Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

cogsciresearch.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#91

Post by tom_swift »

jerf wrote: post #31
kmfrk wrote: post #6

Read Anti-Intellectualism in America by Richard* Hofstadter; it's as true and relevant today, as it was back then. The decline, if any, probably has to do with the fact that there wasn't a Cold War where scientists could participate directly against a tangible threat and common purpose: “The Sputnik was more than a shock to American national vanity: it brought an immense amount of attention to bear on the consequence…

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

But what exactly is the definition of an "intellectual"? It's certainly not a synonym for "scientist". The best definition I've encountered is that an intellectual tries to find solutions to the world's problems through cogitation alone, without reference to experiment or other experience. (Think, say, Karl Marx.) In other words, an Aristotelian. But certainly not a scientist. (Of course, some people working today as "scientists" are not very scientific, but that's not exactly the same problem.)

A characteristic and illustrative Aristotlean idea is the teaching that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. People for many centuries believed Aristotle about this, probably because it seemed sensible. But "sensible" just means according to the evidence provided to us by our senses. It also, in this case, means "wrong". Many people have "sensible" ideas about modern policy issues, such as the way that taxes generate revenue, or the efficacy of gun control laws. Most of these ideas, "sensible" or not, are also wrong, some demonstrably so, others a bit more subtly. But evidence is not terribly important to an Aristotelean, or to an intellectual.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#92

Post by obvioustroll »

gammarator wrote: post #79
jerf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

If you want to fix anti-intellectualism, you first need to fix intellectualism and return it to its roots of dispassionate exploration, commitment to truth over all else and bending processes to find truth rather than bending truth to fit (politicized) processes Perhaps science was once like this, when it was practiced only by a monied elite at their leisure. But if science, or intellectual life broadly, is important…

That's all true - but we frequently pretend that it isn't. How often do we read or see someone push themselves forward as the Voice of Dispassionate Truth, when the reality they are as much a "true believer" as any other partisan?

How often to we entrust the role of Gatekeeper to someone only to discover they've been using their position to engage in insider trading?

As long as we allow people to put themselves forth as harbingers of Truth, nothing will change.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#93

Post by obvioustroll »

jtolle wrote: post #78
jerf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

Wait a second. Maybe I need some reeducation myself here, but you're pinning the mass-murders of the 20th century on "intellectuals"? And then saying that's the explanation for the present day trend of distrust in science? (Well, that plus the egg flip-flop.) I'm not granting the premise, but even if I did, it's quite a non-sequitur. You blame scientists for "fail[ing] to resist politicization" without mentioning tha…

I think you need to take another look at the connection between western intellectuals and communism. They defended it and, for decades, denied the abuses and murders committed in the Soviet Union and in communist China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#94

Post by obvioustroll »

You might want to review the history of industrial pollution in the US - and remember that it was all the miraculous promises of science that brought us TMI, Love Canal, mercury poisoning in fish, smog and everything else.

To the average person, it seems obvious to them that "scientists" are why companies can strip away entire mountains, it was "scientists" that killed all the eagles with DDT, and, above all, it's "scientists" who assure us that "ingredient X" give us cancer, or high blood pressure, or whatever, and then, 10 years later its "scientists" who then turn around and hail "ingredient X" as the a panacea that will ensure you live a long and healthy life.

Now, you and I both know that's not how science works - but that's certainly how it's perceived.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#95

Post by obvioustroll »

jseliger wrote: post #28
zaidf wrote: post #16

My pediatric surgeon dad who deals with kids everyday loves to chat with kids about their aspirations. In the US, vast majority of the kids want to become firefighters or cops. In contrast, when my dad practiced in India, majority of kids wanted to become doctors or engineers. It's probably hard to tell the cause from the effect. May be they both have a little bit to do with each other. But in Indian movies, for exam…

In the US, vast majority of the kids want to become firefighters or cops. . . . It's probably hard to tell the cause from the effect. I think it's easy: jobs as scientists in the U.S. suck relative to other jobs. See here: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16... ? for more. Basically, if you have the chops to get a job in science, you're probably better off doing something else (like med schoo…

> I think it's easy: jobs as scientists in the U.S. suck relative to other jobs.

Hmmm... I'm making 6 figures as an engineer. I really doubt my brother the heavy equipment operator can say the same.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#96

Post by dagw »

obvioustroll wrote: post #95
jseliger wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, vast majority of the kids want to become firefighters or cops. . . . It's probably hard to tell the cause from the effect. I think it's easy: jobs as scientists in the U.S. suck relative to other jobs. See here: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16... ? for more. Basically, if you have the chops to get a job in science, you're probably better off doing something else (like med schoo…

> I think it's easy: jobs as scientists in the U.S. suck relative to other jobs. Hmmm... I'm making 6 figures as an engineer. I really doubt my brother the heavy equipment operator can say the same.

I don't know about heavy equipment operators, but I know a welder without any sort of college education who easily clears 6 figures a year. If you know how to weld under water you can apparently make even more.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#97

Post by boulderfield »

jtolle wrote: post #78
jerf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

Wait a second. Maybe I need some reeducation myself here, but you're pinning the mass-murders of the 20th century on "intellectuals"? And then saying that's the explanation for the present day trend of distrust in science? (Well, that plus the egg flip-flop.) I'm not granting the premise, but even if I did, it's quite a non-sequitur. You blame scientists for "fail[ing] to resist politicization" without mentioning tha…

Quote: ‘(Stalin) exterminated an awful lot of non-Russians who had traditionally resisted the central Russian state’

Yes, he did but not because they were non-Russians and the Soviet Union was not a "central Russian state". Stalin’s power was centered in the power of the Communist Party that by design (and ideology) spanned all nationalities.

Quote: ‘The rise of the modern state enabled ideological mass-killing, but that just added another reason to all the other ones - ethnic, religious, colonial conquest, etc.’

Yes, exactly, "ideological mass-killing". Of course there was plenty of other killing all along but I am sure you’d agree that’s irrelevant to the thesis. I assume, of course, you were not trying to say that since people were killing each other before we should not try to understand the causes of 20th century atrocities.

So back to the obvious question:

Who developed the ideas of the ideologies that are at the root of ideological mass-killing?

Just consider your own words (and the ideas behind them). I don’t think you need reeducation. You went straight to the core, quite intuitively.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#98

Post by Parziva1 »

jtolle wrote: post #78
jerf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

Wait a second. Maybe I need some reeducation myself here, but you're pinning the mass-murders of the 20th century on "intellectuals"? And then saying that's the explanation for the present day trend of distrust in science? (Well, that plus the egg flip-flop.) I'm not granting the premise, but even if I did, it's quite a non-sequitur. You blame scientists for "fail[ing] to resist politicization" without mentioning tha…

Here's the thing about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It rests on the assumption that uniformitarianism (the doctrine that is the basis for the entire science of Geology) is false. It does not attempt to prove this, it merely assumes it. Much like the Young Earth Creationists.

All the CO2 currently sequestered in fossil fuels used to be part of our atmosphere. We know what the climate was like before this happened through fossils, changing sea levels, and evidence of glaciation, all recorded in the rock. The climate has followed a predictable and remarkably constant warming/cooling cycle as far back as we can reliably measure. If the sequestration of CO2 in fossil fuels had an impact, it's below our level of precision.

Could the release of CO2 make a slight difference at the margins? Sure it could. The ice age we've got coming down the pike in a few thousand years could possibly be partially mitigated. But the sackcloth, ashes, and cries of "The End is Nigh! Repent, Ye Sinners!" is stuff and nonsense.

Many of the highest profile advocates of AGW are charlatans. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

Let's take a look at the IPCC report that was so loudly praised by AGW supporters. There are any number of problems with it, but for argument's sake, we'll accept it at face value as the worst-case scenario. It concluded that over the course of several decades that the globe had warmed 0.8 degrees, and stated with 90% confidence that man's influence was responsible for (wait for it) less than one tenth of one degree. That's not a sound basis for wailing and rending of clothes.

Like it or not, CO2 is a trace gas that comprises significantly less than 0.1% of our atmosphere, and will remain so in any realistic projection. Ice cores have shown little or no correlation between CO2 and temperature. AGW proponents state that this will change soon. But this is a statement based upon faith, not one based on evidence.

Of course, I could ramble on at more length about the difficulties in finding an extremely faint signal amongst mind-boggling amounts of noise. The pretense of a precision that does not exist. The claims of knowledge that is not actually known. And the perfidy of the vocal AGW proponents. (The last one is especially fun.) But I don't think I'd be adding much by doing so. All of that is easily addressed with simple search strings.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#99

Post by obvioustroll »

Parziva1 wrote: post #98
jtolle wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a second. Maybe I need some reeducation myself here, but you're pinning the mass-murders of the 20th century on "intellectuals"? And then saying that's the explanation for the present day trend of distrust in science? (Well, that plus the egg flip-flop.) I'm not granting the premise, but even if I did, it's quite a non-sequitur. You blame scientists for "fail[ing] to resist politicization" without mentioning tha…

Here's the thing about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It rests on the assumption that uniformitarianism (the doctrine that is the basis for the entire science of Geology) is false. It does not attempt to prove this, it merely assumes it. Much like the Young Earth Creationists. All the CO2 currently sequestered in fossil fuels used to be part of our atmosphere. We know what the climate was like before thi…

> All the CO2 currently sequestered in fossil fuels used to be part of our atmosphere.

That's an interesting assertion. I'm not a biologist, but I suspect quite a lot of the carbon in hydrocarbons was locked into other carbon compounds before being taken up by plants and animals.

Consider: the carbonaceous compounds in the shells of mollusks do not come from C02 but from other disolved carbon compounds in the water.

You could just as easily argue that all the carbon in limestone used to be in the atmosphere.

Re: Why did the social prestige of science and engineering decline in the US?

#100

Post by NateWhilk »

gammarator wrote: post #79
jerf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of "education" to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren't tru…

If you want to fix anti-intellectualism, you first need to fix intellectualism and return it to its roots of dispassionate exploration, commitment to truth over all else and bending processes to find truth rather than bending truth to fit (politicized) processes Perhaps science was once like this, when it was practiced only by a monied elite at their leisure. But if science, or intellectual life broadly, is important…

But the "monied elite" of earlier science were human, too. So are those who determine which outcomes are desired and what incentives will achieve that. Why should the overall result of that be any better?
Post reply on HN