

War Is Peace: Can science fight media disinformation? - bootload
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=war-is-peace

======
Semiapies
As a lover of science and a longtime skeptic throughout a series of changes of
political viewpoint, I've learned to hate when anyone tries to wrap his/her
political viewpoint in the mantle of "science" or "skepticism" (as opposed to
proper understanding of a scientific issue). I've yet to see anyone do this
without the upshot being, "Yes, the political beliefs I already had [whatever
they were] are shown to be _objectively correct_ \- thanks to Science!"

------
bootload
_"... English novelist George Orwell was remarkably prescient about many
things, and one of the most disturbing aspects of his masterpiece 1984
involved the blatant perversion of objective reality, using constant
repetition of propaganda by a militaristic government in control of all the
media. ..."_

I added this article to highlight a new phase in science that is occurring -
advocacy. Why advocacy and not just science? Because it's getting to the point
where mere _"facts"_ isn't good enough to bring about the changes necessary.

It's not the science where the problems lie. Science can be refuted by bad
evidence. Scientific theory becomes fact when the evidence gathered by
observation or experiments be supports the theory. The problem we have now is
a _"people"_ problem where people who don't see or want changes made to our
carbon economy.

The change from pure science and scientific reporting to scientific activism
is a feature of more active scientists in recent history and include Richard
Dawkins (evolution,religion), Tim Flannery (land use,disruption of ecosystems,
carbon emissions). In the past dissent, contrary arguments would not have been
tolerated. In Galileo's ~ [http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Galileo.h...](http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Galileo.html) day scientists with ideas like Dawkins
and Flannery would have been quietly silenced like Galileos advocacy ~
<http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/galileo.html> of the Copernican principle ~
<http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/copercosmol.html>

Why?

Because it didn't fit with the plans of those in power at the time, Pope Urban
VIII. Charles Darwin ~
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/darwin_charles...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/darwin_charles.shtml)
withheld releasing "The Origin of the species" for 20 years even with the
amount of evidence because of the potential for persecution ~
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Time_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Time_taken_to_publish)

Presenting the science is not enough to create change in the way leaders make
decisions. Decisions based on some _"rational"_ basis instead of _"belief"_ or
_"influence"_.

------
Anon84

         What makes people so susceptible to nonsense in public 
         discourse? Is it because we do such a miserable job in 
         schools teaching what science is all about—that it is not a
         collection of facts or stories but a process for weeding 
         out nonsense to get closer to the underlying beautiful 
         reality of nature? Perhaps not. But I worry for the future 
         of our democracy if a combination of a free press and 
         democratically elected leaders cannot together somehow more
         effectively defend empirical reality against the onslaught 
         of ideology and fanaticism.

~~~
cwan
What I don't get: "As I listen to the manifest nonsense that has been
promulgated by the likes of right-wing fanatic radio hosts and moronic ex-
governors in response to the effort to bring the U.S. into alignment with
other industrial countries in providing reasonable and affordable health care
for all its citizens, it seems that things have only gotten worse in the years
since I first wrote those words."

First, this idea that "right-wing fanatic radio hosts and moronic ex-
governors" have a monopoly on bad science is at best arrogant and at worst
remarkably deceptive. Second, what is the Scientific American doing writing
about advocacy for public healthcare in the first place? Nevermind the vast
array of policy alternatives that this space entails, or that the bills
presented before congress now do little to nothing to meet the original
objectives even President Obama set.

This piece is breathtaking on so many levels.

------
billswift
Scientific American is a left-wing rag. I read it regularly as a teen ager,
but quit in the 1980s when EVERY ISSUE had a prominent pseudo-scientific
article advancing lefty causes, primarily disarmament.

------
bokonist
Flagged, because there is no new information in the article, its purely
political.

~~~
sabat
I'd hardly call Scientific American a political magazine.

------
motters
"I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving
things to be true but proving them to be false."

Science can prove negatives now? That's news to me.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof>

~~~
Daishiman
Perhaps instead of spouting articles without understanding you should read a
bit about falsation and Karl Popper's contributions to the philosophy of
science.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method.

