Hi Elton,
I certainly didn't say I agreed with their choice or thought it was a
good one. But as someone who grew up in a low-income, low-employment
environment myself this has the ring of truth to it. I totally agree
with you (and worry just as much) regarding the proliferation of
anti-expert sentiment - but I don't think it's necessarily the biggest
cause of what just happened in this case. It seems to me that a great
many people didn't vote for Trump because of who he was, but *in spite*
of who he was - given the choice between two people who they perceived
as corrupt, malevolent billionaires, they went for the one who wasn't
part of the political machine they see as irrevocably broken, and at
least said some things to indicate that he noticed them. Essentially a
protest vote, just on a country-wide scale. I just hope the consequences
won't be as severe as we all fear.
My personal answer to your final question comes in two parts:
(1) As I understand it, there's at least some indication that it isn't
as bad as it seems (or, more precisely, it's always been at least this
bad, but we just couldn't see it as clearly before). History is littered
with extreme examples of anti-science gaining control at the highest
levels of government (Lysenkoism, witch hunts, creationism, etc.). At
least these days it seems science is mostly on the front foot
(anti-science movements and politicians seem to be mostly fighting a
slowly losing battle against concepts introduced by scientists, rather
than scientists mostly fighting back against unscientific dogma).
(2) A big part of the solution has to be in communication. Our ability
to communicate our work (and its importance) directly to the public has
never been greater. That "directly" bit is important, because science
journalists and even university PR departments have historically had a
habit of both mangling the science and overblowing its impact between
the scientist and the newsprint. Providing clear, accessible and, above
all, friendly explanations of key work online can count for a heck of a
lot.
Yes, we're certainly facing big problems - but I'm not yet ready to
despair.
Best regards,
Tristan
On 2016-11-10 09:47, Elton Zeqiraj wrote:
Hi Tristan,
I’m afraid I don’t get the logic in the article you sent. In this
case the farmers who are crying for the attention of the people in
shiny palaces have voted for one who lives in golden mansions.
For me the really worrying thing here is how can so many people be
misled by a false prophet who lies and misbehaves so much. It is a
systemic problem in our society. We never before had so much access to
information, and yet it is so easy to mislead people.
People understood what Trump was and they basically said: “I don’t
care”! We are living in a world where people don’t care about
facts, they just say “I know it to be true”. As scientists whose
job and mission in life is to further and pass knowledge, it is very
serious that we are in this post-truth era. It affects us all when we
talk about climate change, evidence based treatments in our hospitals,
GM debate, etc.
Instead of making this about Trump, I would like to pose a different
question: How are we going to deal with the anti-expert movement that
is now so prominent in our society?
Cheers,
Elton
On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:15 AM, Tristan Croll <ti...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
In the interests of promoting understanding... the link below is to
an article on what is ostensibly a comedy website and contains a bit
of coarse language, but nevertheless is quite possibly the most
insightful exposition of the situation I've come across. The
two-sentence synopsis: don't think of this as the forces of hate,
fear and ignorance winning. Think of it as a cry for attention from
a large number of people who are seriously struggling and (mostly
correctly) see their problems as being ignored by the system.
Writing them off as ignorant and hateful isn't the answer.
In agreement with various others, this is my first and last post
referencing politics or religion on this forum.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
[1]
On 2016-11-10 08:00, Marjolein Thunnissen wrote:
Dear Bill,
I fully agree with you, awareness has to be spread and one should
not
ignore politics completely, especially when there are so strong
anti-intellectual (anti-science) statements out there.
best regards
Marjolein
On 10 Nov 2016, at 04:17, William G. Scott <wgsc...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
Dear Edward et al:
I agree we shouldn’t engage in partisan arguments on the CCP4bb.
However, I think it is a mistake, and perhaps a missed opportunity,
to ignore politics completely.
For example, Newt Gingrich is currently in the running for Sec HHS.
He has previously written editorials in the NYT and Wall Street
Journal advocating doubling the budget of the NIH.
I think it is incumbent upon us to make our voices heard if such an
opportunity arises, regardless of what one may happen to think about
the individual’s political orientation, as it could potentially be
of enormous benefit to the scientific community.
Yours faithfully,
William G. Scott
Director, Program in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
and The Center for the Molecular Biology of RNA
University of California at Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, California 95064
USA
http://scottlab.ucsc.edu [2] [1]
On Nov 9, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Edward Snell <esn...@hwi.buffalo.edu>
wrote:
As a Brexit and Trumpet affected person having a foot in both
countries ,this topic is too far off the normal discussion on CCP4
and probably better taken up privately. CCP4 is not a political
discussion site. With CCP4 the signal is unusually high and the
noise low when compared to any discussion board. I for one would
like to keep it there. Political views aside, we’re all trying
to achieve the same scientific goals. Let’s remember that and
keep that the focus.
Edward Snell Ph.D.
President and CEO Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute
Assistant Prof. Department of Structural Biology, University at
Buffalo
700 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, NY 14203-1102
Phone: (716) 898 8631 Fax: (716) 898 8660
Skype: eddie.snell Email: esn...@hwi.buffalo.edu
<image003.png>
Heisenberg was probably here!
DR. MARJOLEIN THUNNISSEN
Head User Office
MAX IV Laboratory
Lund University
P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
Visiting address: Fotongatan 2, 225 94 Lund
Telephone: +46 46 2224668
Mobile: +46 766 32 04 17
www.maxliv.lu.se [3] [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://scottlab.ucsc.edu [2]
[2] http://www.maxlab.lu.se/ [4]
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
[2] http://scottlab.ucsc.edu/
[3] http://www.maxliv.lu.se/
[4] http://www.maxlab.lu.se/
