It’s unfortunate when bad science from dubious sources attains public attention. It’s really unfortunate when it becomes the basis for new laws. Like the recent moves in Texas to ban gay couples, not only from adoption, but from even bringing in foster kids, which were bolstered by a study showing that kids in same-sex households are eleven times more likely to suffer sexual abuse.
Except that the study doesn’t really say that. And it’s a crappy study besides.
29 view(s)
Well, duh. It’s Texas.
No, it is actually not limited to Texas. Here in Fort Collins, we almost had the flouride taken out of our water because of junk science. The City Council actually did the responsible thing and had a thorough review done of the scientific literature by experts. Nevertheless, it was forced on the ballot.
This is an illustration where the Internet is truly a bad thing. People think because a study is on the Internet it must be true. Interpretting studies is a very difficult academic endeavor. That’s why we have peer review because people who don’t do this for a living should not do this at home. Even so, we have had a couple of incidences of fraud getting past peer review. See the following for an example:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/press_release_poehlman.shtml
True, it’s a problem everywhere. I just expect junk science to prevail in Texas… and have good odds anywhere in the Bible Belt. And the BB outposts like Colorado Springs.
On the bright side, though, the Internet increases awareness of things like this happening, too, and allows quick access to fact-checking.
People will, in time (a short time, I suspect) become as good (and as bad) at evaluating sources online as they are offline.
And people wonder why I get upset when the Bush Administration insists on only using “scientists” that support the policies the administration has already decided it wants to enact. The piss-poor state of science education in this country is going to come back and bite us in the ass in the long run.
The injection of politics into science has been a lot more overt and explicit in the Bush Administration than previously, but it’s not conceptually unique.
That said, yes, “the piss-poor state of science education in this country is going to come back and bite us in the ass in the long run.” I agree fully.
Three things contributed to the current sorry state of science education:
1. Post-modernism
2. The end of the Cold War
3. 9/11
The first made truth a matter of opinion and preference. Add the pragmatism of Americans and it is no wonder that “science” is appropriated to political ends. Higher education drifted to new kinds of studies: women’s studies, peace studies, etc. All are geared to tweak the so-called narrative to the advantage of whatever group the study catered towards. Ward Cunningham rather than Carl Wieman is the public face of CU. In the process, the hard sciences failed to attract Americans.
The second took away the main impetus for science education. Ever since Sputnik we promoted science to compete with the Ruskies. With the fall of the Soviet Union, that reason went away.
The third would seem to help because we need science for better homeland security. The problem is for over 25 years we have been importing the best and the brightest from overseas. Crackdowns on student visas for security reasons have put that to a halt. Thus, we have neither indigenous nor imported scientific talent and worse we don’t notice it because our collective critical thinking skills have atrophied in the process.