UK Science Adviser Beddington goes to war against bad science

Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington is stepping up the war on pseudoscience with a call to his fellow government scientists to be "grossly intolerant" if science is misused by religious or political groups.

An American scientist's view on it. I like the notion of drawing a line between being intolerant of people and being intolerant of bad ideas.

Oh, Britain.

Britain, Britain, Britain.

Britain.

edited 15th Feb '11 7:28:51 AM by Myrmidon

I like this idea, shoot me if you want.

I didn't, though if I would do it, it would just be a habit from my gaming chats.

edited 15th Feb '11 7:37:06 AM by ZheToralf

Please don't use "u" as a substitute for "you" unless you happen to be texting.

edited 15th Feb '11 7:32:13 AM by Myrmidon

I like the notion of drawing a line between being intolerant of people and being intolerant of bad ideas.

Pretty much this.

I also see no problem with being intolerant of intolerance itself.

I suppose if this means cracking down on homeopathy and stuff then that's good? It's a ripoff,a fter all...

Good.

Good articles. Given the amount of pseudoscience out there and the credibility it receives from modern media, I'd say the United States really badly needs a dose of what Beddington's offering.

There is a definite difference between being intolerant of ideas and intolerant of people; however, I think there is also a danger in being intolerant of ideas. Free speech, things aren't always what they seem and all that.

That being said.

There is a very good reason why these ideas are being rejected: they have no evidence for them or the evidence contradicts what they are saying. If evidence turned up in their favor, they would have to be reevaluated. That's precisely what science does and is supposed to do, and it's proven to be the best way of filtering fact from fiction. So in this case, the intolerance of counterscientific ideas - entirely justified.

Its about bloody time someone did something about the mockery that corporations and the media frequently make of scientific discoveries... or "discoveries" as the case may be.

Well, it's not so much "being intolerant of ideas" as "having a filter to weed out bad ideas". When homeopaths/creationists/etc. ask for a "fair representation", they're not actually looking for a fair representation. They want ideas that have been proven wrong and even harmful to be accepted as though they hadn't, an unfair advantage no real scientific theory has asked for or received.

Well I think that you have one big issue is that the media loves stirring up controversy and false dichotomies, (for instance) as if there was some scientific furore between creationism and evolution. There exists none because creationism is so thoroughly flawed as a theory it barely warrants more than a grunt from a scientist. If the media were more balanced in its approach of topics, it would say things like, this group of people want creationism in our school. Then the media gets reaction quotes from the NRC (National Research Council) and they'd go "The idea is totally wrong because of x" (perhaps as a side link and in the article it would just indicate clearly that creationism is not a valid scientific theory at all).

While this conjures to mind the images of say, jackbooted thugs threatening elderly acupuncturists, women being kept out of jobs due to an understanding of gender roles justified by incompetent biased evolutionary psychologists, a stratified social system based on genetic determinism, the Galileos of our age having their throats slit by the bended, tortured and contorted logical steel of Occam's Razor, and books being burned for having "folk psychological" explanations for character's actions, in reality that's all a ridiculous paranoid fantasy and this is just going to involve more articles debunking homeopathy and creationism.

Which the public will mostly ignore, but whatever.

edited 15th Feb '11 10:14:35 AM by Myrmidon

Yeah, there's probably nothing these well-meaning scientists can do about all those nutcases making money out of the ignorant and gullible.

Except pooling money for public announcements on tv and radio, I suppose.

Nutcases? I think you mean entrepreneurs!

I prefer the term fraudsters.

You're right. these people aren't crazy, just malicious.

If it helps, I'd have no idea what homeopathy was if people didn't complain about it so much.

Maybe thats because you get most of your news via the internet where people are more likely to complain about it than nod politely at the crazy persons views.

Problem is, bad science is really popular, and profitable. So, good luck with getting rid of that. I just hope they'll manage to damage creationism and intelligent design a bit, Im getting really sick of that bullshit.

Those movements don't have as much sway in the U.K. as they do in the U.S.; each country has different populations of bullshit peddlers.

Tell me about it >< We got our very own racist fuck political party now. Apparently you CAN base an entire political platform on "its all the immigrants fault".

^Could've told ya that 10 years ago. But then again Dansk Folkeparti and Sverigedemokraterna seems to have gotten rather chummy lately.

OK, I'll challenge this.

"Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said."

Except that "gross intolerance" isnt the best way to oppose any of those things. The one thing you dont want to do is force destructive modes of thought underground. Racism, Homophobia, and psuedo-science are all best dealth with by means of patient, well reasoned opposition, public education, and clear legal standards regarding what is and what isnt permissible in public places or in the context of conducting business. No workplace harrassment, discrimination against protected groups, or fraudulent claims. Giving people the cold shoulder or verbally aggressing against them wont change anyone's mind and wont protect vulnerable populations from exploitation or harrassment.

The best example so far of a successful approach to pseudo-science is the response of the scientific community to the "Bell-Curve" claims a few years ago. Claims of racial superiority re-surface every decade or so, and they always get buried under a mountain of counter-evidence. The same can basically be said about "intelligent design". You cant prevent everyone from decieving themselves if they refuse to listen to reason, but really I think the approach we use is the most effective in the long run.

We could and should subsidize more science education, and we should promote reasoned skepticism as a cultural meme. But "gross intolerance" sounds to blunt and clumsy.

Very rarely, almost never, barely occasionally, Godwin's Law isn't applicable. This is one of those times.

Sorry for the derail. Something about the OP? Erm...how exactly are they planning to put this into practice? Stricter regulations for the submission of ideas?

edited 15th Feb '11 9:06:25 PM by Ultrayellow