How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

[laughing dog]

That's a ridiculous statement. Imagine 1000 average random people from one of the more scientifically advanced and secular Western societies of today (b/c science has caused secularization) today and 1000 people from Western Europe in 500 AD. Take them and all their loved ones (to control for emotional attachment) and transport them back or forward in time into each others lives. After spending 5 years there, give them the choice to return. Dollars to donuts almost all the people sent to pre-science society will want to return while few of those sent to modern society would. And that's not counting the large % of those sent back in time who wouldn't have survived the 5 years.

In fact, we have a real version of this experiment in the form of today's societies that are scientifically advanced in terms of both tech and scientifically grounded beliefs vs. those that are not. Almost all migration of people is towards the more scientifically advanced societies.

Sure, without science we couldn't have the power to impact the planet in major ways, in that includes negative ways. But other than nuclear holocaust, the realisitic negative effects would only take us back closer to the type of existence that most of humanity experienced pre-science. So, science so far has vastly improved existence on balance and even it's most likely negative effects will just be to undo some of those gains.

And as for plagues and famine, they were routine events in human history. Our current situation is causing so much anxiety, b/c it is a situation that has been made so unfamiliar and uncommon to us, due to science.

I think the fallacy here is that you can directly compare and contrast different periods of history as 'better' than others. It's quite obvious that people would rather live in the modern world due to science, but it's also true that the same comfort will have, has had, and is having an enormous cost on a very large chunk of humanity. The entire continent of Africa, for example, was certainly better off before modern times.

I don't wish to seem obtuse, but I don't see how the entire continent of Africa was certainly better off before modern times. Nor is it clear to me how science would have played much (if any) part of the alleged "worsening off" of the entire continent of Africa.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the fallacy here is that you can directly compare and contrast different periods of history as 'better' than others. It's quite obvious that people would rather live in the modern world due to science, but it's also true that the same comfort will have, has had, and is having an enormous cost on a very large chunk of humanity. The entire continent of Africa, for example, was certainly better off before modern times.

Which goes back to my point that the question of 'why science' is a false dichotomy, because we couldn't have controlled it's impact on the course of history anyway.

"The entire continent of Africa" was better off by what standard? There was more famines, more disease, more slavery, shorter life expectancy, etc. in Africa than currently. Pretty much like the rest of the world.

 

[Tammuz]

Then elect someone else in November and all your worries will be over. So simple.

We have an election in November? That's news to me.

 

[Tammuz]

How do we fix the scientific illiteracy that threatens the world?

Are you suggesting that we ban all liberal arts and only teach the sciences?

No. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[Tammuz]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of population number in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

Completely on point. It's funny how many people are convinced that science is going to be our savior, when in practice it's done far more long-term damage than good.

On the other hand, one could argue that it's been an inevitable course of our history, so no point getting angsty about it.

Without science, lots of people would die as children, and lots of those who make it to adulthood would die relatively young. And there were pandemics in the pre-scientific era, like the Black Death. And people didn't even know what caused it.

Also, pre-scientific peoples didn't live in harmony with nature. That is the "noble savage" myth. From pre-history, there is a very strong correlation between humans entering an area and animals going extinct.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There has never been a time in human history when "the average person" was intellectually equipped to understand the things that were on the cutting edge of STEM subjects, such as they were. And there never will be such a time. Steve observes that "If an idiot like Trump can get elected then we are doomed on science" and I would only add the observation than Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.
Collectively we are no more ignorant of science than those who came before us, there is simply a greater reliance upon science now than ever in human history. Science has been leveraged to allow the ballooning of human populations, creating unprecedented potential for pandemics, famine, social chaos and mass mortality. This has been allowed to proceed unabated to this point, where loss of biodiversity and environmental upheaval has made a precipitous decline of population number in the not-too-distant future inevitable.

Completely on point. It's funny how many people are convinced that science is going to be our savior, when in practice it's done far more long-term damage than good.

On the other hand, one could argue that it's been an inevitable course of our history, so no point getting angsty about it.

Without science, lots of people would die as children, and lots of those who make it to adulthood would die relatively young. And there were pandemics in the pre-scientific era, like the Black Death. And people didn't even know what caused it.

Also, pre-scientific peoples didn't live in harmony with nature. That is the "noble savage" myth. From pre-history, there is a very strong correlation between humans entering an area and animals going extinct.

I think it safe to conclude that through all of human history there have been individuals who share that environmental concern. Would it be to presumptive of me to say that from an evolutionary perspective humans have been evolving a higher intellect as opposed to an emotional foundation for behavior?

In other posts I have conjectured that in the not so distant past all humans were essentially bipolar, IOW heavily emotionally predisposed in behavior, and that only fairly recently has natural selection begun to select against this emotional constitution. I base this observation on the fact that our prefontal cortex, that part of our brains that controls impulsive behavior, has been the most recent to enlarge. And it is the prefontal cortex that dampens emotional impulse.

In terms of human behavior, scientific curiosity and intellect complement one another. Again, in terms of human behavior, scientific curiosity and emotion are at odds.

 

[rousseau]

That's a ridiculous statement. Imagine 1000 average random people from one of the more scientifically advanced and secular Western societies of today (b/c science has caused secularization) today and 1000 people from Western Europe in 500 AD. Take them and all their loved ones (to control for emotional attachment) and transport them back or forward in time into each others lives. After spending 5 years there, give them the choice to return. Dollars to donuts almost all the people sent to pre-science society will want to return while few of those sent to modern society would. And that's not counting the large % of those sent back in time who wouldn't have survived the 5 years.

In fact, we have a real version of this experiment in the form of today's societies that are scientifically advanced in terms of both tech and scientifically grounded beliefs vs. those that are not. Almost all migration of people is towards the more scientifically advanced societies.

Sure, without science we couldn't have the power to impact the planet in major ways, in that includes negative ways. But other than nuclear holocaust, the realisitic negative effects would only take us back closer to the type of existence that most of humanity experienced pre-science. So, science so far has vastly improved existence on balance and even it's most likely negative effects will just be to undo some of those gains.

And as for plagues and famine, they were routine events in human history. Our current situation is causing so much anxiety, b/c it is a situation that has been made so unfamiliar and uncommon to us, due to science.

I think the fallacy here is that you can directly compare and contrast different periods of history as 'better' than others. It's quite obvious that people would rather live in the modern world due to science, but it's also true that the same comfort will have, has had, and is having an enormous cost on a very large chunk of humanity. The entire continent of Africa, for example, was certainly better off before modern times.

I don't wish to seem obtuse, but I don't see how the entire continent of Africa was certainly better off before modern times. Nor is it clear to me how science would have played much (if any) part of the alleged "worsening off" of the entire continent of Africa.

I think the fallacy here is that you can directly compare and contrast different periods of history as 'better' than others. It's quite obvious that people would rather live in the modern world due to science, but it's also true that the same comfort will have, has had, and is having an enormous cost on a very large chunk of humanity. The entire continent of Africa, for example, was certainly better off before modern times.

Which goes back to my point that the question of 'why science' is a false dichotomy, because we couldn't have controlled it's impact on the course of history anyway.

"The entire continent of Africa" was better off by what standard? There was more famines, more disease, more slavery, shorter life expectancy, etc. in Africa than currently. Pretty much like the rest of the world.

That's a huge question, you could write volumes about it. I suppose my argument would primarily be that the rise of modernity disrupted it's natural evolution, resulting in a conglomeration of dysfunctional states with no natural history forced on a people that didn't want them. And now they're locked into a system that doesn't work, spending a good brunt of their time avoiding violence and rape. But even then you can't generalize because it's probably true that some African states are doing ok, while others are in utter chaos. The larger point being that period [x] being better than period [y] is a touch simplistic. If you went back a couple hundred years and asked Africans if they desired their future, I gather many of them would say no.

This goes back to my point of technology (science more broadly) being an amoral tool. For much of our history it was used for plunder and pillage, but also brought with it benefits. I'd grant the point that it's made many people better off, but who knows what's in store for the future, and it also has serious costs.