Michael, indeed - the best general bulwark against stupidity has got to be as much, and as widespread, education as possible. When people have learnt how to think by themselves, and to back up their thinking with real data & reasoning methodologies, then they are less prone to swallowing whole illogical and/or nonsensical views.

Mats, your comment reminds me of a very interesting piece: 'The Best Reason to Bet on America' , written by Jonathan Tepperman, a Canadian who took out US citizenship:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/international/the-best-reason-to-bet-on-america.html?_r=0

This was indeed widely reported in the German media (see http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/pew-studie-republikaner-in-usa-lehnen-wissenschaft-ab-a-941618.html)

It seems to me that it mostly affects a sub-category of Republican voters, and since the overall number of Republicans keep shrinking, the average acceptance of science remains about level.

These figures seem to be an unfortunate side effect of the very wide media exposure of a number of rather obscurantist, know-nothing religious preachers and televangelists..... I wouldn't expect this however to have much impact on substance and policy . All Western democracies have tolerated or carried along anti-democratic or anti-progress sectors of their population (remember not so long ago when at least a third of voters in certain countries of Europe voted for fiercely anti-democratic parties, which never hindered these countries from firmly embedding democratic ideals into their culture) and traditionally true power has almost always eluded these groups.

This is the modern world, the medias have really too much power.

Against it , only a well general educated population can balance the disinformation coming from medias.

still this is the case in Europe, and hoppefully it can be saved.

I worry for the situation in the US.

In the quarter century after the second world war, america was optimist, science and technology would solve all our problems and the future was rosy. This was reflected in the popular culture into which I grew up. Becoming a scientist or an engineer meant becoming an important actor in this march of humanity towards a brillant future. Nowadays, the realistic view of the future of humanity is bleak. We do not know how to politically control the global economical system which seems to be speeding up towards a concrete wall and the popular culture into which our youth is growing up is focusing on all kind of fictions. We want to forget this bleak reality that we do not seem able to do anything about. All these religious movements focusing on mythic views are only one among the multiple ways to escape the bleak picture which nobody seems to want to deal with in its globality. We are just waiting for a major catastrophy with our eyes close and then the entertainment mood may let some breading space for a return to reality and science.

Chris, I appreciate your view (1 day ago). One traumatic experience for the Western world was Nazi Germans' inflicted WW II and their negation of humanism. If we negate renaissance and the source it comes from (i.e. science), where does it lead to? To Ron Jones' experiment in reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave)? Concerned, not scared yet.

Michael, indeed - the best general bulwark against stupidity has got to be as much, and as widespread, education as possible. When people have learnt how to think by themselves, and to back up their thinking with real data & reasoning methodologies, then they are less prone to swallowing whole illogical and/or nonsensical views.

Mats, your comment reminds me of a very interesting piece: 'The Best Reason to Bet on America' , written by Jonathan Tepperman, a Canadian who took out US citizenship:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/international/the-best-reason-to-bet-on-america.html?_r=0

As Mats Nilsson mentioned, it's not an 'either or" scenario. Even Darwin didn't think that was the case. At this point, Evolution is still considered a theory - albeit the best theory that explains how flora/fauna has reached it's current state, and adapts each time something new is found.

Jerrold,

Since about the time of Descartes, some scientists realized that the solar system originated from a nebula, in other word, the earth did not exist as a planet at some point in the past. Anyone acknowledging this has to acknowledge that microscopic and simple forms of lifes evolved from chemistry and that more complex forms of life evolved from more primitive ones. So that life evolved. This is not a theory but a logical consequence of accepting the earth did not always existed. All along the 17th theory, many philosophers have tried to conceive how life has evolved and many different biological evolution theories have been proposed, with the first fully scientific one being Lamarck's theory. Modern theories are development of Darwin's theory. It is true that we do not fully understand all aspects of biological evolution but it is misleading to claim that EVOLUTION IS A THEORY because it lead some mis-informed people to beleive that maybe the whole process has been divinitly guided in every of its steps. We have no reasons to beleif that evolution is not a fully natural process although we have to admit that we are far from fully understanding it.

@ Michael.

Do not be alarmed by this finding. The feature of academics is fine in the United States; 2/3's that do have belief in evolutionary theory are not anyplace close to any scientific position or review board; consensus in american biological community is that evolution is the underlying principle of life.

Using belief in belief in evolutionary theory as a benchmark for scientific literacy among the American Public is not fair! American public is pretty tech/science savvy in my opinion. However, Christian influence wins the evolutionary war. # of smart religious Americans, oxymoron i know, that will not be swayed on the issue of evolutionary theory; no matter what facts are presented. If you asked most Americans about the truth of general/special relativity, most disagreeing with evolution would cite it to be true.

Hope this clears up the issue!

@Jerrold,

Do you know what a theory is defined to be in science? Saying something is JUST a theory in science is like saying "there is just mounts of evidence, 100,000's of pages of documents indicating truthfulness, 1000's of acclimated scientist defending it correctness, and 1000's more scientist putting their career on the line to defend its findings." But it my opinion those things do not matter, it is still a THEORY.

Even Wallace, who disputed with Darwin of the authorship of evolutionary theory put his life/career on the line to defend Darwinian Evolution.

Nothing can ever be conclusively proven in science. However, when an hypothesis/explanation has been repeatedly tested and it begins to be accepted as fact in the scientific community it can be defined as a theory.

Evolution, of all theories in science, has by far the most evidence and consensus in the scientific community; most biologist would even consider debating the falsehood of Darwinian evolution; it is an underlying assumption in all modern biological works. You have a better chance of proving Einstein's theory of general of special relativity to be wrong then evolutionary theory.

It should be promoted to the title of FACT.

@Michael Mannen - I'm well aware of what theory means to the scientific community. It is the *best* definition that fits the observations that we have made. It is also the prevailing scientific thought until such time as something that explains it better comes along. Independent confirmation bolsters said theory.

Note that accepted theory can be upended with newer research and observations - and I point to Plate tectonics and continental drift as examples.

Evolution *has* stood the test of 150+ yrs - hence it is pretty much established 'fact'. I have no argument with that.

I think the label of "theory" has been detrimental to the widespread acceptance of evolution. I find it amusing that the physics field list more than 300 "laws" including the law of gravity (where are the gravitons or gravity waves?). In biology, the powers that be are much more conservative and avoid labeling anything a law no matter how well supported. Note that Mendel's laws of genetics do not apply to many biological systems. I agree that evolution should be promoted to "fact" or at least "law", and scientists quit referring to it as a theory.

I can advise a good book of R. Dawkins: The God delusion.

Religous people don't search for real answers, for all things/wonders they can't understand God is the answer. Deism maybe the last "unicorn" of religion. But for science it's one of hardest to falsificate.

One possible alternative way of origin of life on earth, is an extraterrestrial origin. But evolutionary theory by Darwin and so on can't be falsificated until today. So todays life on earth evolves step by step in our logical view and understanding.

But it's not advisable to call all scientific findings/theories as fact or dogma. They are the actual substances we can work on until they're falsificated. So I think the term theory is the best one, a scientist can choose.

From my point of view as a physicist (having worked in different fields of research and applied sciences) I was wondering what a 'fact' might be. Something that cannot be falsified?

I think we would argue on the same low level of seeking insights as ideologists accepting something as a fact (= a certain thing) and not as something that we can challenge by experiments or other theories.

A recent Huffington post tells about the role sciences seem to play in contemporary US society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-fine/in-search-of-science-role_b_4583012.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I think Science is not sexy enough for Americans: they perceive it to be dull and boring, over-wrought with egoistic intellectuals and riddled with all that could be considered to be "menial".

The last point, sadly, has some truth to it... the development of automation, scientific instrumentation, etc... has allowed many to become or be called scientist and yet not really exhibit a full understanding of the fundamentals! I've seen many PhDs work within the strict confines of “Consensus” and are really, really afraid to step outside the “safe-zone”. So, scientist are more and more perceived to be weak, that is to say, people with “little to no will”, i.e. followers, if you will.

In America, the Maverick is what is highly prized and holds all the prestige. True, many scientists in the past were Mavericks and they do hold superstar status among the American public; but, Americans perceive most scientist with disdain and little regard. As far as their concerned: Americans just want their scientist to go to work and quietly work out the next great gadget or whirligig that can be commercialized – that's it.

Michael,

Thanks for posting the Huffington link.

It's such a very sad state of affairs, really ....

Well, I just met with an engineer from Australia this past weekend.

His overall view is that the majority in Australia are skeptical of finding all or most answers in science, through the scientific method, and scientists. He cited the fact that scientists and leaders in science have been involved in:

(1) Creation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction

(2) Scientists have been involved in torture, see USA psychologists or psychiatrists in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, etc.

I could go on but the narration about this topic of science and creationism is something that my colleague and friend claims to be quite similar to Australia on and off over the years.

The engineer and strong christian claims that Australians are now open to a variety of explanations of life, history, and man, i.e. a few years back the Aussies may have been critical of what is happening in the USA but they have moved on from that because science is not seen as the know-all and all-answering-machine that political technocrats had hoped it would be after WWII.

NOTE: I welcome feedback from Aussies and others in the know of Oceanic culture to comment on this.

I personally, as a strong christian, have little problem with biological evolution fitting in with creation stories.

I feel that Christians who over-focus on holes in developmental environmentalism historically are shortsighted and miss the main facets of their faith.

Likewise, when our children learn for example that most scientists are fairly sure that whales once lived on land but then returned to the sea, see: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/ocean-giants/going-aquatic-cetacean-evolution/7577/

, I begin to be less dogmatic as should any scientist or just about any American observer concerning in which directions evolutions, changes, or developments historically have taken place.

NOTE: I share this example of whales because my childhood textbooks in biology and sciences indicated that evolution was a fairly stage-oriented event where land creatures proceeded from the sea--not necessarily the other way around was the message in schools back then for most creatures on the planet (exceptions would have been amphibians--not mammals).

Backing off on dogmatisms is something that both Uberpro-scientific educators and Uberpro-religious educators need to do. Such an approach to education becomes ideology--not education as it should be open to diverse views.

Kevin, I agree that 100% science (A) and 100% religion (B) pave the way to ideologies (my preferred term for dogmatism); as well as the other way round, ideologies (e.g. Nazi, Communist/Anti-Communist, inquisition) exploit followers and their ideas (your examples are well-founded).

Since renaissance we have that struggle between reason and belief. Even with all our powerful technology and broad scientific frameworks we cannot explain 'everything'. People believe because they want to categorize things, so that they make sense to them. On our common way to understand (or make sense) of the world, we are in continuous reconciliation between what we can argue about and what we believe. Being a scientist I'm offended at disregard of useful brainpower and knowledge.

The big difference between belief and reason is that reason can evolve but belief is static (or otherwise worthless). So, whereas believers have to stick to their beliefs, scientists can change their 'minds' - and that's another stumbling block in public understanding of science. Most people want 'the truth' and not approximate solutions.

So, my question is about how is the proportion of B to A in everyday USA.

Michael ,

Science is also a belief system. It is not a static beleif system and those holding these beleif are ready to change them when it is judged appropriate. In philosophy it is the same and in spiritual matters it is also the same. Some individual (including scientists and philosophers) feels more confortable to fix some of their beleifs and to hold them constant and unquestioned and other do not feel that way and feel more free to question and change them. It applies on religious beleifs as well as to scientific beleifs. Some scientists are very dogmatic and some religious person as well but it is a question of individual attitude and not of subject matter or domain of beleifs.

Using the Holy Bible as a science textbook?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/louisiana-teachers-are-literally-using-bible-science-textbooks-public-schools

Michael,

I do not think that science is threaten by a teacher of biology who decided to discuss creationism.  I think that creationism does not qualify as science.  But discussing it is not in itself harmfull.  I am not against discussing neo-nazism, race superiority theory, eugenism, and the whole set of horror stories.  It is like Ghosts, if you refuse to discuss about Ghosts you may be afraid of Ghosts all your life.  I think the more such obscured thesis are discussed and the more they necessarily evaporate.  They cannot stand scrutiny and so we should encourage scrutinizing them.  Qualifying these as anathema is trying to use the old religious taboo method.  We should not prevent racists to speak.  Fearing the speech is to give credibility to a speech that has none and that scrutiny destroy.  These are extremely weak form of speech , we should not be afraid to give let them express in the public domain.  They will not survive in the open.  They only strive in dark little exposed places that do not allow freedom of speech to scrutinize them.

Michael,

The phamarteucial scientific research is threated in its scientific integrity by the attempts of multiple type to undermine the process of scientific evalutation and certification of the drugs.  They subsidize the university center of researches with multiple constraints going totally against the scientific method.  Researchers have to sign contract of confidentiality preventing them to speak against drugs.  The industry control the funding of the American Psychiatric Association which control the very definition of a mental problem and so the relevance of drugs.  The control of the DMS is more political and financially controled than scientifically controled.  For many years many researcher are even questioning the whole philosophy of the DMS which defines mental problems through symptoms.  Many different problems may have similar symptom and so far after billion of dollars research trying to correlate DMS defined mental problems with genetic markers have failed most likely because symptom based approach is scientifically flawed.  But the DMS keep on creating new desease and with the accompanied list of chemical cocktail solutions.  

The more the private funding of university and of the research will increase and the more the pressure to transform this scientific research into marketing.  

When an investor invest money it is for the return on the invested money.  The activity into which money is invested may have its own value system but this value system will have to be curbed to the supreme value system of money return.  All obstacles to the supreme money return in the long run will be overcome.  Wherever there is a cash nexus , money will prevail and all other value will have to be subsummed and eventually eliminated.  This is our current system.  The process operate very very slowly, each step is justified by money constraint that cannot be avoided unless we close the shop and slowly everybody submit to this only surpeme value of money.

In Tolkean language this can be summarized as:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Louis, what you have laid out in the last two posts describes a threat to science from two sides: the irrational folks (with their belief in creation and other unfounded conceptions) and the rational ones (for whom return on investment is the major motivation for funding science). 

Whereas believers can't be challenged because they ignore rational arguments, the latter group at least supports the production of something that can be challenged. 

Michael,

Those who managed investment funds are total beleiver in fructification of capital and all money decision is done with this intent and nobody can say ''No I wont pay'', very quickly the police will come and through you on the street or put you in jail.  Do you know that every dollar or any unit of all monetary systems has been created by a debt to a bank with a promess to pay plus interest.  So there is as big a debt as there is money and so everybody is into a situation that it has to pay.  We are all shackle by the logic of this system and 99.99% of people think tha there is no alternative and so are all believers.  Try to challenge this belief system, this religion of money.

Michael and Louis,

Very interesting articulation of thoughts.

Could there be a commonality between the so called 'irrational folks' and the 'rational ones' - they are both to me - afraid of some beliefs rather than being in love with some beliefs?

Well, Louis and Mukul,

if we start talking about compound interest, we end up at exponential money making --- the misbelief that this may continue forever, agreed. 

And, Louis, there is something to challenge. It's not a belief it's real. Different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theorem. We can argue regarding this belief - or should we say notion? Many do already!

Michael,

''We can argue about this beleif''  

It is true only if you live into a society respecting freedom of thought.  For those privilege to live in such society then they can question this state of affair.  But notice that we can but the vast majority think that this state of affair can be questioned but there is no other possibility.  There are the old fashion extreme left that question it but after the disaster of the communist experiments in the 20th century most people just see this as a proof that all form of major social and economic change will lead to similar disaster.  But most importantly we are litteraly brain washed into thinking in this mode of thinking not through philosophical debate but by being immerse into mass media, professional sports , movies where the heros are assholes with a lot of money and where all we hear is money money money money money.  Yes we can argue but you will have a hard time finding someone even remotly interested to even discuss the topic and a real discussion at a high level in society, a real questioning of the values onto which the current economic and social order is based , this never happen and we are told it is impossible since we live in a global world and even our political elite admit that they have no choice in this worldwide state of affair.  I personally think that if we let things goes in their natural course following the current magical market hand then we will continue to undermine the ecological basis of our planet, and we all end up into a total dictatorship of money where we will all be slaves and where absolutly no human values will be respected and where only very very tiny island of incredible wealth will exist surrounded by military protection. A brave new world.