Sorry State
A few days ago while shopping, Lindsey listed off some produce that she wanted me to run and grab. A guy who happened to be near us jumped in to warn us about GMOs causing cancer and the like. I should've let him know that I'd already been warned once how GMOs are turning everyone into zombies, but I decided to counter with the fact that there's no evidence that GMOs have adverse health effects. He assured me that some website would fill me in on all the facts. I figured it wouldn't be a very fruitful conversation, so I more or less just moved on (though he did throw in something about pesticides as we were walking away).
Later Lindsey decided to research GMOs a bit and at first all the sites seemed to confirm what my friend in the store was saying. When she dug a little deeper, she found that the so-called evidence was not scientifically sound and that when you understand a bit about genetics you'll realize that splicing some genetic information from a fish into a tomato is not going to make it grow a tail. She wondered out loud whether a scientific explanation would have much power of persuasion on a person in the pro-natural camp. To me, it's not only a question of whether or not they would listen, but whether or not the average person would have enough knowledge about science to comprehend the argument.
Her question reminded me of a National Science Foundation study on public attitudes and understanding of science. The NSF recently released results from a survey of 2,200 Americans asking the following (among other things):
True or false (except #3).
I'm guessing the answer to Lindsey's question is a clear, no.
Later Lindsey decided to research GMOs a bit and at first all the sites seemed to confirm what my friend in the store was saying. When she dug a little deeper, she found that the so-called evidence was not scientifically sound and that when you understand a bit about genetics you'll realize that splicing some genetic information from a fish into a tomato is not going to make it grow a tail. She wondered out loud whether a scientific explanation would have much power of persuasion on a person in the pro-natural camp. To me, it's not only a question of whether or not they would listen, but whether or not the average person would have enough knowledge about science to comprehend the argument.
Her question reminded me of a National Science Foundation study on public attitudes and understanding of science. The NSF recently released results from a survey of 2,200 Americans asking the following (among other things):
True or false (except #3).
- The center of the Earth is very hot.
- The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move.
- Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
- All radioactivity is manmade.
- Electrons are smaller than atoms.
- Lasers work by focusing sound waves.
- The universe began with a huge explosion.
- It is the father's gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl.
- Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria.
- Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.
- 84
- 83
- 74
- 72
- 53
- 47
- 39
- 63
- 51
- 48
I'm guessing the answer to Lindsey's question is a clear, no.
Comments
First, I'm always a little skeptical of polls because who gets caught up doing these kinds of things? And there are no consequences for getting the answers wrong, so it's very possible the respondents just didn't take the time to try and get the answers right.
Also, I don't really think this lack of knowledge problem is unique to science. Its endemic of areas of life, primarily because we have limited time and choose to do things with it other than learn a bunch of factual information only tangentially related to the decisions we have to make in life which actually have a big affect on our lives.
I don't think the attitude against GMOs is just about the lack of knowledge people have of basic scientific facts. It's more about knowing how to judge whether something is a reliable source of information. And I think that's gotten trickier over the last few decades, with the internet, especially for older people.
-Theresa
Certainly science doesn't have a monopoly in this department. Maybe it's the educator in me, but I'm also alarmed by those who can't read, can't do math, think Michelangelo is a ninja turtle, etc. I'm not saying everyone needs to know the details of the Krebs Cycle. Maybe much of this knowledge isn't pertinent to an individual's daily life (though I'm guessing it's more beneficial than many think), but a basic understanding of some pretty world changing ideas would be nice.
@ Theresa
I'm always surprised by those with medical and scientific backgrounds who sympathize with this culture.
-Theresa
Also, why is there a correlation between religious influences and a lack of scientific understanding?
I guess it's easier to stomach if she's not a trained scientist. I'm not around professional scientists too often, but I've come across a fair number of medical personnel (more nurses than doctors) who seem to value pseudo science.
@Aaron
Yeah, Lindsey used to get fresh produce from this "bountiful baskets" outfit from time to time and they would offer an organic option at a higher price. Lindsey once made some comment about it not being worth the money to a lady who replied, you must be one of those "science people."
I could see a religious person replying a certain way on a survey even though they are familiar with evolution and/or the Big Bang. This seems like a different issue than just a lack of understanding.
So called "science" is more often a cudgel that pols use to beat up on their opponents. The left uses it much more effectively than the right. But the "secular" left is just as resistant to science on certain issue as the religious right. I put secular in quotes because there is a kind of religious fervor to their secularism.
Like, I'm pretty sure the anti-vaccination movement is lead by the left and its Hollywood stars. The Portland area, for example. Is pretty liberal and has one of the lowest rates of immunization.
Also, Portland recently voted against fluoridation of water, ostensibly because it is an unsafe "chemical," even though floride has been safely used in public drinking water for 50-plus years.
The left also often claims the right is anti-science when it opposes the left's agenda for philosophical reasons unconnected to science. So the right was anti-science when it opposed embryonic stem-cell research, even though that opposition was driven by a moral philosophy, not some resistance to scientific research.
The left is pretty good at masking its philosophical agenda as an empirical effort to following the scientific evidence.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html