quality of life is pegged to a standard of convenience
that is a perceived privilege
what is privilege?
disconnect from process, connect to access
but access to what?
access to access… which is the gerbil’s wheel

so i dunno
maybe that’s folks aren’t bothering to learn how the things they rely on day to day work

bring back process

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/13/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-part-i/
(There are two further parts to their response, none of which are particularly convincing and have some awful arguments and misrepresentations)
Also: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/unscientific-unscientific-america-part-1/

There’s a massive barney going on between so called ‘new atheists’ and so called ‘accomodationists’ about whether science and religion are ‘compatible’. I find myself in agreement with much of what Sean Carroll says about it:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer/

Fascinating stuff if you’re an aching bore about science & religion like me

Meh, it’s down to information I reckon. The more information you have the better decisions you can make. Sometimes it’s a question of access.

The vast majority of people do not read science journals, they read the science pages in newspapers or watch the odd documentary on the telly. Yet, the science pages (and some documentaries) are full of very dumbed down information with ludicrously inflammatory headlines. If one small team of lab scientists finds a small increase in cancer amongst a rat population fed on vinegar, then the headline will be “Vinegar Causes Cancer!”. Later, when a larger sample finds the opposite after more extensive testing the headline will then be “Vinegar May Halt Cancer!”. Even in the same newspaper.

Then of course you have the downright dishonest ‘journalists’ who write opinion pieces that misrepresent science completely, cherry-pick quotes and make it sound like they have a case when the scientists they quote may well disagree entirely with the opinion of the author. The average Joe and jill don’t know this, there aren’t any references and they will hardly look them up if there was. So they parrot the same information at work and in the pub as if it’s some kind of universal truth because it was printed in a newspaper.

So, the general public don’t know what to think. They have no idea about the process, the sample sizes or the validity of the claims and you’ll hear them say “Oh those scientists, they change their mind like the wind, so why can’t I believe in ghosts and horoscopes and junk?” It’s a situation much like the days when football supporters were kept behind cages, or like council estates suffering from ‘broken window syndrome’. Treat people like animals an they behave like animals. Treat them like they are stupid, lo and behold….

The media could at least pretend that their audience is intelligent, then the audience might get used to being talked to like adults and try to raise it’s game. Unfortunately, It’s far easier to push out mindless, thoughtless crap everyday and keep the audience dumb and pliable. There’s much more profit in that.

As for stem cells, you think that they would know what they are, as their use was banned for so long over there and there was a big “hoo har” about them.

Doesn’t bode well….

Do those scientists know anything from the work and life of all those americans? No, and they dont feel a need to know something about it either.

Is the media giving enough information on scientific research in such a way that it is readeable for non scientific people? Newspapers and such often dont spend much paper space on science (only a few items, or one page in the saturday or sunday issue). It’s the same overhere, not just in America.