Covering the bioinformatics niche and much more

The New America's Cult

| Comments

He has been “portrayed” here a a cult leader, and that’s maybe only my opinion. And in he latest diatribes he continues to attack head on the “problems” with America and how He will be able to solve it, by just creating a new cult, by breeding new cult followers that think are doing something great and in the end are just putting more fuel in the fire.

He just forgets that, the more you fight the more you give your opponent an opportunity to fight back and gain more support (Yes, this post is a Catch 22, but I’m David in this case).

I spent around 700 words last time saying that we scientists need to rethink the way we tell the world the things we do:

We are horrible communicators, most of our websites are dreadful and do no contain any useful information and when we are confronted with a dumb Playboy bombshell we lose the argument. We lose because usually the argument is so ludicrous that we have no patience to explain. We lose because we are unable to communicate in lay terms. We lose because we’re not entertainers or crowd manipulators. We lose because we make our arguments difficult to understand. We lose because we get angry.

and someone on reddit was spot on analysing His article:

The author of the article doesn’t seem to realise the article itself is part of the reason people (smart people, not just morons) are starting to distrust “experts” –

-Climate predictions have not yet been confirmed. It isn’t stupid to be on the fence (also known as “scepticism”) on that issue. Note that I’m talking about man-made climate change here, not climate change generally, which is very well established.

Velikovsky was not a crank. He just had some unusual ideas.

Generally, calling people cranks when their ideas don’t fit with yours is a stupid thing to do. Hence, an “expert”’s opinion is sometimes distrusted because it’s seen – correctly – to be biased. Science is changing, and moving forward, at a very fast pace. Ideas that are the pillars of various fields of science today will be historical curiosities tomorrow. Some of those pillars were even ridiculed in their day – tectonic shift for example.

When scientists start thinking of themselves as science, and science starts thinking of itself as an institution and starts using character attacks to defend itself, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that those scientists will lose trust.

I don’t want to come across as anti-science here – that couldn’t be further from the truth. I just think we should take care to distinguish the non-ideal scientists (matriculated and not) doing science from the ideal methodology of science.

I couldn’t have written any better. And I think ScienceBlogs are doing more damage than good. But that’s another catch 22.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]