https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision/]

Consider the goal of "... to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community." That quote was not actually taken from the march's materials. Rather that is a quote from Physics Forums' Global Guidelines. [Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/]

If a PF member were to continually spout demonstrable falsehoods with total disregard for the truth, and without tether to verifiable evidence (or without any evidence whatsoever), and were to even attempt to change and sway the PF community at large based on said falsehoods and personal theories, that member would probably receive infractions and eventually be banned. And rightly so.

Although this is a wonderful age in which we live, where vast amounts of information lie at our fingertips, it comes with an unfortunate side effect: there are also available vast amounts of misinformation. People just don't know what to believe. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the population is being gaslit into confusion. Many people place astronomy and astrology on equal footing. There are several predominant athletes in the spotlight who believe that the earth is flat. People honestly don't know where their smartphones came from, but suspect that the invention was created through prayer [or aliens] (I don't have a source for this one besides personal experience -- yes, I've met people who actually believe that all technological innovation was merely handed down to faithful human worshipers from the divine powers above).

The solution to this mess is to promote science and scientific principles, and that includes critical thinking. That's why PF is such a great website and a great community: We support these principles. That's what this march is purportedly about too, and in my opinion that's reason enough to go.

In the last couple of years, there's been a growing movement promoting relative truth: the idea that there is no absolute truth in anything, and therefore science's version of the Big Bang and cosmology are no more credible than creationism. It's the idea that climate change won't happen so long as we don't think about it. If you disagree with this trend and think that there is absolute truth that can be found by evidence based science, then get off your butt and go to the march.

There's also the perception that scientists are all reclusive hermits that shuffle around laboratories in white lab coats. The perception that being a scientist is out of reach for the common persons. Scientists are somebody else, somebody different, somebody separated from society. And science is just something that scientists do. Science isn't anything that a common person could understand, so there's no point in learning it or even appreciating it. -- If you are uncomfortable with this perception and instead think that children should get involved with science at an early age and appreciate it throughout life then get off your butt and go to the march.

If the newly appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denies that carbon dioxide is the/a predominate greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, ironically contradicting the EPA's own website based on evidence based science, then get off your butt and go to the march.

If the man in the most influential position of power in the nation continually spouts demonstrable falsehoods with total disregard for the truth, and without tether to verifiable evidence (or without any evidence whatsoever), and attempts to change and sway the community at large with policy based on said falsehoods and personal theories, we unfortunately don't get to ban him. But we can get off our butts and go to the march.

 

[BillTre]

@collinsmark
Good rant.
I would double like it if I could.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

There are several predominant athletes in the spotlight who believe that the earth is flat.

And yet some of those athletes have college degrees. (Shaq has an undergrad degree from LSU as well as an Ed. D.)

Why not point the finger at the flawed education system where it belongs?

Most of these errors are being made by graduates who spent over 2000 hours in public school science classes.

We should start by admitting that granting them degrees was fraudulent.

The problem will not be fixed in politics or policy. It can only be fixed in education.

 

[Evo]

And yet some of those athletes have college degrees. (Shaq has an undergrad degree from LSU as well as an Ed. D.)

Why not point the finger at the flawed education system where it belongs?

Most of these errors are being made by graduates who spent over 2000 hours in public school science classes.

We should start by admitting that granting them degrees was fraudulent.

The problem will not be fixed in politics or policy. It can only be fixed in education.

Let's stop going off topic please.

 

[collinsmark]

Why not point the finger at the flawed education system where it belongs?

Most of these errors are being made by graduates who spent over 2000 hours in public school science classes.

We should start by admitting that granting them degrees was fraudulent.

The problem will not be fixed in politics or policy. It can only be fixed in education.

Science in education is part of what the march is all about! Here's a quote from the https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision/:

"We support science education that teaches children and adults to think critically, ask questions, and evaluate truth based on the weight of evidence. Science is not a field that should be understood only by a small few -- every person, from every background, deserves an education that encourages scientific learning alongside the arts and humanities. Science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives, and we must work to encourage and support a new generation of scientists that reflects that."​

I'm flabbergasted that anyone on PF would not support that. [Edit: I'm pretty sure we all support that. I'm just uncertain as to why this thread makes it seem otherwise.]

 

[collinsmark]

Another reason to go to the march is, well, just think of all the possible fun signs to make. Be creative!

 

[russ_watters]

I'm flabbergasted that anyone on PF would not support that. [Edit: I'm pretty sure we all support that. I'm just uncertain as to why this thread makes it seem otherwise.]

I'm not sure if the thread is easy to follow anymore, but the reason I and others don't support it is because we think the mission statement is mostly not true, omitting the primary mission. Ironically, some who support it support it primarily due to that perceived unstated mission.

I'm in a bit of a bind here because we are in essence only allowed to talk about supporting it at face value, but hopefully this will be allowed to remain if I just state the other two options and it doesn't lead to an argument:

1. Support the mission/movement as stated currently.
2. Support the movement due to the unstated mission.
3. Oppose the movement due to the unstated mission.

You've received feedback now (as far as I can tell) from one of each.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm only going, to show off my new t-shirt:

And maybe to hobnob.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'll be at the march in my home city. If anyone has a sign idea, I'd consider making it :)

 

[Evo]

I'm in a bit of a bind here because we are in essence only allowed to talk about supporting it at face value

If people want to argue against what's actually stated on their website, that's fine, but some of the posts were going off topic into scenarios that had nothing to do with the stated intent, basically just making things up (wild speculation). We don't allow that in any discussion.

 

[OmCheeto]

Should you Join The March For Science? [phdcomics]

I loved the answer to the question; "Is it possible you are overthinking this?"

"I'm a scientist. I get paid to overthink."

 

[collinsmark]

While this article/video doesn't reference the March for Science itself, it does address many of the key concerns that are the purpose of this Saturday's march.

I recommend watching the video within the article.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Says This Is His Most Important Message Ever

Edit: Found a YouTube video, if you'd rather skip directly to that:

 

[OmCheeto]

While this article/video doesn't reference the March for Science itself, it does address many of the key concerns that are the purpose of this Saturday's march.

I recommend watching the video within the article.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Says This Is His Most Important Message Ever

Edit: Found a YouTube video, if you'd rather skip directly to that:

I've always liked NdT. But this is the first time, he's brought me to tears.

 

[russ_watters]

While this article/video doesn't reference the March for Science itself, it does address many of the key concerns that are the purpose of this Saturday's march.

I recommend watching the video within the article.

I'm a fan and think he is a good cheerleader for the cause, but if I look past the cheerleading and take a critical eye to what he is saying, I see several problems, some of which are pretty serious:

1. He either has a bad/selective memory or is letting his politics or sense of self-importance cloud his view of history. It's a common human failing, but I assume he put some effort into writing his script, so he should be able to do better. Though it has had its ups and downs, and in particular during wartime and the arms/space races anti-science sentiment was down, the '60s and more so the '70s had some large and successful anti-science movements. They include the resurgence of anti-evolution movement and the anti-nuclear movement.

2. He doesn't seem to understand what, in my view, anti-science beliefs are/what causes them. For most people, science is one of many competing belief systems including religion, economics, family values, etc. Very few people are blanket anti-science, but rather just pro-whatever belief system or belief is the most important to them, at the expense of everything else. That's what causes people to have a mixture of pro and anti-science views or even to have anti-science views they incorrectly (but earnestly) believe are pro-science.

3. Tying 1 & 2 together, it looks to me like his own basket of beliefs are leading him to make anti-science or at least science-blind judgements when his science conflicts with his politics. And from a person who claims to be good at drawing the line between science and policy (part of the point of the video), that's a big, big problem. Specifically, he's skipping a huge step when drawing the line between science and policy on global warming: the "so what?" step. He skips right from 'AGW is true' to 'we should take unspecified extraordinary measures to counteract it'. He's assuming the answer to "Should we attempt to change that?" is yes. But that's not a science question and it needs to be part of the public policy debate, just like science telling us Enceladus might have the ingredients for life. That doesn't automatically trigger the assumption that we should send people there to investigate -- how much will investigation cost and is it worth it needs to be part of the policy discussion. Just like "Should we attempt to change that?" or broader "What, if anything, should we do with this information?" should be the next question after discovering we're deforesting, mammoths/velociraptors are extinct, oil..., nuclear fission/fusion..., space exploration = ICBMS, etc.

 

[256bits]

Who is he trying to convince?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It's march day. Who's going? Lots of sister city marches.

 

[BillTre]

I going in Eugene, OR.
Starts at noon out here.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Should you Join The March For Science? [phdcomics]

I loved the answer to the question; "Is it possible you are overthinking this?"

"I'm a scientist. I get paid to overthink."

Read this somewhere lately which is an antidote to overthinking this.
"Scientists are wakeing up to the fact that they can ignore politics but politics won't ignore them".

 

[Borg]

Saw this link on another forum that had nothing to do with science - Some of the best signs from the March for Science.

 

[collinsmark]

I marched in San Diego. The news says that there were an estimated 15 thousand in San Diego alone.

Here was my sign (two-sided):

 

[nitsuj]

Generally speaking, philosophy gets pooped on by the "sciences". I understand philosophy to be the skill of argument, critical thinking. Personally I don't see how there is some sort of science issue ...it's always been this way, the only thing new is the amount of communication today.

There was a comment in this thread that some place astrology as equal to astronomy...ignoring possible confusion of the terms...to me that says peeps don't care about either...and I'd argue we don't AT ALL need to.

lol when there are bills to pay, a field to harvest who cares about the stars?

The critical thinker and lifetime devote follower of faith each have one vote...who maybe easier to dupe?

All I see is science is interested in playing policy making too...just like religion is...just like the NRA does...lol non pratisan...too bad the parties are not "The Science Party" and "The religion Party", but either way all these "groups" have one vote per person.

imo it's a great thing that this march is happening and hope the numbers are significant enough to prop up a policy maker of their liking...even if the lifetime devote follower then starts their own protest.

I'm reminded of the south park episode(s) Go, God, Go.

 

[OmCheeto]

Generally speaking, philosophy gets pooped on by the "sciences". I understand philosophy to be the skill of argument, critical thinking. Personally I don't see how there is some sort of science issue ...it's always been this way, the only thing new is the amount of communication today.

There was a comment in this thread that some place astrology as equal to astronomy...ignoring possible confusion of the terms...to me that says peeps don't care about either...and I'd argue we don't AT ALL need to.

lol when there are bills to pay, a field to harvest who cares about the stars?

The critical thinker and lifetime devote follower of faith each have one vote...who maybe easier to dupe?

All I see is science is interested in playing policy making too...just like religion is...just like the NRA does...lol non pratisan...too bad the parties are not "The Science Party" and "The religion Party", but either way all these "groups" have one vote per person.

imo it's a great thing that this march is happening and hope the numbers are significant enough to prop up a policy maker of their liking...even if the lifetime devote follower then starts their own protest.

I'm reminded of the south park episode(s) Go, God, Go.

hmmm...

per wiki;

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.​

I would argue that most people here at PF love wisdom.
My guess as to why Philosophy gets pooped on, is because a lot of "Philosophers" want to discuss "existence, values, and reason,". Which in my mind, are somewhat silly topics.

Not sure if you saw Bill Nye's Facebook March for Science clip. I found it very informative.



Did you know that "Science" is written into the U.S. constitution?
I didn't.

US Constitution

Article 1, section 8
...

To promote the Progress of Science...​

I thought that was most wonderful.

He also mentioned something about the term "Scientist" being a somewhat new word. So I googled that.
It seems to mark the split of "science" from "philosophy".
Which I personally don't have a problem with, as many words get "overloaded" with different meanings, as things get more complicated.

According to wiki;

Scientist: Historical development and etymology of the term

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833, and it first appeared in print in Whewell's anonymous 1834 review of Mary Somerville's On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences published in the Quarterly Review. Whewell's suggestion of the term was partly satirical, a response to changing conceptions of science itself in which natural knowledge was increasingly seen as distinct from other forms of knowledge.
...
He also proposed the term physicist at the same time, as a counterpart to the French word physicien.​

Of course, I find most funny things amusing, as I'm sure most people do. And find it somewhat amusing that we still label some* of our most learned of people, as "Philosophers":

PhD

Etymology

From Latin: philosophiae doctor​

--------------
*I'm still not sure who are the smartest on the labeling scale:

PhD
Post Doctoral Fellow
Professor​

?