"Is Science Making Us More Ignorant?"

[jlew]

I was going through the back issues of Skeptical Inquirer at my local library when I came across this article:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/science.html

(If, for whatever reasons, you cannot bring this link up, it is entitled "Science and the Public: Is Science Making Us More Ignorant?" by Austin Dacey, Ph.D. Its from the November/December 2004 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, pp 35-39. My discussion of this article will be based upon my assumption that you can see it.)

I usually enjoy reading SI for its defense of science and reason, but this article gave me pause. The beginning of it, with its bemoaning of science's knocking the supports out from under the public's "cultural understanding" (a phrase never quite nailed down with a definition by the good doctor), is bad enough. But the further along I went, the more the whole thing reminded me of something Dr. Stadler's State Science Institute might have released. Especially the lines:

Where Vannenar Bush feared the meddling fingers of short-sighted bureaucrats, today, it is the market’s invisible hands that are bending science into a narrowly utilitarian shape. Surely, any sensible knowledge economy must provide incentives to private interests to invest in innovative science and technology. But these incentives must be weighed against the great public interest in free and open basic science. Its flourishing will require a new commitment of public support, a new contract between science and society.

(Itlaics mine.)

I must confess that I have only a rudimentary scientific education. When I wade into the waters of this end of the Objectivism Online pool, it is with all my energy that I maintain to keep my head dry. While most of you are breaststroking forward, I am puttering along with my rendition of the doggie paddle. And even then I tend to swallow more of the wet stuff then shove aside.

But I have a great respect for science and an even greater respect for scientists, and this article disturbed me. Dr. Dacey speaks of "bridging science and culture", but I honestly don't know what he means. Does he want scientists to make more of an effort to bring their findings to the public? No. Dr. Dacey says that "[t]he subject of science and the public is realted to, but distinct from, the subject of public science literacy." So what does he want?

Well, in the end he wants what Dr. Stadler wanted:

...the field of science and the public could play an important role in securing public support for science. The architects of twentieth-century American science policy saw that basic scientific research would require public—i.e., governmental—support...In 1945, President Roosevelt commissioned a report that would come to structure American science policy for the next fifty years. Science: The Endless Frontier, authored by Carnegie Institution president and electrical engineer Vannenar Bush, made the case for securing government funding for “basic research” (by which he meant research guided by theoretical rather than practical considerations)...The report led to the creation of the National Science Foundation five years later.

(Italics mine.)

I was impressed by Dr. Dacey's ability to jump from "science is making us more ignorant" to "public science will save us." The members of Cirque du Soleil couldn't have been more flexible. It seems as though what Dr. Dacey wants more than anything is a science lobby, a group of pocket-protector wearing thugs that will wring the money needed from federal coffers.

Or am I just reading this wrong? Have any of you encountered anything like this in your travels? What is it that these people want?

[punk]

What I am getting out of this is a conflict between two basic issues:

1. Science as something which brings about material progress

2. Science as something which tells us about ourselves and our place in the universe

There is a definite interest in 2. Without 2, we would still all be demon-fearing superstitious medieval peons. Science liberates people from superstition. This is a very important (and ongoing) task. There are still superstitions to dispel in the pursuit if a more rational society.

I think the interest in 1 is obvious.

The question is whether the pursuit of better and better technologies has stopped the dispelling of superstitions (or worse, resulted in some sort of regression).

Society clearly has an interest in the pursuit of 2, and the dissemination of reason as a result. Business doesn't really have an incentive to produce 2 in addition to 1. The question is whether this happens automatically or it needs to be encouraged from the outside.

My inclination is to say 2 is a natural by-product of 1, and doesn't need encouragement as the sale of popular science books shows.

[Betsy]

What I am getting out of this is a conflict between two basic issues:

1.  Science as something which brings about material progress

2.  Science as something which tells us about ourselves and our place in the universe

Why is this a "conflict?"

Different individuals have different personal goals. Some men are motivated by basic curiosity about the world and some by a practical desire to profit by selling technology. In a free market they can both profit by dealing with each other. The businessman hires the scientist to do research, the scientist seeks venture capital to exploit his latest discovery, etc.

Society clearly has an interest in the pursuit of 2, and the dissemination of reason as a result. Business doesn't really have an incentive to produce 2 in addition to 1. The question is whether this happens automatically or it needs to be encouraged from the outside.

The reason you see a "conflict" is that you are setting it up that way: society vs. some individuals (businessmen). In fact, "society" is just a collection of individuals and those individuals must be left free to pursue their interests alone or by voluntary exchanges with each other -- without the "outside encouragement" of those who would presume to speak for "society."

[punk]

I guess I didn't say it clearly, but what I intended was that that was the perceived conflict that was at the heart of the quotes.