Tag: Anti-Science

Science, Science communication5 Comments

Wrong Kind of Snow: time to forget the Two Cultures

Literacy of the Present

There should be a version of Godwin’s law that applies to science communication. It would be something like this: “As any discussion of science communication grows longer, the probability of an explanation involving Snow’s Two Cultures approaches 1.” As with Godwin’s original law which highlighted the danger of overusing Nazi analogies in discussion, so too the inevitable referencing of the Two Cultures can be a substitute for a poor argument undermining it’s credibility. The law can be extended beyond science communication to any discussion of science’s relationship with anything that is regarded as not-science eg science and the arts, science … Continue reading Wrong Kind of Snow: time to forget the Two Cultures

Critical Understanding, Science, Science communication1 Comment

More than the echo, part 5: user-generated science

Literacy of the Present

Thirty years ago I called it the “zero option”. Today I think of it as “more than the echo”. In the early days of my PhD research I settled upon a particular modus operandi: to look for science in what was popular, not popularity in what was science. It seemed like a useful guiding principle, reversing what I saw as the traditional perspective on popular science. To understand popular science, I argued, we need to understand the popular culture of which it is part (ie in which it is produced, consumed and circulated). This immediately raised the question: what if … Continue reading More than the echo, part 5: user-generated science

Critical Understanding, Science24 Comments

Science and “mere opinion”: a dilemma wrapped in an irony

Literacy of the Present

The call for evidenced-based policy is a dilemma wrapped in an irony. I’m not sure if it is necessarily like that but it seems that way on the evidence so far. It was certainly evident in the recent New Statesman piece written by Brian Cox and Robin Ince. The Twitter discussion that followed was lively though unfruitful. “Positivist” accused one. “Nobber” was the witty reply. For my part it was probably just bad timing. I was in the middle of marking a pile of essays when I read the piece and so naturally was in the frame of mind of … Continue reading Science and “mere opinion”: a dilemma wrapped in an irony

Capitalism, ScienceLeave a comment

Happiness or freedom? Brave New World and “anti-science”

Literacy of the Present

Science has never enjoyed complete unequivocal support from the society of which it is part. The cultural meanings of science (especially the cultural meanings of popular science) are by no means fixed. We should not be surprised therefore that the grounds for reaction against it will be as diverse as the meanings attached to it. Over the past 200 years opponents have been able to attack it on grounds of being too religious, not religious enough, too radical, too conservative, pro-socialist, pro-capitalist, and so on. Even if we were to accept the simple framing of public attitudes of “for” or … Continue reading Happiness or freedom? Brave New World and “anti-science”

Science, Science communication4 Comments

Idea of “anti-science” is woo woo

Literacy of the Present

Ever noticed the irony that demands for “evidence-based” policy are often accompanied with attacks on “anti-science”? Or maybe you don’t see that as ironic and I need to show how the idea of anti-science is just woo woo. Since one of the claims against anti-science is that it ignores the evidence, let’s see what evidence there is to show that “anti-science” exists. I should say at the outset that I’m not trying to defend those who are seen as “anti-science”. If those who are against “anti-science” are anti-anti-science then my being anti-anti-anti-science doesn’t make me pro-anti-science. That’s the trouble with … Continue reading Idea of “anti-science” is woo woo

Science2 Comments

“Anti-science” no better than “phlogiston”

Literacy of the Present

Can we please drop the label “anti-science”; it is about as helpful as the concept of phlogiston. I really wanted to write about something else but there has been so much in the news recently about the GM trials at Rothamsted and so much rhetoric about “anti-science” that I felt I had to say something even if, for many people, it is such old ground that it needs to be taken over by the National Trust and preserved as a heritage site. Just as phlogiston and the luminiferous ether should be consigned to the history of science so too should … Continue reading “Anti-science” no better than “phlogiston”

Critical Understanding, Making sense, Science, Science communication1 Comment

Meat, minds and making sense: part 1

Literacy of the Present

I really should know better by now but I still get disappointed by much of the debate about science and the public. Much of it still seems couched in terms of dumbing-down, or the two cultures, or “anti-science”. Similarly, discussions about science communication often seem driven by concerns for “impact” and “effectiveness” and how these might be evaluated. (Please comment below if you disagree). This should not be surprising. Anyone who puts money into trying to “improve” the public understanding of science will want to make sure that the money is well spent. Was it effective, did it make an … Continue reading Meat, minds and making sense: part 1