Very interesting and well written discussion of science and blogging. It touches on all sorts of issues ranging from what the majority of blogs are about up through the current massive shift in how science is distributed and done in the world. I suspect most of us who have at least some connection to science have thought similiar thoughts before - especially given the significant decrease in foreigners coming to the United States to study science along with decreases in science funding. (That was a big topic of discussion with my family over the holidays) The post is from this month's Tangled Web, a "best of" collection of the months science blogging. (It's a tad biased towards biology and medicine, but still gets other stuff ocassionally)
Nice links, Clark. I think he's right about the emergence of "expert blogs." Successful blogs require a steady stream of good content -- well written stuff that is actually interesting enough or relevant enough for people with a specific interest to read on a regular or semi-regular basis. "Expert" is too strong a term, but the groups I see that are able, by and large, to supply steady content worth reading are professors, scientists, lawyers, and journalists. I think, however, he underestimates the role and future of group blogs, communities that gather around a topic and use a blog as a forum of discussion and communication, with varying degrees of expertise by contributors.
I'm still at a loss why otherwise bright people cannot make the connection between the declining status of science in society (translation: declining science funding) and the elitist, dismissive attitude that scientists take toward those providing the funding -- legislators and average citizen-taxpayers, who they invariably classify as fools and idiots if they don't share the "science is wonderful and deserves lots of money" policy espoused by those receiving the funding. When it comes to policy discussions and seeing (or not seeing) alternative perspectives, the folks at Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula (both blogs I enjoy visiting from time to time) are as dogmatic as the religious hicks they enjoy stereotyping and ridiculing. Is it any wonder they have lost some of the public support they once enjoyed?
That's actually an excellent point, that Chris over at Mixing Memory touched upon. (Minus the bit about funding) I think many scientists are amazingly naive in thinking it is just obvious to everyone that they deserve money. I think science funding is amazingly important for a wide range of reasons. But scientists tend to do a terribly poor job of communicating it to the public.
Probably a great parallel can be found in Biblical archaeology. Archaeologists in their writings from the 50's - 90's kept slamming believers. Now often the dichotomy between naive beliefs and the archaeological record were justified. Just as often it was an issue of interpretation and ways in which secular scientists interpreted data. Regardless of whether justified or not, a lot of those believers stopped funding a lot of research and the archaeologists lost.
I think the lesson isn't that one ought to improperly deny the scientific method or honesty. Rather it is that scientists and the like need to do a better job explaining information in a non-confrontational way. When assertions conflict with science they really need to do a better job.
Now I clearly believe in evolution, but the way it is often taught really is amazingly poor and simply neglects that fact people come with pre-existing beliefs. No wonder so many people make it out of college still not really believing evolution.
Yes, there are several hurdles to teaching evolution well at the high school level that contribute to the frustration felt by university biologists. Physics and chemistry are often well taught at high school, equipping students to build on that foundation in college. But evolution is just a much trickier and more involved principle; it's really more a way of thinking than a scientific fact, and teaching an elevated way of thinking about a subject is beyond the capability of most high schools (so philosophy, evolution, economics, and statistics, disciplines with strongly paradigmatic ways of thinking, are not well taught at the high school level).
Say -- have you checked your email lately, Clark?
Yes, didn't you get my reply? I'm unfortunately pre-committed elsewhere.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble