|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th February 2013, 11:49 AM | #1 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
Popular perception of what science is
I'm often disheartened at yet another piece of evidence that most people in our society don't have a clue what science actually is, although they don't hesitate to reap the benefits of what it has discovered. I had another one of those moments last night while watching "The Middle", one of my favorite sitcoms. Sure, it's just a sitcom, and I shouldn't take it seriously. It still made me a little ill.
In the episode, the daughter Sue was in a science class taught by a grumpy curmudgeon who was fed up with "kids today". He assigned the class a project whereby each student was to come up with a hypothesis and test it. Sue actually came up with a pretty good one: "Smiles are contagious." It's simple and fairly easy to test, although the controls that would be required aren't immediately obvious. However, when she told the teacher what she had chosen, he criticized her choice, saying she was unlikely to win the Nobel Prize for that. At the same time, he praised other students for having more sciency-sounding ideas. The rest of the episode showed her testing the hypothesis on various people, and finding that, in fact, smiling is not contagious. It was a pretty awfully designed test, but this is a high school student who has received zero guidance from her teacher, so I suppose it's understandable. In the end, she turned in her paper showing her findings. The show portrayed the teacher reading it silently with a voice-over of Sue saying that, although she hadn't been able to prove her hypothesis, she was never going to rest until she proved that smiling was contagious, because the world needs smiles, and science doesn't explain everything, and other maudlin crap. The paper was so moving that it melted the teacher's icy heart, and he smiled warmly as he read it. All I could think of was: WHAT A CRAPPY SCIENCE TEACHER. He had totally failed to teach her what science was about. The purpose of an experiment is not to prove your hypothesis right, it's to determine whether it is right or wrong. The idea that negative results should only push you to keep searching for something that clearly isn't there is why there is so much money wasted on woo, trying in vain to find some miniscule effect of ESP or ghosts or what have you. Anyway, now I'm bummed out. We live in a society of morons. My favorite show has been tainted by wooish writing. My plantar fascitis is acting up. Can anyone cheer me up? |
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
7th February 2013, 12:06 PM | #2 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
This is why I won't watch television (and why I'm not allowed to watch with others). I become so critical of the story's premise or moral that I feel compelled to insert a running commentary that generally concludes with the words "hell in a hand basket".
A friend of mine had once said "The world wants you to be stupid" and I have to agree. Certainly advertisers and politicians benefit from a total lack of critical thinking skills. Keeping viewers in a state where the only engagement with the program is emotional makes one more susceptible to both advertising messages and political demagoguery. Thinking takes a holiday, and I have grown to believe that there is a general push to make this so. I'm not certain that it is an active conspiracy but there is a definite feedback loop that would encourage this trend. Add to this that there is an actual effort in some circles to destroy science and create doubts as to it's effectiveness. So yeah, we're going to hell in a hand basket. |
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
7th February 2013, 01:37 PM | #3 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
The existance of a flamethrower means that somewhere, someone said to themselves "I'd really like to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done!"
Hey, hell has nothing to do with this one. The quickest route to hell involves actually starting to think. Besides, the handbaskets are comfy! |
7th February 2013, 04:23 PM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
To be fair, a LOT of scientists fall into exactly this trap. Just check into the plate tectonics arguments to see ample evidence of this (I'm avoiding Creationism because I want to emphasize that these were legitimate scientists committing the same error as the kid, essentially).
The science teacher should be shot. First and foremost, if your only interest in science is a Nobel Prize you're not going to produce good science. The best advice I've ever gotten in regards to science was "Go to your lab and do your work. Do it well." Famous people get press, but they're only possible because hoards of the rest of us are quietly toiling away behind them, providing them with the data necessary for their speculations. To be fair, most researchers fully acknowledge the debt they owe to the unsung scientists; but the notion that only Nobel-worth research is worth doing is insidious and deadly to science. I mean, for one thing some of the most practical fields simply cannot get Nobel prizes (ever hear of a Nobel prize for geology?). I also find it curious that she found smiles to not be contageous. Generally, people smiling tend to be in good moods, which tend to be transmitable.
Originally Posted by joesixpack
|
7th February 2013, 04:28 PM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
|
I don't know about smiles being contagious, but according to an article Cracked put up today smiles have something like a 10% chance of making people more charitable.
But I imagine the reason her findings showed otherwise was because they thought it would make a better plot to have her steadfastly refuse to give up her belief in the face of evidence. |
7th February 2013, 10:01 PM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,689
|
The worst thing about the show mentioned, is that smiling actually is contagious.
http://scienceblog.com/176/a-smile-r...is-contagious/ |
7th February 2013, 10:28 PM | #7 |
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
|
This version of what science is has been considered inaccurate for a least 50 years. Why do you insist on spreading falsehoods? To take classic example there's a fairly standard hypothesis as to the molecular shape of water (basicaly "V" shaped). However if you take raman spectrograph water it seems to indicate that water is linear. Do you therefore reject V shaped water? (in practice the issue is that two of the peaks in the raman spectrograph are basicaly on top of each other)
Quote:
In a more general sense giving up in the face of a single negative result is uncommon unless it makes it impossible to get further funding or the negative result reaches the standard of "impossible with regards to the most accepted laws of physics". |
7th February 2013, 10:34 PM | #8 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
Hey, at least the show mentioned science!
Mostly it seems that the public perception of science is that it's boring. |
8th February 2013, 10:14 AM | #9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,531
|
The way it's generally taught in school would give little reason to suspect otherwise, sadly. I don't mean to bash science teachers, I think it's a subject that would be hard to teach considering that the bulk of time a child spends in school is spent trying to force them to accept facts without question, and real science would run completely counter to that.
|
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon. |
|
8th February 2013, 11:09 AM | #10 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
This reminds me of when I did tech support at a call center, and people complained about having their calls routed ALL THE WAY to Texas, as if they were expected to walk that distance.
I kept my mouth shut, but I wanted to say, "How do you think I feel? You're too far away for me to punch you in the face." But thank you, that does cheer me up. |
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|