A huge problem, which you mentioned, is how “the science” has been communicated in popular media. It is communicated in absolutes. So when our understanding evolves/changes, people view that the previous reports were wrong, so the “science” was wrong. “Can’t these damned scientists make up their minds!?” No good scientist should act and speak in absolutes. Media needs to learn to say “the best available evidence...” Great article!
In our present world “res ipse loquitur” - meaning that as we look around and see science denialism taking hold we can see the downward trajectory of basic education. The public attitude speaks for itself. Look no further than the actions and pronouncements of a certain surgeon general of Florida. It is a disgrace.perhaps less book banning and more reasoned reading and discussion is the remedy. We need to help ourselves.
Unfortunately, I've long felt (and became more confirmed in this belief as I pursued my doctorate) that there are a lot of people with a lot of curiosity and time on their hands who are really disappointed to learn that that scholarly inquiry is usually less a matter of stumbling on a gigantic breakthrough than it is toiling for many years to contribute your small piece to a puzzle that may not even be solved in your lifetime (or, in some disciplines, is of its nature ever expanding never to be solved at all).
Scholarly inquiry is hard work for diminishing returns and your reward is a sense of contribution to the greater whole unless you're the person that happens to put the piece in the puzzle that happens to win a nobel prize or something. On the other hand, pseudoscience is easy, attention getting behavior that gives one a sense of importance and exclusive access to knowledge. It doesn't really require research if you don't want it to. You just kinda get to make shit up. You get to say things are true because they sound true, not because you actually demonstrated them. It requires no discipline or attachment *to* a discipline.
That is to say, I'm not sure pseudoscience arises out of any particular guilt or loss of the mystical (a la Weber's disenchantment thesis?) but instead arises out of the desire to feel smart and important and scholarly without having to put in any hard work.
A delightful article on your trip to Portland, Maine and the visiting the Cryptozoology Museum. Wish I knew how to share a photo of myself with a merbeing in Portland, Oregon while visiting the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. O sure, it can be found in the Golden Mean Substack post of 5/19/23. It's a freebie. Can be found on app. The museum was hosting a gigantic Marvel Superheroes exhibit. I will take this space to share that my wife and I are excited about The School for a New Stoicism.
Massimo, you were in another Roman museum recently that featured objects associated with Aeneas, but I can no longer find those photos or the post. Which museum was that? Thank you.
"science literacy is not at all the same as have people watch nature documentaries, or even getting them to take a college level intro course in physics or biology. ... Science literacy really means understanding how science works as a process, pitfalls included."
One of my all-time favourite books on this subject (I have never seen the accompanying TV series) is Philip Morrison's "The Ring of Truth: An Inquiry into How We Know What We Know"
He takes readers into the process of the kinds of questions that sciences tackle and how they arrive at answers, such as in the first chapter: an analysis of the calorie expenditures for a bicyclist during the Tour de France. They can eat as much as 6,000 calroies a day. Where does it all go? On the way, he has a discussion of thermodynics: I love the way he measures the calorie counts by converting them into a standard unit - jelly donuts - and bar-be-queing them to determine their energy.
I head to Murphysboro, Illinois Sunday. Back working with SIU Carbondale and NASA-TV to cover the eclipses again. We ultimately drive to Texas. I have been frantically preparing a paper binder of information. Can’t rely on electronics. Pilots must have their paper charts on every flight.
I saw the Big Muddy Monster on the cryptozoology chart and it is immensely popular now there. There was a case in 1973 where police saw the monster drawing international attention. The University of Chicago wrote, “Don’t bury it if you shoot it.” I was taken to the area where there are the most sightings in the 290,000 acres of forest at Shawnee. I shouted for it under a full Moon, but just heard myself nine times in the longest echo in the world. 🙄
A huge problem, which you mentioned, is how “the science” has been communicated in popular media. It is communicated in absolutes. So when our understanding evolves/changes, people view that the previous reports were wrong, so the “science” was wrong. “Can’t these damned scientists make up their minds!?” No good scientist should act and speak in absolutes. Media needs to learn to say “the best available evidence...” Great article!
In our present world “res ipse loquitur” - meaning that as we look around and see science denialism taking hold we can see the downward trajectory of basic education. The public attitude speaks for itself. Look no further than the actions and pronouncements of a certain surgeon general of Florida. It is a disgrace.perhaps less book banning and more reasoned reading and discussion is the remedy. We need to help ourselves.
Unfortunately, I've long felt (and became more confirmed in this belief as I pursued my doctorate) that there are a lot of people with a lot of curiosity and time on their hands who are really disappointed to learn that that scholarly inquiry is usually less a matter of stumbling on a gigantic breakthrough than it is toiling for many years to contribute your small piece to a puzzle that may not even be solved in your lifetime (or, in some disciplines, is of its nature ever expanding never to be solved at all).
Scholarly inquiry is hard work for diminishing returns and your reward is a sense of contribution to the greater whole unless you're the person that happens to put the piece in the puzzle that happens to win a nobel prize or something. On the other hand, pseudoscience is easy, attention getting behavior that gives one a sense of importance and exclusive access to knowledge. It doesn't really require research if you don't want it to. You just kinda get to make shit up. You get to say things are true because they sound true, not because you actually demonstrated them. It requires no discipline or attachment *to* a discipline.
That is to say, I'm not sure pseudoscience arises out of any particular guilt or loss of the mystical (a la Weber's disenchantment thesis?) but instead arises out of the desire to feel smart and important and scholarly without having to put in any hard work.
A delightful article on your trip to Portland, Maine and the visiting the Cryptozoology Museum. Wish I knew how to share a photo of myself with a merbeing in Portland, Oregon while visiting the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. O sure, it can be found in the Golden Mean Substack post of 5/19/23. It's a freebie. Can be found on app. The museum was hosting a gigantic Marvel Superheroes exhibit. I will take this space to share that my wife and I are excited about The School for a New Stoicism.
Massimo, you were in another Roman museum recently that featured objects associated with Aeneas, but I can no longer find those photos or the post. Which museum was that? Thank you.
"science literacy is not at all the same as have people watch nature documentaries, or even getting them to take a college level intro course in physics or biology. ... Science literacy really means understanding how science works as a process, pitfalls included."
One of my all-time favourite books on this subject (I have never seen the accompanying TV series) is Philip Morrison's "The Ring of Truth: An Inquiry into How We Know What We Know"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morrison
He takes readers into the process of the kinds of questions that sciences tackle and how they arrive at answers, such as in the first chapter: an analysis of the calorie expenditures for a bicyclist during the Tour de France. They can eat as much as 6,000 calroies a day. Where does it all go? On the way, he has a discussion of thermodynics: I love the way he measures the calorie counts by converting them into a standard unit - jelly donuts - and bar-be-queing them to determine their energy.
illuminating! I didn't even know there was such a thing as cryptozoology, but I love sci-fi movies from 50's :)
Interesting people are interested-
Wow... tho, admittedly I would have spent those two hours drinking and talking with your friends.🤷♂️
I gotta make sure my friend Ben Radford reads this. He’s a genuine expert on cryptozoology. Interesting.
I head to Murphysboro, Illinois Sunday. Back working with SIU Carbondale and NASA-TV to cover the eclipses again. We ultimately drive to Texas. I have been frantically preparing a paper binder of information. Can’t rely on electronics. Pilots must have their paper charts on every flight.
I saw the Big Muddy Monster on the cryptozoology chart and it is immensely popular now there. There was a case in 1973 where police saw the monster drawing international attention. The University of Chicago wrote, “Don’t bury it if you shoot it.” I was taken to the area where there are the most sightings in the 290,000 acres of forest at Shawnee. I shouted for it under a full Moon, but just heard myself nine times in the longest echo in the world. 🙄
Carl Sagan is a sublime: “Cleverly arranged...” 😊
https://murphysboro.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Big-Muddy-Monster-Merged-File.pdf