Hacker News Reader

Comment by mr_overalls | Hacker News Reader

Science journalism is generally just awful.

I seriously think that a major reason for the lack of public scientific literacy (I get an earful of anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family) is the lack of a competent institution for communicating these truths.

Outside of scientific journals, and the occasional pop-sci bestseller, the average person has to rely on university press releases, bloggers, and magazine writers - and they generally seem to be terrible at their jobs.

View on HN

> anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family

At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs which leads my family to dig in their heels, double down on their beliefs, and close their minds to accepting them.

I've made a lot of progress by instead showing how those things are not only not anti-religious topics, but quite the opposite - they bring us closer to the truth of how God accomplishes what he does. Once they feel that their core beliefs are not being threatened, but merely augmented, it's much easier to accept them.

Honestly, scientific literacy does jeopardize the "personal God" concept, and in particular obviously the Christian mythology. There are still plenty of christian scientists though, some more keen on the moral teaching and community aspect of the religion, some interpret the texts as non-literal (a tiny minority I presume cling to literal texts).

I mean, I'm all for more engagement and scientific literacy, but let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here; specially for the more hardline churches -- while catholicism in particular seems happy to transition its role (into important lessons and social support) and turn dogma into allegory.

let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here

Science and religion can get along just fine.

Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. "Cells" are named for the places where monks live. The Vatican has operated scientific observatories for centuries. There's even one in Arizona that makes important discoveries to this day.

The whole science vs. religion meme is something that the internet has amplified out of proportion by latching onto fringe groups and smaller denominations and holding them up as the only kind of religion that exists, creating artificial levels conflict to justify their position.

> Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests.

Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him).

But Lord help you if you apply the scientific standards of empirical rigor or explanatory parsimony to any topics further afield. Most obviously, there isn't a shred of evidence - none whatsoever - for the existence of a divine being along the lines of what's posited by the Abrahamic religions.

So I'll bite. I'm agnostic, which means that I firmly believe that we don't have such "scientific" evidence because it's impossible to obtain. Given the existence of an Abrahamic God, He would have invented everything we call "science". By definition, He lives outside of the universe where these observable effects take place.

I'll just copy-paste another comment I apparently made 4 years ago... (Time flies I guess!)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7899626

Of a particularly relevant note here is agnosticism [1], or the viewpoint that there are certain things that are simply unknowable to humans. The implication being that humans can neither confirm NOR deny the truth value of the statements. Metaphysical statements often fall into this category. And hence, you can also have agnostic theists [2] and agnostic atheists [3], who both recognize that they are taking a stance on an unknowable truth value. Some would then define this as the very essence of the word faith, but I would like to at least point out that both sides are subject to the same definition.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

> Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him).

There's a lot of people you can reasonably argue were murdered by the Catholic Church, but Galileo isn't one of them.

GP was probably thinking of Giordano Bruno... Galileo died of old age under house arrest after being convicted of heresy.

there isn't a shred of evidence

This isn't the place for a discussion about the details of religion, but I guess my response to this is, "So what?"

You may need evidence, but people who believe in God don't need evidence. To them, God exists whether there is evidence or not.

At one time there was no evidence that hydrogen existed, yet is was still there.

At one time there was no evidence that x-rays existed. But they were still there.

At one time there was no evidence of other galaxies or planets. But they still existed.

Something can exist without there being current scientific proof of it. That certain people can see beyond what is physically in front of them is called "faith."

My point is that an important scientific principle is that claims that are put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden is upon the claimant. (See Russell's Teapot).

Adopting this scientific principle basically undermines all religious thought. Why am I bringing this up? Because it underscores a deep epistemological and methodological differences between religion and science.

> At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs

This bludgeoning, historically, especially in the US, has gone almost entirely outward from Christian conservatives, though inventing fantasies of attacks on the Christian community has been a key mechanism the leaders within that community have used to rally their congregation into participation in the bludgeoning; the persecution complex of the most politically, economically, and socially powerful religious group in the nation is the result.

Let's also not forget that literal billions have been spent convincing people to reject evolution, climate change. It's a lot of marketing disguised in all sorts of different ways that has completely disrupted the public's support of scientific work.

Corporations benefiting from anti-science beliefs take advantage of less-educated constituents who find science to be harmful to their beliefs.

I don’t think science journalism is the reason why anti-science themes have evolved in the public mindset. Science used to be culturally important in the 50s as a way to understand truth, explore the world, improve life, and create industry. It’s since been challenged by both religion and industry via politicians for viewpoints that go against some of their desires. Politicians have since used it as a tool for dividing, reinforcing the anti-science climate. I don’t think it’s fair to blame journalists here.

> Science used to be culturally important in the 50s as a way to [beat the communists].

Fixed that for you

> Science journalism is generally just awful.

Not just science journalism. I've yet to see a journalist get a story 100% right where I knew the facts personally ahead of time. If you're lucky, they've just garbled people's names...

Yeah, I've noticed the same. There's also a lot of anti-biology from my left-wing friends.

The problem is also compounded by the fact that Wikipedia discourages primary sources in favor of shoddy reporting. It makes sense to reject self published scientific articles in favor of journal-published articles. But more often than not, modern media outlets just seem like a vector for adding political bias and inaccuracies by reporting on things they don't really understand.

This is clearly observed by right of center political figures who are labelled as neonazis and white suppremacists.

Objectivity is dead.

"Conservatives are anti-science": no downvote. "Liberals are anti-biology": downvote.

HN is funny...

Can you give some examples of liberals being anti-biology? That seems so far from even the common stereotypes of liberals that I'm genuinely not sure what you're talking about.

I'll add one more: the existence of a hereditary basis of intelligence.

https://www.nature.com/news/intelligence-research-should-not...

https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm...

There are some legitimate concerns there. However, given that the current Republican White House is outright censoring government science agencies on a large scale[1][2] when their results are politically inconvenient, it's pretty laughable to claim that leftists are the real science-haters.

This article was published before the 2016 election, so at the time it might have been merely naive, but I see that the author has a video from just a few months ago where he "explains that the real war on science is the one from the left." He is absolutely not arguing in good faith.

[1] http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tr... [2] http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/fws-...

This must be that whataboutism I've been hearing about. My greater point was that political extremists all across the spectrum have the bad habit of rejecting science when it conflicts with their dogma. The problem is amplified the more they are emotionally invested in an issue. A lot of people think its just "the other guys" that are guilty of it, partly due to selection bias, and partially due to just over-scrutinizing the other side in general.

Well known fact: no downvote. Transphobic dog-whistle: downvote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com