What is American antiscience? Firstly, antiscience is not a well-defined term. Few dictionaries list an explicit meaning. Wikipedia describes antiscience as any kind of general philosophical opposition to science holding a special relationship to the truth or deserving of special reverence in society.[i]
For practical purposes, that abstract definition has little meaning to most Americans, most of whom have never read a book or sat in a class on the topic of the philosophy of science. Outside of explicitly philosophical discussions, antiscience can best be defined as a determined opposition to the methodology of science or the conclusions that a reached via those methodologies, whether it be a general opposition or the opposition to a specific conclusion of scientists.
Antiscientific opposition to scientific methodology and the conclusions reached via those methods must be distinguished from legitimate scientific skepticism. Global warming is a good exegetical case. There is a large movement in the United States determined to deny the conclusions that most climate scientists have reached: that the earth is warming and that warming is increasingly due to the release of manmade greenhouse gasses.
This consensus of climate scientists is relatively new. Thomas Kuhn posited that science often advances in revolutions. After the revolution has occurred, the majority of scientists in a field will accept the paradigm shift. The climatologists who still hang-on to strong skepticism of anthropogenic global warming fit are simply those left behind clinging to the old-model left behind by the paradigm shift. Compare this to the mainstay of the global warming denial movement, led by individuals such as James Imhofe, people with no scientific expertise in the field of climatology who lack a proper lay understanding of the science. These people are not global warming skeptics. They are global warming deniers. Their position is antiscientific, and while not uniquely American, certainly have more clout here than in most other nations.
There are many different degrees of believers in antiscience. On one end of the spectrum are those who generally accept the methodology that scientists use and their conclusion as having a special relationship to the truth . . . except that one thing (evolution, global warming, the efficacy of acupuncture, et cetera). On the extreme end of the spectrum are those who have a basic philosophical opposition to the methodologies and conclusions of scientists having any special relationship to the truth. The post-modernist movement is a prime example of this sort of sophistry.
Most American anti-science falls into the less extreme side of the spectrum. Polls of Americans show that they hold a great deal of reverence for science in general. For instance, only ten percent believe that the harmful results of scientific progress outweigh the benefits and, “more Americans express a ‘great deal’ of confidence in scientific leaders than in the leaders of any other institution except the military.”[ii]
What are the sources of American antiscience? One strongly correlating factor with most specific antiscientific beliefs is political ideology. Literalist interpretation of the bible advocated by more conservative branches of Protestantism (such as the United States’ largest Protestant church, the Southern Baptists) are highly correlated with spiritual beliefs such as creationism which are in direct opposition to evolution. In fact, in its more extreme form, young earth creationism stands in direct opposition to the basic tenets of geology and cosmology as well. Of course, membership in these conservative Protestant churches is highly correlated with conservative political beliefs.
While Europe has its share of creationists, they are a small minority of the population. By contrast, it might be generous to Americans to declare that only half of them believe in evolution. Thus, this is one of the prime examples of American antiscience that Europeans have difficulty comprehending. By contrast, certain forms of antiscience popular in the US among those who tend to be more liberal (opposition to vaccination for example) are not shocking to many in the European Union because they are often more prevalent there than in the United Staets.
Evolution is the most well-known and most written about antiscientific belief. However, the difference in acceptance of evolution between the United States and the European Union is best explained by fundamental differences in religious beliefs rather than by fundamental differences in scientific understanding. This is probably not true of countries such as Japan where public understanding of science is much higher than in either the US or Europe. This was the conclusion of the National Science Foundation when it removed American beliefs in evolution from its report Science and Engineering Indicators. [iii] [iv] While the decision was controversial, the reason behind it should not have been. The differences between Americans and Europeans in their acceptance of evolution are primarily based on differences in religious beliefs.
In the case of the theory of evolution and anthropogenic global warming, reality does indeed have a liberal bias. In fairness though, there are many prominent antiscientific beliefs in the United States which are largely held by those on the left. While conservative Christianity seems to be the root of many antiscientific views held by conservative Americans, belief in the naturalistic fallacy serves as a similar analog on the left.
Alternative “medicine” is one prominent example (medicine being in scare quotes because medicine is defined as the science of healing, of which alternative “medicine” certainly is not). Many proponents prefer the definition of eastern “medicine”, as if legitimate medicine is practiced fundamentally differently in Asia than in the West. Alternative “medicine” practices range from the absurd and disproved to the possible but not sufficiently evidenced. The practices also vary in deleteriousness from benign placebo effects to incredibly deadly pseudoscience.
These alternative “medicine” beliefs are often correlated with new age spiritual beliefs which are correlated with liberal political views. One of the most unfortunate examples of these is the anti-vaccination movement. While many have blamed illegal immigrants from Mexico for outbreaks of pertussis (whooping cough) in places such as California, such vaccinations are actually mandatory in Mexico. The truth is that the responsibility lies firmly on the shoulders of the anti-vaccine movement. Marin County which lies at the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge and is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation, famous for its liberal politics, had one of the largest outbreaks of pertussis in 2010 and not surprisingly, one of the lowest vaccination rates for children.[v]
Of course, there are many other examples of American anti-science correlated with Americans holding more liberal beliefs. Prime examples include the belief that organic foods possess some special salutary qualities, irrational fears about the dangerous of nuclear power (as opposed to rational fears placed in context of the dangers of other power sources), irrational fears of genetic engineering of foods, the belief of a link between non-ionizing radiation (such as those emitted by power lines, cell phones, and wifi) and illnesses such as cancer, and many others.
Of course, Europeans are more accepting of these anti-scientific beliefs correlated with the American left, so it should shock no-one that do not find them as cofounding as antiscientific beliefs correlated with conservative beliefs. While many books could be written about the dynamics and history of American antiscience, it is important to note that what makes American antiscience different from the rest of the world (and most importantly the European Union) are the unique religious and political beliefs in the United States and the antiscientific beliefs associated with them. Americans are more likely to not believe in evolution and less likely to be scared by genetic engineering of food than Europeans because of fundamental differences in religion and politics, not fundamental differences in education or general support of science.
[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience [Accessed 31 July 2011]
[ii] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm [Accessed 31 July 2011]
[iii] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/ [Accessed 31 July 2011]
[iv] http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/us-national-science-board-tries-to-suppress-knowledge-of-americans-scientific-illiteracy/ [Accessed 31 July 2011]
[v] http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_18568877 [Accessed 31 July 2011]
Sunday, July 31, 2011
More Thoughts on American Antiscience
Friday, July 29, 2011
Cross At Ground Zero
Any two random beam intersections in a steel-framed building will more than vaguely resemble a cross, the Roman execution device that has become the most prominent symbol of Christianity. Such a otherwise unremarkable remnant of the steel skeleton of the World Trade towers became a symbol of hope to many after the September 11th attacks.
The cross was scheduled to be moved to the new September 11th Memorial and Museum, resulting in a lawsuit by American Atheists. At the heart of their claim is that such a display is tantamount to a government endorsement of the Christian religion.
The case resides in a grey area of the establishment clause. The cross inarguably constitutes a Christian symbol. However, there are many legitimate government displays of religious symbols. No one is about to tear the Ten Commandments out of the home of the Supreme Court because of the obvious historical significance.
The argument that the cross has significant historical value cannot be ignored. Nor can the fact that it is clearly a Christian icon. Ultimately, I feel the resolution must be based on the context. If it is placed in the museum, it must be based solely upon its historical value with no tacit encouragement of it being promoted as a religious icon. Placing it in a chapel or room set aside for “quiet reflection” would be a violation of the establishment clause. Placing it in a display area that explains the context of its significance without special reverence would not be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Ultimately, the resolution of the lawsuit will need to depend on the context of how the cross would be displayed. If the intention of the planned display is to promote religious reverence, then it is best left on the church grounds where it now resides. If the intention is to display it in a secular, historical context, then the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Sources:
Atheists Sue to Block Display of Cross-Shaped Beam in 9/11 Museum (New York Times)
Monday, March 7, 2011
A Brief History of American Anti-Science
A two week old New York Time’s Magazine article does a good job of briefly tracing the current, largely Republican-led movement of climate-change denial as the product of a decade’s old pattern of politicized American opposition to science, engendered by the left during the 1960’s. Climate change denial is, of course, not to be confused with genuine scientific skepticism.
While antiscientific sentiment is not relegated to the right, climate-change denial largely is. Alternative “medicine” and other similar antiscientific modalities seem to have more vociferous adherents on the left than the right; however,the denial of widely accepted scientific knowledge about global warming is largely absent from liberal politics.
The short article is certainly worth a read.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Cellphones and the Brain
A study funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United Kingdom has found what is reported to be physical evidence of changes caused by the usage of cellular devices. Specifically the study established a statistically significant increase in the consumption of glucose in the region near cellular phones’ radio transmitters. Unsurprisingly, those who claim that cellular phones cause brain cancer have leapt on this study, claiming it supports their hypothesis. However, there is no reasonable interpretation of this study that can support such a link.
Firstly, the number of individuals tested was only 47, and the study has yet to be repeated or the mechanism explained. This is a preliminary study, and the conclusions are interesting enough to warrant further research, but without additional studies using larger sample groups to confirm the results, the study itself is not very meaningful.
Finally, even if future studies do confirm these findings to a high degree of confidence, there is not a plausible mechanism that would link the results of this study to an increase in brain cancer. The only known mechanism for radiation to cause an increase in brain tumor rates is by damaging DNA. The energy level of microwave photons used by cellphones is not high enough to lead to this effect at any flux level a person could reasonably be expected to be exposed to from cellphones or cellular towers.
Since the brain is essentially a dense collection of moving charges, it is not implausible that exposure to low energy electromagnetic sources might have a measurable physical effect; however, even if such an effect exists, there is no plausible mechanism for it to lead to an increase in the incidents of brain tumors, nor is there any good epidemiological evidence of a correlation.
The results are interesting, but have no reasonable connection to the debate on whether cellular phones cause brain tumors. Unfortunately, this is how the issue is being cast in the media. The best science we have available indicates no good evidence of a correlation between cellular phone usage and brain tumors nor does it provide any physical explanation of how the radiation from cellular phones might cause such tumors. To the best of our current scientific knowledge, the hypothesis that cellular phones cause cancer violate everything we know about physics and biochemistry. This study makes no comment on that debate
Links:
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Pseudo-Skeptics of High Speed Rail
High speed rail has been a subject of controversy in California and elsewhere, with people (more often on the right) expressing “skepticism” about “trains to nowhere”. For the purpose of full disclosure, I love trains. I have since I was child and might not be the most unbiased commentator, but I think even true skeptics will find a lot of these pseudo-skeptics’ claims regarding high speed rail to be dubious and badly reasoned.
Like the “skeptics”, I can only look at the proposed system at first blush, without the kind of deep insight that a significantly priced study would produce, but I think most of the skepticism is unwarranted.
For instance, the federal government recently funded the construction of a section of track in the Central Valley that critics have dubbed, “the train to nowhere.” This is disingenuous because every transportation system connecting “somewhere” to “somewhere else” is likely to pass through “nowhere”. The interstate highway system started this way, and I think most thoughtful people see through the specious claim.
Another common claim is that it will not be competitive with automobiles or airplanes, but this is unlikely. For instance, according to the Wall Street Journal,
In the year since the Madrid-Barcelona line opened in February 2008, the AVE, costing passengers roughly the same as what they would pay to fly, has snatched half the route's air-passenger traffic. [1]
While this is no guarantee that this will happen in the nation’s second biggest air corridor (SFO – LAX), it is a pretty good indicator. Train travel over these distances is more comfortable, more environmentally friendly, and when factoring in total time from door-to-door, is usually much quicker than air travel.
Another claim of the critics is that Europe, Japan, and China are different than the United States because of their higher population density. However, Spain’s population density is about the same as California’s population density (actually slightly lower than California’s), and high speed rail has been very successful there.
One of my fondest memories was traveling across Europe with a rail pass, and it would be nice one day to travel from San Francisco to New York the same way. However, the “skeptics” often try to conflate individual projects with some kind of grandiose scheme for transcontinental high speed rail. This is a straw man.
I suspect very few in Europe take the train from London to Athens (even though they could), because it is simply not competitive with air travel. However, any route that is more than two hours by car but less than two hours by plane is. Europeans built lines that made sense, which eventually resulted in the stitching together of a transcontinental high speed rail system. It may mean that one day it will be possible to travel from California to New England on a high speed train, or it may not. The end-game is irrelevant to individual projects.
This grandiose system that “skeptics” like to criticize has no bearing on the systems that are being proposed to be built. A plane can beat a train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, but when you factor in the time spent going through airport security, and the time spent stuck in (possibly commute) traffic getting to popular destinations (downtown LA for business travelers, Anaheim for tourists), the time saved by stepping on a train in downtown San Francisco (we will not count time in traffic there because heavy rail connects downtown to two of the three major airports) and stepping off near your destination more than makes up for the slower ground speed.
The final major criticism is that high speed rail requires government subsidies. This is likely to be true in most cases; however, so do automobiles, so the argument is logically inconsistent unless the “skeptics” believe that roads should not be paid for with tax subsidies.
Now certainly, there may be more legitimate criticisms, like the ability of State governments to successfully construct and operate a system, or of the best routes, technology, et cetera. I will not address them here because there will always be some legitimate questions about any large new infrastructure project. The questions Californians in particular, and Americans in general have to ask is, do we want to invest in infrastructure now and risk maybe making some minor mistakes, or do we want to wait until the point where the need for such a system becomes unquestionable? Imagine the different path our nation might have taken had the “skeptics” of the Interstate system managed to halt its construction for three or four decades.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018395386633143.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Good News for Simon Singh
Unlike in the United States, British libel law places the onus of a libel case not on the plaintiff but on the defendant. In fact, the British system is so broken that States like California have passed legislation to protect their residents from libel lawsuits originating in the British court system. For those who have not been following the Singh case, Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for libel after he correctly claimed that certain chiropractic “treatments” were, “bogus”.
Chiropractic is a type of alternative “medicine” based on demonstrably false principles with no basis in scientific medicine. When Simon Singh pointed out that the myriad of ridiculous treatments promoted by British Chiropractors are absolute rubbish, the British Chiropractic Association attempted to bully him into silence.
Today, the judge in his case noted the, “chilling effect on public debate,” of British libel laws. As can be seen in the video, the British Chiropractic Association, which removed many of the treatments that Singh called bogus from their website, still defend their use of the British court system to attempt to silence their critics.
Hopefully, this case will cause Britons to become more aware at the pseudoscientific underpinnings of Chiropractic treatments.
LINKS:
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
When EM Radiation Passes the Property Line
A self-diagnosed sufferer of wi-fi induced illness in Albuquerque is suing his neighbor for not keeping her Skyping and Iphoning confined within her property line.
While the lawsuit has little chance of success given the nonexistence of credible medical evidence that electromagnetic radiation emitted from these FCC approved devices can have any measurable impact on the human body (much less cause illness), the story speaks as much to the general lack of understanding of science in America as it does for our overly-litigious society.
Arthur Firstenberg, in using the court system to attempt to intimidate his neighbor Raphaela Monribot into limiting her use of wireless devices, exemplifies a classic case of abuse of the American court system. The threat of a lawsuit, even a lawsuit without merit (in fact, the judge already threw out the claim that Mrs. Monribot’s iphone was causing his illness as States lack the authority over issue and is considering whether to dismiss the entire case) often is intimidating enough of a bully pulpit to coerce compliance. Even if Arthur Firstenberg’s case is unsuccessful (as it most certainly will be), Mrs. Monribot may still be on the hook for legal costs required to defend herself against this frivolous lawsuit.
Unfortunately, the unfounded paranoia over radio wave’s deleterious effects on human health are not going to disappear anytime soon. Despite the complete lack of convincing evidence that there is any correlation (much less a causal explanation) between cellular phone usage and brain cancer, San Francisco Mayor (and potential future Lieutenant Governor) Gavin Newsom is pushing a requirement that all cellular phones sold in San Francisco disclose their radiation emission level.
Asking the public to understand the physics behind devices using EM radiation does not seem a likely solution. The federal government, which regulates the electromagnetic spectrum, should remove the authority from State courts to adjudicate disputes or enact regulations regarding radio-transmitting devices. It should also raise the barrier to filing lawsuits in Federal Court to make it impossible to seek damages for symptoms of illnesses for which there is no strong evidence of their existence.