Hello GL, like your new picture - cute but menacing... What is the 'clash' these days? - surely the religious understand the world, but see a different level perhaps....
You seem to frame the question in a way I hadn't considered before. I guess it all depends on how one defines "understanding" the world. It does seem a lot more common these days to see thinking people on both sides accepting that there is a common, nonexclusive, ground. Still, I seem to see the same old clash often playing out the same as ever, people who put themselves into a camp that holds things can ultimately be "explained" by continual development scientific method and theory, and those who hold that there is a limit beyond which scientific method and theory cannot go. I personally don't experience such a clash, and perhaps I am presuming too much to say that others do experience it, but it certainly seems to all too often play out that way, religious fundamentalists vs. scientific technocrats. What I like about Watts' statement is the idea that both approaches are simply different ways of framing the same question, "what's it all about?", with neither necessarily excluding the other.
I like the idea that science tells us what the world is made of and religion tells us how to live our lives. My personal take is that science gives us data and religion/spirituality gives us wisdom.
If anyone here was simply asked if they trust scientists to do what is right by the public, I should hope they would find that a hard question to answer in binary terms. I can't get over the fact that the framing of these analyses seems designed to divide people even more. A political correlation could merely indicate a personality trend—but that's not even entertained by these publishers. This is narrative-steering. Regardless, ethics vary from individual to individual. Why does Elon Musk's allegedly cruel Neuralink animal testing not besmirch all of science, for example? Or the opioid crisis, a disaster across pharmaceutical and medical disciplines? These are modern examples of how actors with (especially the latter's with official oversight) can still do things that certainly don't align with the interests of the public. It of course doesn't mean your doctor is trying to kill you by suggesting cardio. The emphasis should be on isolating these opinions, not broadening them. I've got a better idea. They totally need to put me in charge of... science at this point. The questions to ask are: 1. Has you trust in the scientific community changed over the last half decade and in what way? 2. If yes to q. 1, why? 3. What, if anything, would increase your trust in the scientific community? I would also like to see a series of questions (strongly disagree to strongly agree) asking about trust in particular fields of science. Do people trust geologists more than biologists? It would help guide understanding for everyone involved.
All hail our newly and unanimously elected Chief Science Officer @Not the Territory. Let's offer our deference in the traditional manner, with criticism (I'm Irish, first item on most newly formed organisations around here is The Split). I'd add a couple of questions to your poll, like:4. if your answer to q1 is no, then why?; 5. what, if anything, would decrease your trust in the scientific community? I agree that distrust of Science isn't necessarily a blanket distrust of the entirety of scientific thought/method/purpose/other things. Just because I trust my doctor doesn't mean I hold the pharma industry in the same regard, even if they're interlinked. Also, if entirely anecdotal, my doctor retired and I'm not so sure about those currently operating the practice. Trust must be earned and, when lost, it's hard to reclaim. There are scientists who've damaged the reputation of their disciplines and that can extend to their colleagues until they prove otherwise. I also agree that belief in Science does not preclude belief in Religion. Science is better at "how" questions, not so strong on "why". At different points in life, people are asking different questions. It's not necessary to discard the "how" when trying to understand the "why". This might not make sense. 2+2=4, we all agree, at least at purely theoretical level. Useful when balancing the weekly budget. But consider that 2 apples and 2 oranges=4 fruit. The addition of data becomes transformative. The bigger the range of additional data, the more complex the equation and the more dispute there is regarding analysis and understanding. All of which can expose the limitations of "how" and steer us more towards "why". Creationists, I'd suggest, recognise the limitations of the scientific method at the outer edge, then extend that deficit through the whole process, right back to its starting point. They're not all stupid and unthinking, just asking different questions. And the last thing I thought I'd be doing is defending creationists!
Both extremes of the political spectrum resist science—the right when it conflicts with their religion and the left because they use a twisted and cherry-picked version of science to push their political agenda. Also note—anyone who raises even a hint of scepticism about what the far left calls 'science' is immediately labeled a far-right extremist—no scepticism allowed or accepted. Anyone who sees only the political extremes can't be taken seriously when they talk about science. They fail to address the fact that most people raising questions are from moderate parts of the political spectrum or altogether non-political.
The reasons why there has been a decrease in trust in science is an issue to be studied. A survey may be a place to start, but I don’t think it can give you the whole picture. So, if we look at the last few years, what stands out? The vast amounts of misinformation and disinformation fed to a public for whom science may be somewhat of a mystery. As an example, https://www.aamc.org/news/why-do-so-many-americans-distrust-science Add to that a media environment that “rewards outrage and outlandishness.” So how do we respond? Well, increasing scientific literacy is a must. Make science less of a mystery. If I had my way, there would be a mandatory senior science course entitled “Science Today” and it would tackle head-on all the issues we face today in our science and technology-driven society. And beyond education, let’s bring science to the people. Combat misinformation with reliable information. Establish relationships between scientists and communities. Here’s what the American Association for the Advancement of Science is doing: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/why-we-must-rebuild-trust-in-science And we need more people like Neil deGrasse Tyson. “For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Yes, including and especially that coming from the government and media. Remember when it was not allowed to suggest Covid might have come from a lab, and the official story was it came from a wet market? Oops. Looks like government/media censorship can serve to hide inconvenient truths rather than promote scientific inquiry. It's open public inquiry and debate that promotes a path to the truth, not censorship. Agreed. We must fact-check the so-called fact checkers. A free country with free speech, not Soviet-style censorship. He was awesome before he became a shill. And still is when he confines himself to his area of expertise. But for the most part he's become another clown pushing a political agenda.
That's a pretty serious accusation. To whom do you think he sold out? Contradicting yourself, there. It's funny how with people we disagree their opinions become "agendas." What would you say is his "political agenda?" Anyway, I'm going to find out for myself. I've just downloaded his book, the one about which I had read he did get political—though not partisan—and I figure I am in for a most enlightening read. Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization
I did not contradict myself. Did I say he's never allowed to talk about anything but astrophysics now? I said he's good when he keeps to his domain and not when he wanders outside of it. I don't plan to spend a lot of time justifying myself to you. A lot of people feel the same about Tyson as I do. The ones who don't tend to be left-wingers who agree with his politics. I haven't read any of his books, I'm talking about videos I've seen of his interviews and public appearances.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but at least half that list of "discoveries" are actually inventions. It's not like Werner von Braun was out for a walk one day, came across something and said "Ach! Das ist ein Saturn V rakete! Jawohl, Heil Hitler!"
I, too, will try and change the subject. This might be my favourite youtuber. In this video, he explains the simple yet brilliant design of standard hot water tanks. Two elements, but only one is on at a time! Why? It's neat.
Four interesting articles about the solar eclipse from IFLScience. (The IFL stand for "I fucking love") Why Are There So Many Emergency Warnings About This Year's Total Solar Eclipse? Schools are closing and people have been asked to stock up on food, water, and fuel. How To Best Photograph The Upcoming Solar Eclipse Don’t spend the whole time faffing about! Next Month's Total Solar Eclipse Could Come With Rare Bright Pink Streamers When it comes to eclipses, this one really has the lot. When The Solar Eclipse Is Reaching Totality, You Should See The Rare "Baily's Beads" Just shortly before totality, the curious light effect will take place.
First Eclipse report I think I missed full totality, or it didn't quite reach full here. I was expecting it to happen between 2 and 3 o'clock, so I was going to head outside around 2:15 or so and wait for it in the back yard (like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin in a pumpkin patch). Just before 2 I went out to put some food in the catfood bowl I keep on my front porch, and the second I looked out the little window I noticed the light looked really weird. It was really dark. My neighbor's two cats were sitting there waiting for some food, and they looked a little freaked out (though I might have projected that onto them). So after feeding them I grabbed my spectacles and went down into the back yard. The sun was a fingernail-sliver, visible on the upper left side of the moon. I rubbed my hands in anticipation, and every few minutes I'd put the glasses back on and check it again. I couldn't tell if it was getting smaller or bigger, but it slid around from the upper left to the lower right over a period of maybe 15 minutes or a little more. At no point did it get as dark as night—more like evening I'd say. After a while it became clear the sun was getting brighter again. I think the darkest point was when I first went out to feed the cats. It's possible that was the full eclipse (as full as it got here), or maybe it was moments before that and I missed it. But it seems to me the darkest part would be between when the sun was on the upper left and the lower right of the moon. So probably I'm not dead-center on the path, I might be off enough so we never got full dark here. I tried to get the photographic equipment needed to take some decent pics, but one piece wouldn't have arrived until like tomorrow. That was the filter. The 600-power zoom lens (that I managed to find at a suprisingly good price) would have come in yesterday. So instead I'll just find and download some good photos and videos to remember it by. I probably wouldn't have had enough time to test my techniques and get all the kinks ironed out anyway, and would have fumbled through the event.
This is about how it looked when I first saw it: But the moon was bigger—this must be from an earlier eclipse when the moon was farther out and visually smaller. Then a few minutes later it was the opposite—the lower right side was visible.
I had some people over today to experience the eclipse. I have two acres of lawn behind the house so we had a broad sky for witnessing the change of light. We sat around the fire pit, and hoped the cloud covering would thin. And it did. We started to see glimpses of the sun partially covered between 2:30 and 3:20. The light took on a twilight illumination. Then, around 3:20, it turned as dark as night, a midnight darkness, and we got on our feet and hooped and hollered, and gazed with wonder. It was freaky, it was mystical, it was magical. We saw the red beads of light on the sun. We saw totality. And I could imagine how medieval people would ascribe meaning to it. It’s really something I will remember forever.
I talked to the cashier at the store who had seen the whole thing, and she said it never got fully dark, it was more like "a rain storm." So I guess I did see the whole thing, we just are off-center enough to not get full totality.
Pardon me, but ... I don't get it. A rainstorm means dark clouds, heavy rain, and strong winds. The pictures of the eclipse I saw on the news look nothing like that. Also, what's the difference between a rainstorm and just a "storm"? Or does the word "storm" mean any kind of storm (i.e. thunderstorm, firestorm, hailstorm, blizzard, dust devils etc.)?
Meaning that level of midday darkness. It was 99% totality in my area so it never got completely dark but Close like a storm had blown through.
Are you by any chance thinking of Storm by Tim Minchin, Casper? That's one of the messages Tim delivers -- and hilariously, too!
Like Homer said, she was referring to the relative darkness of a rainstorm. My own words were that it was more like evening than full night.
