Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong with this. Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." To what extent do you think this might be true? WT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.430 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: 12/22/09 08:09:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution
Perhaps I should have stayed out of the semantic discussion. Warren, I think we're using the word "belief" in different ways. Everyone has beliefs (e.g., "the world is round"). I agree that world-views should be based on knowledge. Similarly, beliefs should informed by knowledge, and not the other way around. To me, "knowledge" implies stronger adherence to a particular concept than "belief". I think we should use "knowledge" with caution, particularly in reference to scientific concepts, which are (theoretically) supposed to be open for revision rather than rigidly held. Though it's probably fair to say that we "know" (for example) that vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor, and in that case "believe" might be too weak (despite still being accurate). I agree with Elmer that "think" can be used in much the same way as "believe", and it seems less emotionally charged. If Gallup asked people "do you think complex organisms like humans evolved from simpler life forms" (or something to that effect), would this wording offend fewer scientists? This could be followed up with questions about evidence for evolution. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Warren W. Aney [mailto:a...@coho.net] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:27 PM To: Raffel, Thomas; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution Tom asks "...what better word than 'belief' do we have to describe a person's world-view?" Well, my world view tends to be based on knowledge, not belief, and I believe many other scientists share this perspective. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Raffel, Thomas Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 17:04 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution To anyone following this thread: I liked the way Jimmy Green phrased his suggested poll question, "do you think there is scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural selection)?" To me the most vexing thing about the evolution/creationism culture war isn't how many people believe in young-Earth creationism. If someone chooses to believe, DESPITE the evidence, that an all-powerful creator made everything LOOK as if life evolved over billions of years (perhaps to "test their faith"), more power to them. I find this viewpoint absurd, but it poses little threat to science, so long as the evidence is acknowledged. The most vexing thing for me is how little the general public seems to know about the evidence in favor of evolution (both the fact that evolution occurs and the theory for how it works). People who doubt evolution are usually ignorant of the evidence. And religious people might actively avoid learning about the evidence, out of fear that admitting to the truth of evolution will destroy their faith. We need to find new ways to provide people with key pieces of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, and ways to help them reconcile an evolutionary worldview with their religious views. Here's why I like Jimmy's suggestion so much. The various forms of evidence for evolution take time to explain, and Americans have short attention spans. They also have many different specific religious views that need reconciling before they are willing to listen. More intelligent polling questions about what people DO know about evidence for evolution, and what if anything they find threatening about evolutionary theory, would be extremely useful for designing science education and outreach programs. We need to know what pieces of evidence are likely to convince people and what it will take to get them to listen (perhaps tailored to particular audiences). Also, regarding the thread's semantic argument, what better word than "belief" do we have to describe a person's world-view? I have no problem with a scientist saying he/she "believes" that life evolved from a common origin. We all have beliefs about the way the world works, though as scientists we should be open to changing our beliefs in light of new (and compelling) contradictory evidence. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jimmy Green Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:22 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution Greetings, I currently teach high school biology in Charlottesville, VA. Adaptation, natural selection, and evolution are a big part of the state standards of learning and standards based tests. Despite this emphasis, the controvers
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution
To anyone following this thread: I liked the way Jimmy Green phrased his suggested poll question, "do you think there is scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural selection)?" To me the most vexing thing about the evolution/creationism culture war isn't how many people believe in young-Earth creationism. If someone chooses to believe, DESPITE the evidence, that an all-powerful creator made everything LOOK as if life evolved over billions of years (perhaps to "test their faith"), more power to them. I find this viewpoint absurd, but it poses little threat to science, so long as the evidence is acknowledged. The most vexing thing for me is how little the general public seems to know about the evidence in favor of evolution (both the fact that evolution occurs and the theory for how it works). People who doubt evolution are usually ignorant of the evidence. And religious people might actively avoid learning about the evidence, out of fear that admitting to the truth of evolution will destroy their faith. We need to find new ways to provide people with key pieces of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, and ways to help them reconcile an evolutionary worldview with their religious views. Here's why I like Jimmy's suggestion so much. The various forms of evidence for evolution take time to explain, and Americans have short attention spans. They also have many different specific religious views that need reconciling before they are willing to listen. More intelligent polling questions about what people DO know about evidence for evolution, and what if anything they find threatening about evolutionary theory, would be extremely useful for designing science education and outreach programs. We need to know what pieces of evidence are likely to convince people and what it will take to get them to listen (perhaps tailored to particular audiences). Also, regarding the thread's semantic argument, what better word than "belief" do we have to describe a person's world-view? I have no problem with a scientist saying he/she "believes" that life evolved from a common origin. We all have beliefs about the way the world works, though as scientists we should be open to changing our beliefs in light of new (and compelling) contradictory evidence. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jimmy Green Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:22 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution Greetings, I currently teach high school biology in Charlottesville, VA. Adaptation, natural selection, and evolution are a big part of the state standards of learning and standards based tests. Despite this emphasis, the controversy all comes back to students' full grasping of the idea of a scientific theory--including that a theory is not necessarily something you believe in or not. Even though I would rather just ensure that students really grasp how scientific thought and processes work together to produce usable knowledge, I unfortunately cannot guarantee that this will happen anytime soon--schools would have to improve this type of basic science education at all grade levels, probably by stripping some of the more superficial standards from the curriculum. So, at the least, we could ask more appropriate poll questions, as some of you have pointed out--questions that would elucidate what people really understand about the theory, and point out possible misconceptions to the poll-reading public. I think a series of questions that starts with "do you think there is scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural selection)?" Yes? Then what evidence do you know of? No? What evidence is not convincing to you? If polls are not asking these questions in the terms of theory and evidence, then they are not asking about real science. The results of such a poll might be even more embaressing, but at least they could serve some purpose beside reinforcing the status quo. Thanks for continuing this conversation! I encourage people concerned about science education to examine their local schools' standards and in-school practices (especially at lower grades), look for any disparities, and push for more authentic, inquiry based scientific education. Cheers, Jimmy Green On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:58 AM, William Silvert wrote: > I share the feeeling of Wendee and other respondents that "believe" is not > an appropriate word. The problem is that we haven't really come up wth > alternatives that reflect the inherent skepticism of science but that are > also meaningful to the general public. Evolution is a credible theory, > well-supported by evidence, etc., but none of these phrases have much bite. > After all, there is still a lot of common reference to "scientific proof", > and any attempts to revise our language to
