I for one enjoyed it very much, but no surprise there I'm sure.

AGIR, Boazy etc. exemplifies the main thrust of the show as to how and probably why science is under attack.

"NURSE claims science is under attack. No...not 'science' but the MANIPULATION of science by political interests" -AGIR

And written without any real hint of irony too. I can understand you mangling Darwins theory of evolution,for your own political purposes, but you could at least have gotten the full name of the book right.

Evolutionary theory says exactly that we do arise from a common ancestor.

Prof. Nurse says that with the rise of the internet and multimedia telecommunications there are many voices being listened to these days, and the clear message of science must make itself heard. Thank goodness noone actually listens to AGIR, but this garbage is all over the place. I don't know how to clean it up, it quite possibly possibly can't, but at least I can warn people not to step in it.

I think the idea that 'anyone' (i.e. literally anyone) can 'do science' without any sort of training or education in science is a joke. Many people these days believe that they can have their half-baked theories accepted as valid until someone 'proves' them otherwise this I think is a part of what is driving the disconnect between the general public and what real science is saying and stands for. It's a real worry, science education is lagging behind. It gets worse when there are many 'journalists' (and mass media pundits) with a very basic understanding of science go beyond reporting scientific findings and actively engage in the ridicule and policitisation of them.

Careful, Boaz. Your slip is showing.

>>Reason alone must inform us that such development was prone to environmental influences and that these various 'races' or stages of human development, include those 'more' developed and 'less' developed. Reason further declares that such variations must mean 'superior/inferior' in terms of 'survivablity'(as per Darwins alt title)<<

I would suggest that the simple fact that we still have a multiplicity of races on this planet gives the lie to your supposition.

Here's how you test that theory.

Do a headcount of the world's population, Boaz. Then divide those people into your categories of "'more' developed and 'less' developed".

Then tell us what you find.

I can tell you what you will find.

What you call "development" bears absolutely no relationship to survival on this planet. The "preferred races" that Darwin talks about are those best equipped to survive.

Not best equipped to "develop". Survive.

You may think that as an educated urban sophisticate living in Melbourne's leafy suburbia, you are more likely to survive, evolutionarily speaking, than uneducated rural Africans.

I wouldn't bet on that, myself.

Darwin 1, Boaz 0

ALGOREisRICH

It seems you too want to change the playing field, in your case to “racism and slavery”. That is not reasoned, nor is it logical – despite your claims to the contrary.

As the president of the Royal Society says (you apparently agree) there are powers out there that want to manipulate the science for politico/religious reasons.

Unabashedly, you have poignantly demonstrated this very thing in your comments (and in your moniker).

Attacking science with ‘anti-science’ does not change the science - a point James Delingpole also seems not to understand. Attacking science on ideological or religious grounds might well sell newspapers, or get more ‘hits’ on shock-jock op-eds – but it does not change the science, as you rightly concede.

So why do you keep doing it?

AGIR, did you watch the whole documentary?

.

Bugsy, I agree.

I can’t remember where I saw this, but there is a push for ‘post-normal’ science, where access to the internet gives ‘wannabe’ scientists some influence in science without actually having had to do the science.

There is even a push (see Delingpole response to Nurse) to have complex science (written by real scientists) critiqued on the internet by these ‘pseudo-scientists' aka interpreters. Who will filter out all the ‘nutters’ and ‘ding-bats, from either side of the ‘debate’? If you do filter them out, accusations of censorship and conspiracy will reign supreme.

Nurse raises a very good point – how do scientists communicate science in a way that does not dilute the science but in a way that is easy for non-scientists to understand?

The way I see it; scientific institutions, academies and organisations do a reasonable job but undoubtedly, could do it better (as I understand, this is an outcome of the IAC and IPCC investigations). Nevertheless, despite how good the communication is, it is simply impossible to communicate with people that are predisposed to a position based on their political or religious bias.

This is a dilemma and as we have seen, not one ‘anti-science’ devotee is able, capable or willing to address.

It is indeed a good point, bonmot.

>>Nurse raises a very good point – how do scientists communicate science in a way that does not dilute the science but in a way that is easy for non-scientists to understand?<<

Ben Sandilands covers a lot of this ground in today's edition of Crikey. Here's an excerpt for those of you not sufficiently "hip to the vibe" to have a subscription to that worthy online screed.

"...have you noticed how the capacity of the media to explain in lay terms such matters as quantum physics, or cosmology, is contracting faster than the universe is expanding. The more mind warping the discoveries, the less opportunity there is to fit them into 30 seconds in a news cast, or 300 words in print."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/01/why-the-big-bang-theory-was-a-big-stuff-up/

When news becomes a branch of the entertainment industry - as it has been for many years - complex content has been abandoned in favour of the easy-to-digest headline/soundbite.

Ben continues...

"The conspiracy of over simplification has until now kept the really gnarly principles involved in big bang theory out of the jargon because nothing short of a first-class degree in theoretical and practical physics is going to suffice for a reasonable overview."

It is unlikely that this situation will change. Which is a shame, because it means that we will be engaging in discussing on forums such as this, with less and less easily-accessible, accurate information.

The arguments will necessarily decrease in value, while simultaneously increase in volume - volume, as in number of words (most of which will be missing the point) as well as volume, as in noise level.

The substitute for incomprehension being, as always, the tendency to shout more loudly than your opponent.

@Bonmot

AGIR makes a good point: it’s not 'science' but the MANIPULATION of science by political interests" that is under attack.

Bugsy who seems to want to reserve discussion to the elect, says:
“ the idea that 'anyone' … can 'do science' without any sort of training or education in science is a joke. Many people these days believe that they can have their half-baked theories accepted as valid until someone 'proves' them otherwise this I think is a part of what is driving the disconnect between the general public and what real science is saying and stands for.”

What the internet has done is open up society. It has empowered the individual to challenge established positions. This has been happening across the board.

If those championing a scientific theory/hypothesis cannot answer such scrutiny either they or their proposition is deficient. In due course the grain will get sorted from the chaff.

On the issue if AGW : I have met very few people who do not agree that we need to reduce pollution and wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But the politicking and general shenanigans surrounding AGW make sceptics of many otherwise natural allies.

A bigger threat to real science lies in :
1)A culture that idolises pop stars and chefs and barely notices science figures
2)A society that allows its financial sector to out-bid its science sector and steal the best mathematical brains,and
3)A society ever more focused on quick returns and less willing to fund scientific research.

And since you've taken a liking to Haiku,I made a special effort just for you (hope it doesn't leave too much unexplained):

From weather entrails

climate priests divine

proof sure, rain or shine.

Not the 'elect', SPQR, but the 'educated'.

Individuals have always been empowered to challenge established positions in science, they merely need a good basis grounded in evidence to do so.

This goes far beyond the climate science debate.

In 'Bad Science', Ben Goldacre describes a consultant that was often used by the media in the UK to whip up hysteria over rampant antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria in the public health system.
It turns out he had built a makeshift laboratory in his backyard shed and was not certified to do anything and the place was hopelessly contaminated with the bacteria that they were looking for.

The internet effectively enables people to think that they can pretty much do the same sort of thing when they just can't.

What the internet has actually done, rather than supply the tools to pull down the edifices of science so carefully constructed, but to enable the flinging of garbage over the walls, with all the slackjawed passersby invited to join in.

It's starting to stink.