March For Science, April 22, 2017

[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​

?

 

[nitsuj]

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.​

Wow philosophy is a broad term and I still don't know what it means lol...

buried in that wiki page was a sub article on logic, ...turns out logic and reasoning was merely "examined by philosophy"..whatever that means...but looks like I meant Logic, instead of philosophy...and of course logic does not get pooped on by the "sciences". But I'll stick to my convoluted point...there needs to be more logic.wrong thread but today I learned philosophy is not about reasoning or logic.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
wrong thread but today I learned philosophy is not about reasoning or logic.

That's ok. My guess, from looking over comments regarding the demise of the "Philosophy sub-forum" here, is that most people don't know what "Philosophy" is.

The Boss; "... The reason is that the Philosophy forum over the past couple years has been almost impossible to moderate fairly and two out of three threads end up locked..."​

RIP
Oct 15, 2012

 

[BillTre]

I went to the March in Eugene (Oregon) and took a bunch of pictures.
I would guess there were between 1,000 and 2,000 people there.
From looking over my pictures, I would estimate there were
~5% anti-Trump signs.
Most signs were pro-science, some were pro-environment (specifically).
2-5% were pro-more-science-funding.

 

[Evo]

That's ok. My guess, from looking over comments regarding the demise of the "Philosophy sub-forum" here, is that most people don't know what "Philosophy" is.

The Boss; "... The reason is that the Philosophy forum over the past couple years has been almost impossible to moderate fairly and two out of three threads end up locked..."​

RIP
Oct 15, 2012

LOL, don't ask me what the quality of the threads in that Philosophy forum were. Don't. "Are baseballs sentient?" It was argued that they were.

 

[OmCheeto]

LOL, don't ask me what the quality of the threads in that Philosophy forum were. Don't. "Are baseballs sentient?" It was argued that they were.

I seem to remember that the forum mentor once complimented one of my posts "in there". So yesterday I spent two hours trying to find it. FAIL!
But I did find another doozy:

"Do you think humans have the ability to see in the mind of god?"​

I thought my response was wonderful.

Excerpt:

2. God, as described by most religions, is either a father or mother figure.
Fathers and mothers are usually wiser than their children. Therefore, we should try to understand them. Because if we don't, we'll be just a bunch of daft children.​

Even though I'd only been at the forum for a little over a year, and had never read the forum rules, I sensed that politeness was paramount. Otherwise, I'd have written that last sentence just a little bit differently.

Because if we don't, we'll ALL be a bunch of daft children, like you. ​

 

[Callmejoe]

They have good intentions, but I don't think this is a real meaningful protest. It like having a march for "morality". It sounds nice and everyone wants to say that they are moral yet people do immoral things all the time.

 

[Borg]

LOL, don't ask me what the quality of the threads in that Philosophy forum were. Don't. "Are baseballs sentient?" It was argued that they were.

I seem to remember that the forum mentor once complimented one of my posts "in there". So yesterday I spent two hours trying to find it. FAIL!

I didn't see any posts by you Om but, it looks like Evo started that particular debate.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/an-official-debate-thread.79862/#post-611693

I know this sounds terrible, but I truly believe that I could start a thread in philosophy right now asking why baseballs aren't sentient and half a dozen people would start a serious discussion about it.

 

[OmCheeto]

I didn't see any posts by you Om but, it looks like Evo started that particular debate.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/an-official-debate-thread.79862/#post-611693

Wow...

Way over my head...

But going through the thread, I noticed one name, of a mutual PF/FB friend, who was the only person who posted a picture of her sign at the march:

Smart lady.

 

[mheslep]

They have good intentions, ...

What's the scientific basis for your knowledge of their (whoever they are) intentions?

 

[BillTre]

Here are a couple of post-march stories from Science Magazine.
One is mostly on several surveys and their preliminary results, the other more on the mood and coverage.
To me, they reflect what I saw in the photos I took (post #63).
I find this interesting in that it might provide some data about the arguments leading up to the march.

Personally, I did not find the Eugene (Oregon) march very blatantly anti-Trump and even less give-me more-money-for-research. This seems to also be the case in a larger scope.
I would have liked there to have been more publicity for my issue of choice (science and rational integrity affecting policy) than there was, but its a complex world.

I found it puzzling that the surveyors had so much trouble with collecting data in the rain. There are many solutions to this including water proof paper and water proof containers for tables with allow them to be used in wet environments. We did this for years in fish facilities. They have also been used in aquaculture and probably other places.

 

[mheslep]

A march for something like Less Bias in Science might have been worthwhile, instead celebrity led the way:

 

[collinsmark]

A march for something like Less Bias in Science might have been worthwhile, instead celebrity led the way:

Of course reducing bias in science is important. I speculate that Bill Nye and other science celebrities would be the first to agree with you on that point.

But there is something more troubling afoot in today's world: policy makers are ignoring science altogether when forming policy. That's a big deal. It's terrifying.

 

[BillTre]

There's nothing wrong with celebrity in of itself.
Its what celebrities might do that could be troubling.

Is there some unstated problem with Bill Nye?

By the way, I think that's one of the better pictures I've seen of him.
Thanks!

 

[strangerep]

I watched some of the local TV news coverage of the marches in my part of the world. Unexpectedly, I became a bit depressed when I saw some of the signs...

One of them proclaimed "I believe in science" -- which totally misses the point that science is not an alternative religion.

 

[Astronuc]

which totally misses the point that science is not an alternative religion.

Perhaps it is for some, for others it's entertainment or some other nonsense.

John Oliver discusses how and why media outlets so often report untrue or incomplete information as science. The problem is often not the science, but rather how it is communicated or miscommunicated to the public.

 

[RonL]

Wow...

Way over my head...

But going through the thread, I noticed one name, of a mutual PF/FB friend, who was the only person who posted a picture of her sign at the march:

View attachment 196696​

Smart lady.

Sure miss lisab ?

 

[OmCheeto]

Sure miss lisab ?

Moonbear.

I didn't ask her permission to post the picture, which is why I cropped her face off.
But in the past when I've notified Moonie that I shared something here, that she said on FB, she's always been fine with it.

ps. I miss lisab also.

BTW, thank you for the segue for my response to Astronuc's post:

The problem is often not the science, but rather how it is communicated or miscommunicated to the public.

Which was in response to:

science is not an alternative religion

hmmmmm... Where do I start?

It all started, two days after the March for Science, on my local MFS FB feed, when a youngnotevenclosetoascientist lady, accused people who didn't trust a certain scientific consensus, of being guilty of believing in pseudoscience.

Not wanting to start that particular debate here, as that topic was the only topic that lisab and I ever fully disagreed upon here at this forum, I will try and tie this into both Astro and Strangreps comments:

I'll start with "science is not an alternative religion", as, in the past, I once used the phrase; "faith based science", and I'm sure people cringed when I said that. It's also the easiest to explain.
What I meant, was that the scientists here at PF are so freakin' smart, and I am so scientifically illiterate, that I have no choice but to have faith in what they are talking about.
And as far as "alternative religion", I would like to point out

"Fake Science News" The Sugar Conspiracy - notable example [ref: PF]

My point being, that sometimes the juggernaut of knowledge gets stuck, and it does become "an alternative religion" type of dogma.

"Everyone believes it, I kind of have my doubts, but that's a lot of work to disprove it, and it's not really hurting anyone to believe this, so... meh."

ah hmmmm...

On to point two:

"The problem is often not the science, but rather how it is communicated or miscommunicated to the public."

This was my takeaway from the great FB debate I was involved in.

Of the 68 people engaged in the debate, 26 people were "pro policy" and only 8 were "con policy". And yet the general public has voted down the "pro policy" initiative every single time it has come up. The point being: Scientists have not convinced the people of my city that there is any validity to their conclusion.

This indicates, as far as I can tell, some possible conclusions:

1. a major lack of communication
2. the general public is smarter than we all think
3. the pseudoscientists are correct

I'm going to throw out #3, as I hate pseudoscience.

So that leaves 1 & 2.
#2 strikes me as only half right, as, I'm sure everyone remembers George Carlin's comment about the intelligence of the average person.

pps. In my studies over the last few days, I'm even less convinced that the "scientific consensus" is correct in this "pro policy", "science is right" matter.
ppps. Thank you John Oliver, for that "p-hacking" term.
pppps. One of the articles I read regarding our local "pro policy" matter said that "There is a weak (r^2 = 0.23), but statistically significant (p < 0.01), relationship between [insert fighting words here]". From my 3 hours of study yesterday, you need a "Null Hypothesis" to get a "p value", and for the life of me I couldn't figure out where the people in that study came up with their "Null Hypothesis" data.
ppppps. My final conclusion: Statistics is the bastard child of a Quantum Physicist and a Lawyer. Lots of ways to interpret things, and WAY too many worthless words.

 

[XZ923]

There's nothing wrong with celebrity in of itself.
Its what celebrities might do that could be troubling.

Is there some unstated problem with Bill Nye?

By the way, I think that's one of the better pictures I've seen of him.
Thanks!

Couldn't agree more with the first point.

No unstated problem with Bill Nye (at least not that we know of; if we did it wouldn't be unstated). My concern is that he's called for jailing people who don't agree with him:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

That to me means he's unfit to be the face of rational discourse on scientific material. As far as I'm concerned, you can claim the Earth is flat and the sun circles around it if you want to. The best antidote to false claims is fact, not inflammatory rhetoric. I'd rather see a few PhDs leading that march, even if they didn't have a TV show of their own. When you link your cause (however worthy) with the kind of statements Bill Nye has made about the opposition IMO you give up some of the legitimacy of your protest.

 

[BillTre]

Of the 68 people engaged in the debate, 26 people were "pro policy" and only 8 were "con policy". And yet the general public has voted down the "pro policy" initiative every single time it has come up. The point being: Scientists have not convinced the people of my city that there is any validity to their conclusion.

My interpretation would be a little different in a detail.
the result of an election reflects not only the ability to convince people among a population, but also how many of those people actually go out and vote in the issue (often called turn-out or motivation).

Thank you John Oliver, for that "p-hacking" term.

This is probably the article John Oliver referred to on 538.

 

[OmCheeto]

My interpretation would be a little different in a detail.
the result of an election reflects not only the ability to convince people among a population, but also how many of those people actually go out and vote in the issue (often called turn-out or motivation).

I would agree, but it's been 61 years, and there have been 4 votes: 1956, 1962, 1980, 2013
So 3 generations of people haven't been convinced.

I just went over some google hits on the topic, and the same problem popped up as in the FB discussion.

A Sci-Am, "pro-topic" advocate, grouped everyone who voted against it into the pseudoscience pool.
Bad, bad, move. We may be skeptical, but don't call us stupid.

I'm against it because I see marginal, at best, evidence that it has any value.

(The pseudoscientists apparently believe it causes brain damage, cancer, and god knows what else. I don't follow pseudoscience, so I don't know what else.)

This is probably the article John Oliver referred to on 538.

11 stars out of 10!

"How many statisticians does it take to ensure at least a 50 percent chance of a disagreement about p-values?"​

I found lots of funny anecdotes about p-values, in my research, once I found the "key-word".

xkcd

 

[BillTre]

Nice xkcd!

If you want to see more data on attendance and motivations, here is another news article from Science magazine about their own on-line survey about who went to Marches for Science and why.

 

[mheslep]

...That's a big deal. It's terrifying.

I think the finding by Ioannidis, across many fields of study, is the big deal:
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

 

[collinsmark]

I think the finding by Ioannidis, across many fields of study, is the big deal:
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

There are http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm.

But to reject science altogether -- not just a few individual studies, but the very foundation of scientific method and principles themselves -- due to a relatively minor, yet convenient, perceived discrepancy somewhere along the way is the biggest wrong of all.

 

[collinsmark]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science, Abraham Lincoln, Immigrants, and the Fading of America

 

[mheslep]

NdGT: Cult of Science

 

[OmCheeto]

NdGT: Cult of Science

Fun to listen to at 1/2 speed.

Other than that: