It’s time to stop blaming scientists for Americans’ opposition to science

August 31, 2015 • 9:45 am

From January’s National Geographic we have an article and a figure showing the disagreement between scientists and laypeople (U.S. adults) on a number of contentious topics related to science. The data come from two polls that surveyed 2,002 U.S. adults and 3,748 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), asking them, as the article notes, “identical questions about their views on scientific achievement, education, and controversial issues.”

Here’s a summary:

88209_990x742-cb1422551373.ngsversion.1429725603851.adapt.676.1

This isn’t much of a surprise, though the 51% gap about the safety of GMOs was larger than I expected. The good news is that half of the American public now accepts the scientifically uncontested fact that our species is warming up the planet. The bad news is that this is only half, and a substantial number of laypeople (and fewer scientists, though still to many) continue to favor more offshore drilling and more fracking. That, of course, just leads to more global warming.

Regarding evolution, the 65% figure that “humans have evolved over time” at first seems to contradict the most recent Gallup poll, shown below, which shows that only 19% of Americans think that humans evolved naturalistically. However, an additional 31% think that humans evolved, but that our evolution was guided by God—a stand that I see as a form of creationism, since it posits that human evolution involved divine intervention. The 31% and 19% add up to 50% who accept human evolution (be it God-guided or naturalistice), but that’s still 15% lower than the poll above. The disparity may reflect a difference in the way the question was asked.

qlkv1bjc1ewmyfp0xrqvhg

As usual with these articles, the National Geographic piece blames this opinion gap on—scientists, of course (my emphasis in the following):

On most other scientific matters, a widespread “opinion gap” splits the experts from everyday folks, pollsters at the Pew Research Center reported Thursday [Jan.]. The rift persists in long-running issues such as the causes of climate change and the safety of nuclear power. And it crops up in the news today in battles over outbreaks of measles tied to children who haven’t been vaccinated.

Scientists say this opinion gap points to shortcomings in their own skills at reaching out to the public and to deficits in science education. On the last point, at least, the public agrees, with majorities on both sides rating U.S. education as average at best.

[Alan Leshner, AAAS head] argues that scientists can better sway public opinion by making the case for science in smaller venues, such as retirement communities or library groups, instead of the traditional lecture hall. “It is important that the public understands that scientists are people too.”

While I appreciate the need for more and better science education—after all, I’ve spent my career teaching and writing popular science—it’s all too easy to pin the “acceptance gap” on scientists and teachers. Yet the poll described above was taken not of students, but of adults: adults who live in a culture where it’s dead easy to find information about evolution, vaccination, global warming, and GMOs. And if your response is that if one goes online, you find plenty of websites that tout creationism and global-warming denialism, so who’s to judge, well, is the public really so clueless that it doesn’t know to trust in reputable scientists rather than questionable websites?

We’re living in the age of Neil deGrasse Tyson, David Attenborough, Stephen Jay Gould, Genie Scott, Richard Dawkins, and hundreds of other people dedicated to informing the public about science. Can we really argue that we need to go to retirement communities and library groups to effect a sea change? I’ve done such things to promote evolution, and the results have been meager (this is why I prefer to write books, which people can digest and ponder).

It’s time to consider that political, ideological, and religious worldviews actually immunize people against science, and that trying to push science through cracks in those walls won’t work.  I’m fully convinced, for instance, that you can’t get Americans to accept evolution by simply teaching evolution. By the time that kids are old enough to learn about it, many of them have already been brainwashed to reject it by religious parents. If we want most Americans to accept evolution, as do most Europeans, we must loosen the grip of religion on society. (That, of course, may require, as Marx noted, eliminating the social conditions that promote religiosity.) After all, as I’ve shown before, there’s a strong negative correlation between the religiosity of a society. Here’s a figure and its caption from a paper I wrote three years ago in Evolution:

EVO_1664_f1
Figure 1. The correlation between belief in God and acceptance of human evolution among 34 countries. Acceptance of evolution is based on the survey of Miller et al. (2006), who asked people whether they agreed with the statement, “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” (Original data provided by J. D. Miller.) “Belief in God” comes from the Eurobarometer survey of 2005, except for data for Japan from (Zuckerman 2007) and for the United States from a Gallup Poll (2011b). “US” is the point for the United States. The correlation is −0.608 (P= 0.0001), the equation of the least-squares regression line is y= 81.47 − 0.33x.

The same holds for U.S. states: the top ten states whose residents most readily accept evolution are all among the least religious, while the bottom ten are the most religious. Here’s a figure I made from several sources. States are ranked from highest to lowest in the proportion of people accepting human evolution. Arrows show the ten least religious states (blue) and most religious states (red). (Date for the other 30 states weren’t available.) Note the lack of overlap:

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 8.21.02 AM

Anti-vaxers and anti-GMOs, too, are often motivated not by ignorance of the facts (which, after all, are readily available), but by what they want to believe. Sociological studies, particularly one done by Dan Kahan, have shown that ideology and “groupthink” are powerful immunizers against facts, and that those conservatives who are more aware of the scientific consensus on issues like evolution and global warming are in fact more resistant to accepting the consensus view! That itself implies that the problem isn’t ignorance of science, but ideological and religious immunization against science.

So, like Rod Serling, I’ll offer, for you consideration, this proposal: scientist are doing a damn good job promoting their findings and raising public awareness. Yes, many scientists don’t do “outreach,” and even those who do are sometimes bad at it. But America is awash in science: it’s not hard to find authorities like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention telling you about the safety of vaccines, or NASA giving the scientific consensus on global warming. Seek, and ye shall find.

It’s time to stop bashing scientists and teachers as the major cause of Americans’ resistance to the finding of science. That kind of masochism comes from the reluctance of scientists to call out people for their faith and politics. After all, it’s a hell of a lot easier to just beat our breasts and blame ourselves. But the fault, dear Americans, is not in our dearth of scientific stars, like Tyson and Dawkins, but in our faiths and ideologies.

A Woo Cruise—not a joke!

August 31, 2015 • 9:00 am

At first I thought this Conspira-Sea cruise, whose passengers are subjected to every form of woo and denialism that exists, was a joke, but it’s not. Click on the screenshot to go to the site:

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 8.42.00 AM

The topics (have they missed ANY woo?):

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 8.46.16 AM

And here are some of the “tentative speakers” (there are more!). Note the NDE survivors, global alchemists, and anti-vaxers.

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 8.44.39 AM

Is there any hope for America? My idea of hell would be being on this cruise for eternity.

h/t: Chris Rodley via Matthew Cobb

Readers’ wildlife photos

August 31, 2015 • 7:15 am

We have two batches of photos today. The first is from reader Pyers, who described these as “Macaques, taken on the Rock of Gibraltar a year or so back.”

These are in fact Barbary macaques, Macaca sylvanus, and according to Wikipedia were introduced by the Moors before the British took over the Rock in the early eighteenth century. They’re also the only wild population of monkeys in Europe (the article apparently exempts humans). Wikipedia also has a separate piece about the Gibraltar colony, describing how they were considered adjunct members of the British Army, were given names and ranks, and were subject to roll call. About 300 animals now inhabit the area.

cute
monkey1

monkey4

monkey5

And reader Michael Bonagurio sent some nice photos that he took in the Official Website Archipelago™:

Galápagos AlbatrossPhoebastria irrorata:

IMG_0238

Sally Lightfoot Crab, Grapsus grapsus. Here’s John Steinbeck’s description in his wonderful book The Log from the Sea of Cortez:

Many people have spoken at length of the Sally Lightfoots. In fact, everyone who has seen them has been delighted with them. The very name they are called by reflects the delight of the name. These little crabs, with brilliant cloisonné carapaces, walk on their tiptoes, They have remarkable eyes and an extremely fast reaction time. In spite of the fact that they swarm on the rocks at the Cape [San Lucas], and to a less degree inside the Gulf [of California], they are exceedingly hard to catch. They seem to be able to run in any of four directions; but more than this, perhaps because of their rapid reaction time, they appear to read the mind of their hunter. They escape the long-handled net, anticipating from what direction it is coming. If you walk slowly, they move slowly ahead of you in droves. If you hurry, they hurry. When you plunge at them, they seem to disappear in a puff of blue smoke—at any rate, they disappear. It is impossible to creep up on them. They are very beautiful, with clear brilliant colors, red and blues and warm browns.

IMG_0155

Marine Iguana (in nest with eggs), Amblyrhynchus cristatus:

IMG_0167

Galápagos Hawk, Buteo galapagoensis:

IMG_0200

Trio of Marine Iguana:

IMG_0203

 

Monday: Hili dialogue

August 31, 2015 • 6:30 am

Yes, it’s Monday, and here in Chicago the heat is going to return this week (in the nineties Fahrenheit)—the last gasp of summer before the chill of fall and icy onset of winter. And yes, spring can be far behind. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Cyrus are somnolent, and cuddled together on the couch.

Hili: What’s the day today?
Cyrus: Monday.
Hili: We should probably be doing something.

P1030305

In Polish:
Hili: Jaki mamy dziś dzień?
Cyrus: Poniedziałek.
Hili: Chyba trzeba coś zrobić.

An atheist joke

August 30, 2015 • 2:30 pm

There’s not much doing today (though we’ll have some science this week), but here’s a pretty good atheist joke sent by reader Glenn.

An atheist was walking through the woods.
‘What majestic trees!”What powerful rivers!’
‘What beautiful animals!’
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.
He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.
He tripped and fell on the ground.
He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him…
At that instant the Atheist cried out,
‘Oh my God!’
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.
“You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don’t exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?
Am I to count you as a believer?”
The atheist looked directly into the light. “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?”
“Very well,” said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:
“For what I am about to receive, may the Lord make me truly thankful, Amen.”

We’ll be here all week, folks. You got any atheist jokes?

“Last Dance”

August 30, 2015 • 1:15 pm

I’m feeling disco-ish today, so let’s have one of the great disco songs of all time, here in a terrific live performance by Donna Summer, who of course made it famous. Her real name was LaDonna Adrian Gaines, and she died in 2012 of lung cancer. She was only 63.

“Last Dance” nabbed both a Grammy and the Academy Award for Best Song in 1978, for it was in the movie “Thank God It’s Friday.” Wikipedia adds this:

“Last Dance” was one of the first disco songs to also feature slow tempo parts: it starts off as a ballad; the full-length version on the film soundtrack also has a slow part in the middle. This part was edited out for the 7″. The versions found on most greatest hits packages is either the original 7″ edit (3:21) or the slightly longer and remixed version from the 1979 compilation On The Radio: Greatest Hits Volumes 1 & 2 (4:56). “Last Dance” started a trend for Summer as some of her following hits also had a ballad-like intro before speeding up the tempo. Her other hits of this tempo format include “On the Radio”; “No More Tears (Enough is Enough)”, a duet with Barbra Streisand; “Dim All the Lights”; and a song written by and duetted with Paul Jabara called “Foggy Day/Never Lose Your Sense Of Humor”, from his album “The Third Album”.

Here’s Summer with her long-time producer Georgio Moroder, who also produced “Last Dance”. I love this photo; it’s so. . . Seventies.

donna-summer-new-album-single-track-2012-breast-cancer-death-last-days-14

Gender-neutral pronouns come to campus

August 30, 2015 • 12:00 pm

As Steve Pinker discusses in his new book, The Sense of Style, the use of “his” or “her” when writing about general situations can be tricky. For example, using only the masculine form in sentences like “A scientist shouldn’t invariably put his name on papers that come from his lab,” does marginalize women, and I can see how that would irritate the many women who are scientists—or readers. Times have changed, and it’s a form of sexism to always use “his”, which ignores half the population.

My own solution has been to alternate between “him” and “her” or “his” and “hers”, so that nobody gets left out. Or you can use “his/her”  or “his or her”, but that is a bit awkward.  But for many that’s still not a good solution, as it leaves out people who don’t identify as either male or female. Granted, that’s a small minority of people, but the “his/her” dichotomy does bother those who want to recognize that—although there is a strong bimodality of those who identify as male or female—there are some people in the dip between the peaks.

What has happened is that a variety of alternative pronouns have arisen that are gender-neutral, like “xe” and “hir” instead of “he/she” or “him/her.”  And this usage has now come to campus, at least in Tennessee. As WATE, the ABC station in Knoxville reports, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville is encouraging students and faculty to change the pronouns to neutral forms:

The University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion is asking students and faculty to use the pronouns in order to create a more inclusive campus. They say it alleviates a heavy burden for people expressing different genders or identities.

“We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems,” Donna Braquet, the director of the University of Tennessee’s Pride Center said. “Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”

For the first week of classes, Braquet is also asking teachers to ask everyone to provide their name and pronoun instead of calling roll. “The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses,” ze said.

“These may sound a little funny at first, but only because they are new,” Braquet said. “The she and he pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ze when growing up.”

Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,” ze said.

Here’s the chart of guidelines (this is not a requirement or an official policy) given to UT faculty and students:

gender-pronouns

I don’t have strong feelings about this one way or the other, except to say that I don’t think it will work given the tenacity of current usage, and that it seems awkward to ask someone when you meet them what their preferred pronoun is. The vast majority of the time you’ll just get the conventional answer. My own feeling is to wait until someone tells you that they don’t want you to use the word you thought was appropriate—and, as ever, to be sensitive when writing or speaking to not stick to just one of the “he” or “she” usages.

But because Pinker has pondered this issue, I asked him what he thought of the Tennessee guidelines, and received the following response, which I reproduce with permission (note that Pinker emails are always perfectly written):

I did write about gendered pronouns in The Sense of Style, including mention of the dozens of gender-neutral pronouns that have been floated over the course of more than a century. Not surprisingly, none of them caught on. In general it’s difficult for anyone to engineer linguistic change other than governments, or professional societies within their publications, partly because it’s difficult to get hundreds of millions of people to do what you want, but  also because conventions require “common knowledge” – everyone has to know that everyone else knows that everyone else knows … ad infinitum, that the new convention will be followed (see the attached paper, whose intro also makes some seldom-appreciated points about the evolution of cooperation – biologists tend to conflate it with the evolution of altruism, but there are important evolutionary puzzles in the evolution of mutualistic, win-win cooperation as well). Sometimes there are unpredictable tipping points, as with fashion, in which some public figure or movement creates a critical mass, as in the switch from Mrs. and Miss to Ms. (though even here Google ngrams shows that Mrs. and Miss are going strong), and Black to African American. But it’s far tougher to change “functional” or “grammatical” or “closed-class” morphemes such as pronouns than it is to change common nouns; these small words are embedded with the grammatical infrastructure of a language, are acquired early, change slowly over history, and even may be represented in different parts of the brain.

Steve then looked up the usage of “Miss”, “Mrs.”, and “Ms.” over the last century by tracking usage among all Google books online. The figure gives the percentage of total words that fall into these three classes between 1900 and 2000.

Screen Shot 2015-08-29 at 11.57.36 AMSteve noted:

I was surprised by this – not by the trend, which is common sense, but the fact that “Mrs.” and “Miss” are still going strong, and dominating “Miss.” Changing a pronoun would be orders of magnitude more difficult.

And he added this caveat:

The hits for the text string “Miss” could include other senses such as “Miss you!” and other instances in which it’s upper case.

This effort then, well intentioned as it is, is likely doomed to failure. However, readers should feel free to note below what they think of the recent push towards gender-neutral pronouns.

Esquire’s debunking of the “Proof of Heaven” doctor is again available for free

August 30, 2015 • 9:45 am

This is just a note to let readers know that Luke Dittrich’s critique of Eben Alexander’s “proof of heaven” experience (and book) is back online at Esquire, and is no longer behind a paywall. For a while you had to pay to see it, which, given its importance, was annoying.

You may recall that Dittrich wrote a devastating piece (“The Prophet”), showing that neurosurgeon Eben Alexander’s “visit to heaven,” which supposedly occurred when his brain was nonfunctional during a coma produced by bacterial meningitis, was deeply dubious, and that Alexander also had a history of shady behavior.  I wrote about Dittrich’s piece, and about Alexander’s undeserved acclaim, in January of last year.

Nevertheless, Alexander’s book, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlifewas a huge success, topping the New York Times‘s bestseller list for months, and ultimately selling more than two million copies (that translates into several million dollars for the author). Despite the fact that the book was pure bunk, its sales are a prime example of religious confirmation bias: people love books about visiting Heaven because it confirms what they want to believe. (Take note: if people didn’t really believe in Heaven as an actual prize they’d win for living a pious life, they wouldn’t seek this kind of confirmation. So much for the notion that religious belief is a form of “quasifictional credence”—something that believers don’t really believe in the same way they believe that Paris is in France.) And now it looks as if Proof of Heaven will become a Universal Pictures movie. 

I’ve gone on too long, but Dittrich’s piece, now free, is well worth reading, and a lesson in both the credulity of the public and the diligence of a reporter who seeks the truth as a ferret seeks a rabbit. It is a Professor Ceiling Cat Reading Recommendation.™

When rereading Dittrich’s piece, I came upon a subsequent (and short) piece he wrote giving his feelings about the “takedown”, a piece called “The Prophet, revisited.” Dittrich doesn’t want to be known as a debunker, but simply as a thorough reporter, and he said the following:

. . . The contours of the story I was working on were already clear. I’d already gathered more than a thousand pages of documents from four courts in two states, and had spoken with a host of Alexander’s former colleagues and friends. My reporting was beginning to make it pretty clear that Alexander’s bestselling book, Proof of Heaven, was a stew of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions. But that wedding gift, sitting there heavy as a brick, weighed on me. It was a reminder that Eben Alexander wasn’t just a character in a story. He was real. You could almost call him a family friend. And this article I was working on, well, it didn’t look like it was going to be a friendly one.

There’s no good way to resolve that sort of tension.

I could lean on a creaky old excuse: The ends justify the means. Over the past few millennia, many people have invested much faith and money in self-styled prophets who come bearing fresh revelations from God. When a new one emerges, shouldn’t his claims be subject to a rigorous fact-check, even if my grandfather knew his father?

In the end, though, I don’t claim to be a crusader, or even a debunker. I actually have very mixed feelings when people refer to this profile of Eben Alexander as a “takedown piece.” That implies a sort of gratuitous and single-minded intent that wasn’t there. To me, this profile isn’t all that different from other profiles I’ve done.

Which is to say, I piled up as much information as I could about the person I was profiling, then sifted through it, looking for the storyline hidden inside. In the case of Eben Alexander, it just happened to turn out that the most compelling storyline I found was the way the tale he’s been preaching doesn’t appear to match up with reality.

And that’s the case with all of these best-selling “I visited Heaven” stories. None of them have stood up to examination, and that’s beside the observation that different people describe Heaven in very different ways.

Other criticism of Alexander’s tale is documented on Wikipedia, including statements by Sam Harris as well as by the late Oliver Sacks, who wrote this in The Atlantic:

Alexander insists that his journey, which subjectively lasted for days, could not have occurred except while he was deep in coma. But we know from the experience of Tony Cicoria and many others, that a hallucinatory journey to the bright light and beyond, a full-blown NDE, can occur in 20 or 30 seconds, even though it seems to last much longer. Subjectively, during such a crisis, the very concept of time may seem variable or meaningless. The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander’s case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.

To deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific — it is antiscientific. It precludes the scientific investigation of such states.

But, as they say, Alexander is crying all the way to the bank.

proof_of_heaven_rect

Finally, if you lack integrity, there’s a sure way to get rich. Simply engineer a near-death experience and then write a book that gives details about how you visited Heaven. If any topic guarantees a best-selling book, and lots of dosh, that one is it.