Commentary regarding pop-sci from r/politics: Pop-sci is bad for science

quote:

---

I'm a research biologist and an atheist, but I really think that people like Dawkins, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson are doing more harm to science than good.
First of all, because of the artificial distinction between BA degrees and BS degrees. Most present-day STEM graduates are ignorant of the fact that science (broadly defined as the pursuit of knowledge based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning) is a subset of philosophy (the pursuit of knowledge).
Second, because of this ignorance, the present-day STEM graduates tend to loose sight of the scope of science. Science can tell us whether or not global warming appears to be happening based on our current interpretation of the data, but science cannot tell us what needs to be done about it; that's policy, a different subset of philosophy. Further, the awe-inspiring nature of the cosmos, or the process of evolution, cannot tell us whether or not god exists, whether or not creationism should be taught in the classroom, etc. All those things, again, are policy questions, philosophical questions.
Third, expertise in a scientific discipline does not necessarily qualify one to comment on the policy or philosophical implications arising from findings within that discipline. For examples, Dawkins is an abominable philosopher. His philosophical points are quite frequently wrong or have been definitively rebutted hundreds of years ago.

Finally, politically active scientists damage science because they (implicitly or explicitly) refer to their science, policy preferences, and philosophy, as "science." They, so to speak, roll it all into one and call it science. Thus, non-philosophers (who oftentimes cannot distinguish between the three) reject "science," when really all they really reject is a particular scientist's subjective policy preferences and philosophy.

Let me give some examples of politicized science.
Global warming. People with policy preferences (environmentalists) don't talk about the findings of global warming. Rather, they say, "the earth is warming and here is how should reverse it." Thus, non-environmentalists throw out the baby with the bathwater, rejecting the what-should-be-done-about-it policy argument as well as the phenomenon of global warming.
Evolution. "We evolved therefore the bible (or whatever text) is wrong," or "Evolution is true so we will not teach creationism." Thus, people reject evolution.

Now, the reaction to many STEM people when hearing this is, "Yeah but, creationism isn't true; yeah but, we do need to fight global warming." Of course. But, when speaking you need to be very careful to DELINEATE between science and non-science. Science cannot disprove last-thursday-ism, Science cannot disprove that the earth is warming to kill off the gays, or whatever other non-sense is out there.

People like Dawkins, Nye, and Tyson are dangerous to science because they are willing to tarnish the public's perception of science in order to bolster their political or philosophical views. That's my opinion. These guy's aren't heroes; they're divisive. And science--limited to science--can never be divisive.

---