Meandering through the newsosphere (can I call mainstream media the newsosphere if I access it online?), I stumbled upon two facts which, in and of themselves, were both unsurprising and not terribly interesting.
- American citizens have an abiding faith in technology, more so than any other country in the world.
- Americans don’t believe in climate change.
Individually, each of these facts is unremarkable. But together, they pose an interesting question about how we handle science in our society. I have been musing about some of the possible explanations for this apparent contradiction.
Perhaps it is that we don’t understand science, so we are skeptical. Of course, we don’t understand the science behind how our television works either (at least I don’t), but we know that it turns on when we press the power button. Most of the time. So even if we don’t understand it, we have faith that it’s going to work when we need it to.
Or, as I hear echoed time and again, could there really be two Americas? The first America has faith in technology, believes in climate change, and theoretically hopes that we will be able to build a bright green future thanks to technological innovation. And the second America doesn’t believe in climate change, evolution, stem cell research or any other science?
I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it because it doesn’t work. You cannot lump the vast range of views about science and technology into two simplistic groups.
After all, climate deniers still use computers and drive cars. They still go to the doctor, take prescription medications, get flu shots, and treat their cancer with chemotherapy. This is all science. This is all technology. And they believe in it. They have faith in it. They trust the science, scientists, and engineers behind all of these things. Likewise, many people who understand the science behind climate change do not believe there is a technological solution to the problem. Some even advocate a large-scale re-adoption of older methods of production and distribution that are not dependent on current technological developments, much less future advances.
But the question is, if not through a theory of two Americas, how can we describe the apparent contradiction between these two statistics? Because it does seem that there should be some connection between the two. And it is fascinating that on both sides of the aisle, there seems to be among non-scientists (laymen, really) an inclination to pick and choose which science we are going to believe in and which we will blatantly disregard or actively deny.
Hey Jess, having a background in certain Christian cicrcles who love technology, but deny both evolution and climate change I have to say I think you hit on an interesting point. Technology (which is good) is present and tangible. Like real world magic. However, these “theories”, as they like to refer to them, require faith in the process of science, and in the scientists (or experts). This is the point at which it gets complex. I think they have a hard time understanding the fact that all of these experts disagree, and through doing studies and publishing them a consensus is formed. There is no consensus about Lithium Ion batteries, they have strait forward physical properties. Since technology is “applied” science they love it because it moves away from the complexity and ambiguity of the scientific process.
I was driven crazy by the American sentiment during the Bush presidency that was anti “expert”. Being someone who is educated very specifically in a small field, I am somewhat of an expert.
My ideas on what needs to be done to help with education for a minority language group may not work, but it is more likely to work than the hundred or so people’s opinions when I tell them what I do.
Thanks so much for the comment, and for bringing your unique (or at least unique to me!) perspective.
I think you have a good point about the difference between scientific theory and applied science. I heard an interview with a scientist the other day (specializing in evolution, I believe) who argued that they need to get rid of the term “theory,” as non-scientists do not understand what that word means when used in a scientific context. Not a bad idea. As we all know, messaging/branding is crucially important to widespread understanding.
And I agree completely with you about the anti-expert phenomenon. It is so interesting to me that you ran into that attitude in your field.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to try to fix a broken power line or come up with a bilateral trade agreement — we need our experts! But perhaps there we run into applied v. theory once again…
Technology like the TV and chemo have been around and been tested to a point where we know what the outcome is going to be (not quite so black and white with chemo, but you get the point). With new technology and advancements in sciences and medications we seem to get the go ahead to start using a product only to find out in the not-so-near future that we were actually doing more harm than good. Be that to ourselves or the environment. I think that has a lot to do with people’s trust in new ideas that come out – technology and theory both.
“They,” being the professionsals and experts, have to be able to prove a lot more to the population before we’ll jump on the bandwagon. In a way I think the experts have done this to themselves. They put an idea out before they know all the facts and then retract their own statements and then expect us to believe them right away then next time. Companies are so quick to label things green or special in any way that they overlook the validity of their statement/product and focus on the bottom line. When it stops being about the almighty dollar and more on the world I think things will move faster towards a healthy planet.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment!
I definitely agree with you about the “see it to believe it” mentality. But how much longer does climate change (for example) have to go on before we look at general global melting and acknowledge that it is melting? It seems to me that, at least in this instance, the burden of proof idea has been carried too far. I wonder if it also indicates a lack of science education in the United States – there seems to be a lack of understanding both about the word “theory” as it is used in science, as well as the entire scientific process?
And I totally agree about the dollar v. the world statement. There are several metrics that are being proposed as alternatives to GDP (as far as measuring the health of an economy) that could make a tremendous difference on that front.
it may help to think of our brains as our claws, or fangs: a tool to get what we want, not a compass leading to truth.
we all believe what we want to believe, until reality gets really, really, insistent. even then, we tend to interpose some minimally modified wishes.
I agree with the previous commenters. Americans accept technologies that have unique and tangible benefits even though they do not understand the science behind them.
Also, true scientific controversies are often NOT a public concern (e.g., quantum gravity is a large hole in physics, but the public doesn’t care) while ideas that have scientific consensus (e.g., evolution) are matters of strong public concern. It is almost as if the public wants the goodies of science without the mess of understanding how science works.
@Al — I agree with you that we have a tendency to believe what is comfortable for us, until outside influences force us to reevaluate.
@R Margolis — Definitely the tangible benefit is a crucial thing. I guess the question is how can we frame our current scientific realities in a way that makes them more tangible. And how true about evolution — I hadn’t thought to connect the consensus and public concern thing, but there definitely seems to be a correlation!
Thank you both so much for your thoughts!
And of course climate change is almost the opposite: i.e., scientific consensus that will take goodies (cheap fossil power) away from the public. Science isn’t supposed to do that…