Understanding Science…Not Entirely

January 21st, 2009

So I saw a story about a new educational website run out of Berkeley called Understanding Science.

I’m very supportive of such things in general, and I like a lot of things on the site.

Unfortunately — you what is coming by now, don’t you? — there’s some politically correct biased rubbish in there as well that may or may not be fair.   I think not, in general.   Let’s look at the misconceptions page that lists items in a number of categories.   I’ll add my commentary beside some of them in italics with some criticisms.   I’ll hit bold too when I have a real issue with the “misconception.”

Misinterpretations of the scientific process

Misunderstandings of the limits of science

  • Science contradicts the existence of God. This seems really stupid to bring in to me, at least without providing an appropriate scientific perspective.   Science doesn’t address the supernatural, but it can certainly test some supernatural claims and has never found convincing evidence for the miracles espoused by leading world religions.   A very sizable majority of the top scientists (National Academy of Scientists) are not religious.   Religion is an irrational belief that is contrary to scientific thinking.   Science simply doesn’t have anything to say about religion except when religion oversteps its claims, and then religion has been consistently been found wrong (e.g., age of the Earth, effectiveness of prayer, faith healing, etc.).   This is bogus P.C. B.S. in my opinion and should be deleted from the page in this form.   Science simply finds no support for God, and does contradict many claims of the ridiculous.
  • Science and technology can solve all our problems. Well, I’m a technological optimist.   I think there’s a certain class of problem that science/technology can always solve, or improve.   The example of HIV is a poor one, I think.   It’s so narrowly defined that I have no doubt future tech can solve it, if only in a brute force way with tailored nanotech that is on the horizon now.   Problems like “What is the purpose of life?” or “Why is there evil in the world?” are perhaps problems science can’t solve.   But appeals to the supernatural have failed also, in my opinion, so let’s not run there.

Misleading stereotypes of scientists

Vocabulary mix-ups Good to have here.

Roadblocks to learning science

Overall I am happy there are things like this out there and will likely link to this and similar sites when I teach non-majors introductory astronomy or physics.     I just hate to see someone’s political correctness or biases twist things to appease the irrational and make things a little too ideal.   Personally I’d axe or edit the items I commented on in bold, and be a bit more honest about a couple of others.   We could use more diversity in the scientific endeavor, but we also shouldn’t lie about things.   Intelligent design and astrology are irrational beliefs, not science, and science doesn’t have much patience for them.   Most conventional religion isn’t far from these at their roots, and aren’t in perfect harmony with science.   I have no problem with people who have reasonable ethical systems and like the community and benefits of faith, but the miraculous apparitions, the end times, resurrections, and heavenly visions are really not happening by any objective measure.   If you can’t measure it, it isn’t science and no one else should take it seriously.

Share/Bookmark

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.