Why has the public view on scientists changed in recent years?

[Proggle]

I've been thinking about something and wanted to hear some opinions from this forum.

Basically, I'm under the impression that the general public opinion on scientists took a turn for the worse over the last two decades or so. It's not that I'm terribly concerned about it being a physicist, but I find it interesting to look at the reasons.

My main point of comparison is the first half of the 20th century, and specific examples like Einstein. From what I've read, he had "rockstar" popularity, being a public figure that even those completely unrelated to anything scientific would easily recognize and respect. He may be an extreme case, but I'm under the impression that he projected an image of a scientist bringing progress and understanding that extended to those who were not as well known.

I just can't see that happening anymore, as brilliant as a scientist may be. I think that the scientist, on average, has lost a lot of ground as a publicly respected figure.

A few reasons I can think of:

- Increasing public perception that science contradicts their religious beliefs (the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, and no, please don't start a religious discussion here).
- Marketing that undermines the scientific establishment ("alternative" medicine, natural remedies and all the quackery surrounding them).
- Erroneous ideas on environmental issues (the exaggeration and fear towards anything that even hints at "radioactive").
- Tendency of "new science" to be too hard to understand for the average individual.
- Perception of the science/scientist as being arrogant and claiming to be the only truth.

Am I going too far? What are your thoughts on this?

 

[EnumaElish]

I'll add this:
- absence of a scientific revolution (on an Einsteinean scale) in the second half of the 20th century.

And (perhaps):
- end of the cold war means each "camp" doesn't have to work as hard to prove superiority over the other.

 

[theCandyman]

You should probably throw in the average Joe that looks at psuedoscience or science fiction and takes it at face value and thinks "Why not?" Like the Department of Defence funding a Star Trek-ish transportation program or the cold fusion story. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, people who look at science we are capable of and think "No way, that can't be right."

 

[wolram]

I have great respect for scientists they do not get enough recognition, i think the problem is they work behind closed doors and their names are only known to be associated with any thing by a few colleges.
But then you have scientists who wright books that seem to ansewer all our questions,
so their names are prominent for a few years.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Has there been a notable loss of public respect for science? If so, why?

I've been thinking about something and wanted to hear some opinions from this forum.

Basically, I'm under the impression that the general public opinion

PF is an international forum, so I must ask: you mean: in the US, correct?

on scientists took a turn for the worse over the last two decades or so. It's not that I'm terribly concerned about it being a physicist, but I find it interesting to look at the reasons.

Er, no, you should be concerned. If anyone thinks that the fundamentalist attack on science (and the universities) in countries like the U.S. and Turkey excludes math or physics, you are terribly mistaken. Just think about creationist opposition to modern cosmology, the fact that ID tries to cloak itself in the mantle of ergodic theory and dynamical systems, and sponsorship by Discovery Institute (I am told) of Ph.D. students in geology, biology, and physics, to name just a few examples where semi-organized groups pursuing extra-scientific agendas either seek to destroy or to infiltrate and co-opt science.

My main point of comparison is the first half of the 20th century, and specific examples like Einstein. From what I've read, he had "rockstar" popularity, being a public figure that even those completely unrelated to anything scientific would easily recognize and respect. He may be an extreme case, but I'm under the impression that he projected an image of a scientist bringing progress and understanding that extended to those who were not as well known.

Just a general caution about trying to extrapolate from past history: Einstein was a genius, and instances of true genius are both rare and unique.

I think that the scientist, on average, has lost a lot of ground as a publicly respected figure.

Among the general public? I am not sure that is really the case, but many observers of American society in particular have pointed to increasing cynicism concerning all the institutions of society: the presidency, the Congress, the courts, large corporations (GM and Bell Tel were once genuinely admired and even respected, if you can believe that), journalism, etc., etc. I have seen various political commentators and historians ascribe this to fallout from growing appreciation of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Watergate and the Vietnam War (or even to Eisenhower's admission that he had lied to the public after the downing of the U-2 spy plane flown by Gary Powers), to race riots and the failure of The Great Society (President Johnson's domestic agenda, which included ending poverty and segregation/discrimination), to various journalism scandals and the rise of "shock radio" and "shock TV", to the gas shortages during Carter's presidency and the nearly averted bankrupty of New York City during Ford's presidency, to the collapse of the U.S. steel industry and near-collapse of the American automobile industry, to mortgage meltdown and the inability of young middle class Americans to purchase their own home, to the Simpson trial, and to myriad other incidents. I have seen commentators claim that (ironically, given that IMO the U.S. is actually a rather pacific nation) the last institution still generally admired by the American public is the military, but this too seems to be eroding, and the reasons are easy to find: the result of wars going badly---in all countries, in all periods--- has always been a loss of public respect for military institutions.

Concerning the suggestion that the horror of the atomic bombings lessened public respect for physicists: I don't agree; AFAIK the original proponent of this notion was the German playwright Heiner Kipphardt; it was later picked up by Jonathan Schell and Freeman Dyson, but I know of no real evidence for believing this suggestion. More generally, if you look back farther in American history, you'll find widespread public dismay at much earlier political scandals, financial meltdowns, and military setbacks.

Despite these cautionary remarks, I tend to agree with these commentators that there has been a loss of public respect for all institutions of society since roughly the nineteen seventies. I myself tend to feel that science is actually one of the institutions for which there is still considerable respect and admiration among a large fraction of the general public, but I agree with you that this residual respect is currently sorely threatened. (Even worse, I think it may be largely due to programs which have more to do with public entertainment than with genuine science, e.g. manned spaceflight--- I see here an analogy with state funding for gladiatorial combat in Roman times.) However, I think that you are putting the cart before the horse in your discussion of possible underlying causes for this phenomenon:

Increasing public perception that science contradicts their religious beliefs (the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, and no, please don't start a religious discussion here).

Nothing new here; see the Huxley-Wilberforce debate (1860), the Scopes monkey trial (1925).

Marketing that undermines the scientific establishment ("alternative" medicine, natural remedies and all the quackery surrounding them).

If you ever get a chance to paw through a collection of old newspapers, do so. Quack remedies were once far more prevelant than they are today. (Recall that even in 1900 public health was extremely primitive.) I once spend an fascinating afternoon poring over newspapers published in New England in the 1830s. Pages and pages of ads for quack remedies.

This is OT, but BTW, sensationalist journalism is nothing new either. Those old papers were also full of "police reporting" so gripping that I recall some of the stories to this day. The only difference was that the reporters tended to describe the most horrific details somewhat more obliquely than might be the case today.

Erroneous ideas on environmental issues (the exaggeration and fear towards anything that even hints at "radioactive").

I have argued that the continued reliance upon humans as the agents of the global economy is idiotic. Humans violate every principle of manufacturing: non-interchangeable parts, extreme sensitivity to environmental toxins and to modest amounts of radiation, ludricously complex power supplies, the list is endless. It follows that there must be tremendous economic pressure to replace humans with manufactured citizens.

Tendency of "new science" to be too hard to understand for the average individual.

You should read contemporary newspaper accounts of Eddington's verification of Einstein's light-bending formula.

Perception of the science/scientist as being arrogant and claiming to be the only truth.

To offer a verifiable and hence superior band of truth? You should read what the voice of the people was screaming about Lavoisier when they lopped off his head.

Anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism are in fact among the most venerable of American political traditions. See Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

 

[Proggle]

PF is an international forum, so I must ask: you mean: in the US, correct?

Yes, I should have been clearer about this. However, I must say that I have only lived in the U.S. for a few years, so I can't claim to have a real historical perspective.

Er, no, you should be concerned. If anyone thinks that the fundamentalist attack on science (and the universities) in countries like the U.S. and Turkey excludes math or physics, you are terribly mistaken. Just think about creationist opposition to modern cosmology, the fact that ID tries to cloak itself in the mantle of ergodic theory and dynamical systems, and sponsorship by Discovery Institute (I am told) of Ph.D. students in geology, biology, and physics, to name just a few examples where semi-organized groups pursuing extra-scientific agendas either seek to destroy or to infiltrate and co-opt science.

I do not doubt this, such tendencies are becoming rather visible as of late. I am concerned about the effects on science as a whole, but I have not reached the point of concern about the validity of my particular profession. That can easily change, though.

Among the general public? I am not sure that is really the case, but many observers of American society in particular have pointed to increasing cynicism concerning all the institutions of society: the presidency, the Congress, the courts, large corporations (GM and Bell Tel were once genuinely admired and even respected, if you can believe that), journalism, etc., etc. I have seen various political commentators and historians ascribe this to fallout from growing appreciation of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Watergate and the Vietnam War (or even to Eisenhower's admission that he had lied to the public after the downing of the U-2 spy plane flown by Gary Powers), to race riots and the failure of The Great Society (President Johnson's domestic agenda, which included ending poverty and segregation/discrimination), to various journalism scandals and the rise of "shock radio" and "shock TV", to the gas shortages during Carter's presidency and the nearly averted bankrupty of New York City during Ford's presidency, to the collapse of the U.S. steel industry and near-collapse of the American automobile industry, to mortgage meltdown and the inability of young middle class Americans to purchase their own home, to the Simpson trial, and to myriad other incidents. I have seen commentators claim that (ironically, given that IMO the U.S. is actually a rather pacific nation) the last institution still generally admired by the American public is the military, but this too seems to be eroding, and the reasons are easy to find: the result of wars going badly---in all countries, in all periods--- has always been a loss of public respect for military institutions.

Concerning the suggestion that the horror of the atomic bombings lessened public respect for physicists: I don't agree; AFAIK the original proponent of this notion was the German playwright Heiner Kipphardt; it was later picked up by Jonathan Schell and Freeman Dyson, but I know of no real evidence for believing this suggestion. More generally, if you look back farther in American history, you'll find widespread public dismay at much earlier political scandals, financial meltdowns, and military setbacks.

Despite these cautionary remarks, I tend to agree with these commentators that there has been a loss of public respect for all institutions of society since roughly the nineteen seventies. I myself tend to feel that science is actually one of the institutions for which there is still considerable respect and admiration among a large fraction of the general public, but I agree with you that this residual respect is currently sorely threatened. (Even worse, I think it may be largely due to programs which have more to do with public entertainment than with genuine science, e.g. manned spaceflight--- I see here an analogy with state funding for gladiatorial combat in Roman times.) However, I think that you are putting the cart before the horse in your discussion of possible underlying causes for this phenomenon:

Good point. You may be very right in saying that it is just part of a larger trend that involves a loss of respect towards the establishment on many levels.

My point about radiation was more along the lines of nuclear energy (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, which were largely exaggerated) than about the bombs.

Nothing new here; see the Huxley-Wilberforce debate (1860), the Scopes monkey trial (1925).

Of course it's not new, but I had expectations that as the education of the average individual improved and the evidence and understanding for evolution increased, the debate would tend to favor science. This has not been the case as far as I can tell.

If you ever get a chance to paw through a collection of old newspapers, do so. Quack remedies were once far more prevelant than they are today. (Recall that even in 1900 public health was extremely primitive.) I once spend an fascinating afternoon poring over newspapers published in New England in the 1830s. Pages and pages of ads for quack remedies.

Yes, but that was before the establishment and widespread availability of scientific medicine. Their use due to general ignorance of the causes for disease is a different matter than their use today.

You should read contemporary newspaper accounts of Eddington's verification of Einstein's light-bending formula.

To offer a verifiable and hence superior band of truth? You should read what the voice of the people was screaming about Lavoisier when they lopped off his head.

Anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism are in fact among the most venerable of American political traditions. See Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

I'll see what I can find about these, thanks.

 

[Proggle]

I'll add this:
- absence of a scientific revolution (on an Einsteinean scale) in the second half of the 20th century.

And (perhaps):
- end of the cold war means each "camp" doesn't have to work as hard to prove superiority over the other.

Hmmm, both of these sound reasonable.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just a general caution about trying to extrapolate from past history: Einstein was a genius, and instances of true genius are both rare and unique.

A general caution about the word "unique": it means "one of a kind'. Having declared Einstein a genius, and asserting that genius is "unique" you are saying Einstein was the only genius there ever was.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've been thinking about something and wanted to hear some opinions from this forum.

Basically, I'm under the impression that the general public opinion on scientists took a turn for the worse over the last two decades or so. It's not that I'm terribly concerned about it being a physicist, but I find it interesting to look at the reasons.

My main point of comparison is the first half of the 20th century, and specific examples like Einstein. From what I've read, he had "rockstar" popularity, being a public figure that even those completely unrelated to anything scientific would easily recognize and respect. He may be an extreme case, but I'm under the impression that he projected an image of a scientist bringing progress and understanding that extended to those who were not as well known.

I just can't see that happening anymore, as brilliant as a scientist may be. I think that the scientist, on average, has lost a lot of ground as a publicly respected figure.

A few reasons I can think of:

- Increasing public perception that science contradicts their religious beliefs (the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, and no, please don't start a religious discussion here).
- Marketing that undermines the scientific establishment ("alternative" medicine, natural remedies and all the quackery surrounding them).
- Erroneous ideas on environmental issues (the exaggeration and fear towards anything that even hints at "radioactive").
- Tendency of "new science" to be too hard to understand for the average individual.
- Perception of the science/scientist as being arrogant and claiming to be the only truth.

Am I going too far? What are your thoughts on this?

My perception of the current public perception of scientists is that people now commonly believe that the cutting edge of science is slowly proving that the world is basically magical. The word "quantum" is now synonymous with magic in the public view. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an argument in favor of the existence of life-after-death and various paranormal phenonmena backed up with the statement "Quantum physics has shown that..." and then some sensational claim is made that seems to lend scientific support for some essentially magical notion.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Yes, I should have been clearer about this. However, I must say that I have only lived in the U.S. for a few years, so I can't claim to have a real historical perspective.

Many things which you have observed about American life will be much more comprehensible after you read Hofstadter! The first in particular is widely acknowledged as a classic, and is short and written with enormous verve.

I do not doubt this, such tendencies are becoming rather visible as of late. I am concerned about the effects on science as a whole, but I have not reached the point of concern about the validity of my particular profession. That can easily change, though.

There is a good reason why at least two physicists, Lawrence M. Krauss (Physics, Case Western Reserve) and Bob Park (Physics, University of Maryland, Em.), have been prominent in debunking ID, hydrinos, and dozens if not hundreds of other pseudoscientific claims.

My point about radiation was more along the lines of nuclear energy (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, which were largely exaggerated) than about the bombs.

Sorry, that's what I thought you meant; the alleged reaction to the atomic bombings were just part of my summary of the case for the alleged general decline of respect for public institutions.

I had expectations that as the education of the average individual improved and the evidence and understanding for evolution increased, the debate would tend to favor science. This has not been the case as far as I can tell.

Right, this is one of the most fascinating results of surveys by Pew etc. Actually, they found that persons with more higher education are indeed much more likely to agree with statements like "millions of years in the past, humans and apes shared a common ancestor", but what is astonishing is how many American Ph.D.s continue to hold "fundamentalist" beliefs which contradict very well-established scientific mainstream belief. You can find details at sites like the one I linked to.

Yes, but that was before the establishment and widespread availability of scientific medicine. Their use due to general ignorance of the causes for disease is a different matter than their use today.

Agreed; I did briefly allude to that with my reference to the primitive state of public health programs in 1900. My take is that while modern medical science is far more effective than medical practice c. 1800, cancer patients do still hear "we can't cure you" and these people often turn to quacks for much the same reason that ill people turned to quacks before the advent of modern medicine: the need to feel some degree of control over one's fate, however counterfactual this belief might be.

One possibility (likelihood unknown but presumed substantial) which you might think about: given the increasingly common occurence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria (ironically, of course, there is good reason to think that like Darwin's pigeon fanciers we have been unintentionally selecting for these strains by failing to ration our use of antibiotics), the prevalance of modern air travel, the increasing concentration of populations in urban areas, and so on, it is very hard to understand why there has been no true global pandemic since the swine flu pandemic of 1918. Many experts in public health feel that an avian-flu pandemic could rapidly kill off a large fraction of the current human population. Recall that swine-flu hit particularly hard young adults, who tend to consider their death as something lying in the remote future; young adults in 2008 are less prepared for an early death than were young adults in 1808 and would be particularly anguished by fear, I think, in the event of a global pandemic. Thus, I expect that the occurence of a global pandemic unstoppable by the medical profession would result in a parallel epidemic of quackery. It seems reasonable to expect that the health care professions and the inner cities would be decimated (unless doctors and nurses deserted their posts in large numbers), so the long-term demographic effects might be pretty drastic.

I also predict an "epidemic" of conspiracy theories subsequent to a pandemic: even if the U.S. loses 12% of its population, people in poorer countries which have lost 19% will say that the pandemic was a CIA plot gone awry, poor Americans will say it was a deliberate attempt to eliminate poverty by killing the poor, and so on.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Alleged Unicity of the Label "Unique"

asserting that genius is "unique" you are saying Einstein was the only genius there ever was.

No, I was saying that Einstein was a unique phenomenon, as was Newton. It seems that people can't help trying to compare them, or trying to extrapolate to possible future developments from their careers. My cautionary remarks were intended to suggest that "the next Einstein" is a ridiculous and seriously misleading phrase, since the next genius of comparable stature and effect on intellectual history will be another unique phenomenon. One reason why is that IMO true genius is sufficiently rare that the historical contexts for two distinct instances of genius are rarely comparable.

Or were you saying that having said that "1 Jan 1900 was the unique day bearing the date 1 Jan 1900", I am not allowed to say then say that "13 Jan 1987 was the unique day bearing the date 13 Jan 1987"?

 

[Chris Hillman]

My perception of the current public perception of scientists is that people now commonly believe that the cutting edge of science is slowly proving that the world is basically magical. The word "quantum" is now synonymous with magic in the public view. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an argument in favor of the existence of life-after-death and various paranormal phenonmena backed up with the statement "Quantum physics has shown that..." and then some sensational claim is made that seems to lend scientific support for some essentially magical notion.

Agreed, and this raises another question for discussion: given that good science writing seems to be even rarer than good science, is bad science writing perhaps worse than none at all? If we must choose between miseducation and noneducation of the public about the frontiers of contemporary science, which is worse?

I stress that I am not suggesting that public schools stop teaching schoolchildren about well-established science (no doubt in some watered-down and therefore misleading form). I am suggesting that it might be at least worth discussing the possibility that scientists should oppose attempts to explain to the general public current research in the frontiers of science, on the grounds that if one is doing XYZ it is better to say "I can't easily explain to you what I am doing" than to say "I am doing ABC".

Before you object, I admit that this rule wouldn't enable schools to entirely evade trying to explain "quantum weirdnesses", since quantum mechanics has formed a core part of the scientific canon for some eight decades. But at least the proposed censorship might prevent things from getting even worse than they are already.

Maybe I should add that unlike most things I post about, this is not something I have meditated upon previously, it is something which just occurred to me. Make of it what you will!

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, I was saying that Einstein was a unique phenomenon, as was Newton. It seems that people can't help trying to compare them, or trying to extrapolate to possible future developments from their careers. My cautionary remarks were intended to suggest that "the next Einstein" is a ridiculous and seriously misleading phrase, since the next genius of comparable stature and effect on intellectual history will be another unique phenomenon. One reason why is that IMO true genius is sufficiently rare that the historical contexts for two distinct instances of genius are rarely comparable.

Or were you saying that having said that "1 Jan 1900 was the unique day bearing the date 1 Jan 1900", I am not allowed to say then say that "13 Jan 1987 was the unique day bearing the date 13 Jan 1987"?

You can say "Einstein's genius was unique." Or you can say "Each genius is unique." Your phrasing "...and instances of true genius are both rare and unique," encourages a misunderstanding of the word "unique" as synonymous with "special". It's not clear from the context you mean it as "one of a kind". Better would have been something like "...and instances of true genius are both rare and specific to the individual."

 

[Chris Hillman]

Ever seen a performance of "Much Ado About Nothing"? I'll bet you didn't care for it, huh?

OK, I suggest that those wishing to critique my writing start a PF poll in the Criticism forum

 

[zoobyshoe]

Agreed, and this raises another question for discussion: given that good science writing seems to be even rarer than good science, is bad science writing perhaps worse than none at all? If we must choose between miseducation and noneducation of the public about the frontiers of contemporary science, which is worse?

I stress that I am not suggesting that public schools stop teaching schoolchildren about well-established science (no doubt in some watered-down and therefore misleading form). I am suggesting that it might be at least worth discussing the possibility that scientists should oppose attempts to explain to the general public current research in the frontiers of science, on the grounds that if one is doing XYZ it is better to say "I can't easily explain to you what I am doing" than to say "I am doing ABC".

Before you object, I admit that this rule wouldn't enable schools to entirely evade trying to explain "quantum weirdnesses", since quantum mechanics has formed a core part of the scientific canon for some eight decades. But at least the proposed censorship might prevent things from getting even worse than they are already.

Maybe I should add that unlike most things I post about, this is not something I have meditated upon previously, it is something which just occurred to me. Make of it what you will!

I think the problem is that there is a continuum of quantum physicists from very hard, realistic thinkers on one end to magical thinkers on the other. It is the more magically thinking quantuum physicists who are responsible for publishing these notions. See the section: "Consciousness causes collapse" in this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

This, and notions like it, are taken very seriously and literally by some people, and, being sensational, get widely disseminated, and constitute a springboard for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ever seen a performance of "Much Ado About Nothing"? I'll bet you didn't care for it, huh?

OK, I suggest that those wishing to critique my writing start a PF poll in the Criticism forum

Since you are such a good writer, I thought you'd appreciate the risks of promoting the notion that "unique" is synonymous with "special". I think Shakespeare would have appreciated it.

 

[Evo]

A general caution about the word "unique": it means "one of a kind'. Having declared Einstein a genius, and asserting that genius is "unique" you are saying Einstein was the only genius there ever was.

Merriam Webster definition of unique

2 a : being without a like or equal : UNEQUALED

b : distinctively characteristic : PECULIAR

3 : UNUSUAL <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch

Chris' use of the word is correct.

 

[Chris Hillman]

This, and notions like it, are taken very seriously and literally by some people, and, being sensational, get widely disseminated

Groan, I know, I know. I try to avoid those people, but one could say that makes me part of the problem I counter that its up to the physicists to debunk that kind of thing; Robert Park of Maryland has made a good attempt, but I believe that more physicists should regard some level of involvement in debunking pseudoscience as a professional responsibility.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Merriam Webster ...Chris' use of the word is correct.

Thanks, Evo Er, I hope we done with that now, if not, I repeat: someone start a poll asking for feedback on how many readers are concerned that they might "learn" incorrect definitions of words from my posts. Or how many want me to be kicked off PF, or whatever the issue is.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Chris' use of the word is correct.

Ugly, but true. I submit to the dictionary, but, in this case, I don't like it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks, Evo Er, I hope we done with that now, if not, I repeat: someone start a poll asking for feedback on how many readers are concerned that they might "learn" incorrect definitions of words from my posts. Or how many want me to be kicked off PF, or whatever the issue is.

I'd like to propose that "unique" be only used when referring to one of a kind, and that when referring to something special it should be spelled "eunique". This would be more in accordance with the meaning of the root words.

 

[Chris Hillman]

So we have to do this now?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1448330#post1448330

Well, that would be one way to slow down my rate of posting...

 

[zoobyshoe]

So we have to do this now?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1448330#post1448330

Well, that would be one way to slow down my rate of posting...

That's really a very nice post.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Kinda fun, I must admit, and hardly even slowed me down!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Kinda fun, I must admit, and hardly even slowed me down!

Eunique!

 

[EnumaElish]

Quantum vs. relativity: a question of scale?

One intriguing question (for me) is, why did the quantum revolution never become popular on a scale comparable to the relativity revolution?

For the non-physicist they sound almost equally implausible. "Time dilation" is not necessarily more believable than "quantum superposition."

And they sound equally revolutionary (you could say revolting) -- i.e. counter to the previous state of popular-scientific understanding.

So neither of these traits can explain the popularity gap between relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Department of Things You Wish You Didn't Know

Speaking of the generally growing danger from the microbial world:
http://www.physorg.com/news110255496.html
Naturally I just had to share that!

 

[Proggle]

One intriguing question (for me) is, why did the quantum revolution never become popular on a scale comparable to the relativity revolution?

For the non-physicist they sound almost equally implausible. "Time dilation" is not necessarily more believable than "quantum superposition."

And they sound equally revolutionary (you could say revolting) -- i.e. counter to the previous state of popular-scientific understanding.

So neither of these traits can explain the popularity gap between relativity and quantum mechanics.

Yeah, it's interesting if you put it that way.

A couple things I can think for why it turned out like it did:

- Disagreement between the creators (matters of interpretation, but that's what the general public would care about).
- No clear central figure(s).
- Einstein opposed it, and he became a superstar first.

On the QM mysticism/magic issue, I find it very sad. The fact that scientific ideas are twisted to promote personal ideologies is bad enough, but when people don't realize they're not real science and start believing and spreading them as if they were, it's a crime.

 

[waht]

One intriguing question (for me) is, why did the quantum revolution never become popular on a scale comparable to the relativity revolution?

For the non-physicist they sound almost equally implausible. "Time dilation" is not necessarily more believable than "quantum superposition."

And they sound equally revolutionary (you could say revolting) -- i.e. counter to the previous state of popular-scientific understanding.

So neither of these traits can explain the popularity gap between relativity and quantum mechanics.

Relativity was first. It challenged the long cherished Newtonian physics that nothing is absolute. Secondly, it was introduced all at once. Few advances in relativity were made ever since, (except general relativity, but that's another story). On the other hand, QM grew gradually, sometimes with a burst of a major discovery every so often. Also Einstein was first opposed to it, and "God does not play dice with universe" was his popularized quote. The quote was a sort of "biggest blunder" for QM's image. And the final blow I think was Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as implied before, invokes God, and pseudo-science in the eyes of general public more than any other concept.

 

[CleffedUp]

- Increasing public perception that science contradicts their religious beliefs (the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, and no, please don't start a religious discussion here).
- Marketing that undermines the scientific establishment ("alternative" medicine, natural remedies and all the quackery surrounding them).
- Erroneous ideas on environmental issues (the exaggeration and fear towards anything that even hints at "radioactive").
- Tendency of "new science" to be too hard to understand for the average individual.
- Perception of the science/scientist as being arrogant and claiming to be the only truth.

I wouldn't say it's all "too hard," but no one seems to be going out of their way to present the concepts in digestible and interesting ways. The connection between research and real life is also less obvious, and there's no "marketing." There's no clear voice that explains just what science does for people, and many don't get it -- a lot of people don't even connect, say, NASA with their cell phones.

The media has also created a credibility problem. Take the egg: First they were good for you, then they were bad for you, now it's part good and part bad but only in a certain way. I doubt anyone here changes their eating habits because the local news channel decides to make proclamations probably based on a study or two, but not everyone knows better. When these proclamations turn out to be wrong, "science" takes the blame.

Most of all, maybe people just want what they want and don't care how it came to be.

 

[Huckleberry]

Scientists aren't getting the fanfare that they had before. In the last 20 years things have gotten smaller and faster and generally more efficient, but there hasn't been anything introduced into society that alters peoples live dramatically. If there has been then the individual scientist isn't getting credit for it. This is the century of business and media. Science takes a back seat in public opinion.

 

[EnumaElish]

Scientists aren't getting the fanfare that they had before. In the last 20 years things have gotten smaller and faster and generally more efficient, but there hasn't been anything introduced into society that alters peoples live dramatically. If there has been then the individual scientist isn't getting credit for it. This is the century of business and media. Science takes a back seat in public opinion.

Was Einstein the last artisan? "Struggling young scientist"? Perhaps science has become more of a commodity since him?

 

[Huckleberry]

Was Einstein the last artisan? "Struggling young scientist"? Perhaps science has become more of a commodity since him?

I'm sure there are Einsteins in the world today somewhere. I just don't see them on tv or in the local news. Out of sight, out of mind. I think the average person just doesn't read science magazines or journals and forums. Maybe we have become technologically saturated and aren't expecting anything really new and life-changing to come along any time soon. A struggling young scientist may not have the same opportunites. I really don't know.

What effect have corporations had on science in the last 20 years?

 

[wildman]

As an outsider looking in (an engineer, not scientist), it appears that the most basic of the sciences (physics) is in disarray. String Theory seems to be a symptom of this disarray and then it is defended as the "only game in town". What kind of defense is that? Even QM doesn't seem to me to make sense. Yes its formula are powerful, but it does take on a feature of mystery and seeming magic when it talks about things like particles going through two slits at the same time (but only when you aren't looking!).

I think the public is responding to that disarray. People are thinking: "Well if you guys don't know what is going on, how can we trust you?"

 

[Huckleberry]

I think if you were to ask the average Joe on the street to describe the double-slit experiment he would look at you cross-eyed, having no idea what that is.

Science and engineering exist to give us toys and make life easier and longer. It's only interesting if it is practical to the public. If it can make a washing machine spin or a telephone ring; if it cleans pots and pans and can cook a ham; if it shows us the news or sings the blues, then it is important to the average person.

Even that isn't enough. As far as I know my computer was invented by Sony and owned by Bill Gates, cause he's rich. I don't feel a pressing interest to know how the forces interact in the beams that support the roof over my head and who might have created the math that keeps me from crawling out of a pile of rubble. I never think about the industrial process that creates the fibers in my carpet and puts it all together. I only care that it keeps my feet warm and is softer than concrete. I think that charcoal stuff they use to pump people's stomachs is pretty gross. I also believe that Roy G. Biv invented the rainbow, because that's what my first grade teacher told me years ago. And second hand smoke is really worse than first hand, cause I heard that somewhere too.

Who needs Albert Einstein in the papers when you have Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future on tv? Give us some groundbreaking new toy to play with like a flux capacitor and you will have the attention of the entire world. Make something like Quantum Mechanics practical and engineer it into something functional and you will be insanely famous and rich. Give us teleporters and holodecks and all that fancy Star Trek stuff and you will keep our attention and admiration for exactly one generation. Cause I'm bored with the toys I have now and you all need to do your science stuff and make the world a better place for me to live in.

 

[CleffedUp]

I don't think anyone has mentioned what is probably the single most dramatic and controversial invention in the history of man: The atomic bomb.

Do a search in Google (+"atomic bomb" +einstein) and you get some 300k hits, even though he had nothing directly to do with it. I don't have the time to do the chronology here, but having your name associated with a device that ended "The War" in the fashion it did would logically stand to get you a lot of attention.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard a journalist just yesterday talk about the scientists who use Einstein's relativity to create nuclear weapons, and if the general population can even make the connection, that's what they will believe.

 

[D H]

As an outsider looking in (an engineer, not scientist), it appears that the most basic of the sciences (physics) is in disarray. String Theory seems to be a symptom of this disarray and then it is defended as the "only game in town". What kind of defense is that? Even QM doesn't seem to me to make sense. Yes its formula are powerful, but it does take on a feature of mystery and seeming magic when it talks about things like particles going through two slits at the same time (but only when you aren't looking!).

I think the public is responding to that disarray. People are thinking: "Well if you guys don't know what is going on, how can we trust you?"

Just because QM "doesn't seem to me to make sense" doesn't mean it is disarray. The standard model of physics describes observations extremely well. It might be wierd, but disarray? No. We plucked most of the easy fruit off the physics treeby the mid-to-late 1800s. The same goes for most other sciences. Since then scientists have been attacking domains far removed from our everyday world, giving us half-dead cats that morphed from slime. Just because you (speaking generically) don't understand quantum mechanics or plate tectonics or evolution or whatever doesn't mean scientists don't understand and agree on these topics.

Modern science is far removed from the everyday world. Human reaction time is about half a second. Physicists look at time spans as small as a picosecond. Human lifetime is less than a hundred years. Astronomers, geologists, and biologists look at time spans that make those hundred years look infinitesimally small. Physicists have some disagreements regarding what happens during their incredibly small time spans. Biologists have some disagreement what happens during their incredibly long time spans. That does not mean disarray. It just means they don't have all of the details worked out.

An extremely small minority of scientists don't agree with the modern views. The modern media is won't to find the two quacks out of one thousand scientists who disagree with modern physics / modern geology / modern biology. This creates a perception of disarray when in fact none exists. Quacks have been around as long as humanity has. Until recently, we knew what to do with them: Ignore them.

Another problem is that we (speaking generally again) have come to expect problems to be resolved instantly. Science doesn't work that way. Science is slow. Nearly a century passed between the discovery of X-rays and the completion of the standard model. Similar time spans occur in other sciences. Just because we don't know the hairiest of details of how the universe works doesn't mean we don't know anything. This is not disarray; it is how science works.