It is just one PonkeyDon's opinion. I think we are in total agreement, I think either I did a poor job of explaining my point or you misunderstood me. I agree there is a systemic problem but Scientists who are capable of explaining to the layman have stood back and not engaged those that take advantage of the effects of this problem - ignorance.

What I blame those who are capable of articulate and easy to understand explanations of Science for ( to whit: Dawkins and his ilk ) whom also have the credentials and record is for misunderstanding that the terms of engagement have moved on. It is no longer sufficient to hope that by not engaging in debate with the Creationists they will suck the oxygen out of the fire.  They have to actively engage in a firefight, and hope for the best. 

Thus whilst I agree that parents and schools inspectorate ( and indeed the policymakers ) need to get a grip on the situation we still have to deal with the results of the increasing number of people disenchanted with Scientific explanation ( not willing to take it as read anymore for whatever reason ) and educate them on the scientific principle as well as correct factual misunderstanding.

 If all these unquestioning ignoramii hear ( and yes, I am aware that I too am ignorant of various subjects ) of evolution ( for example ) is a crackpot version of it which can be debunked with proof by blinding with psuedoscience or by religious indoctrination because distinguished scientists who are aware of both Evolution and "ID" in detail ( such as Dawkins ) have not been engaging in the debate at the correct level. 

So, in the same way that Randi is feared by the conmen and women of the spiritualist world and quite willingly invests in a media campaign of put up or shut up that captures the imagination of the target audience, the same needs to be done to counter some of the bullshit being spread by the ID and Christian lobby ( not to mention the Scientology lobby with it's crackpot view of psychotherapy ).  

 This is especially true now there are evidently so many people in the media who seem to think that truth is always precisely half way between two different assertions ( a logical fallacy ) and even more important simply because with the huge resources of the tax free dollar the religious lobby has been able to distort news reporting and editorial for decades in the USA and is starting to do it in the United Kingdom too. Once these credulous halfwits get elected ( say, as a President or a Prime Minister ) and start to pour money into "Faith" groups to "bring back morality" then you really know that Science and Scientific studies are not being heard in the right places.

 Thus, to turn this back we require a two pronged effort.

 1. Fix the education problem.

2. More importantly in the medium term ( because without it you can't do (1) ), check the influence and the lies spread about by those with an agenda against the Scientific principle, and would prefer the population to return to mass credulity and ignorance so that they can continue to take advantage and control. To whit: The Churches.

 

Once the horse is in the walls of Troy, it is over. It has been dangerously close these last 10 years in the USA.  

I think we agree on the problem, but have differnet takes on the solution. Basically what I'm understand you saying is thus: "Scientists are to blame for the problem because they are capable of explaining the situation to the layman, but don't." Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

What I am saying is "It's the Education system's fault for the layman's level of ignorance in the first place."

I believe that without bringing the level of education up, the general layman will not be able to understand the scientists explanations as being more solidly grounded than those of the creationist. It'll resort right back to the apeal to authority falicies I mentioned earlier. It'll be Dawkins says vs Behe says with the Bible as the trump card.

 I think in essence we both have points. I wanna raise the bridge, you want to lower the river. And probably both needs be done in the end.

So you agree that there is a major problem with the public education system. Okay. But to insinuate that alot of people go into teaching because it's their only choice, I gotta call bullshit there. Please provide proof of this. As for the lack of education, again I gotta call bullshit here. Picking a state at random, Tennesse, to get your teching license requires the potential teacher to take a series of college courses specifically for teaching that culminates in a Bachelor's Degree. As for the lack of renumeration, no argument there. But this is still something that can be fixed in the education system.

I don't agree here. Looking at the State of Tennessee again, They have to have a bachelor's degree, this flies straight into the face of your poorly educated theory. These are not HS grads teaching freshmen. For the General Education requirement that all teachers MUST have, an understanding of the Scientific Method and how it is applied is a requirement. The fact that high school level evolution theory was poorly taught does not mean that the curriculum cannot be modified to accomodate. If the teacher is conversant in the scientific method, and the curriculum carries the information, the teacher should have little problem with teaching the now expanded curriculum. To insinuate that a person coming into a teaching position believes they have nothing left to learn is absurd in and of itself. Especially since it is a general requirment for them to have spent time as a teaching assistant first.

It will, not right away, but it will fix the problem. Once the public education system starts churning out people who can spot the false logic being spouted as "Creation Science," The churches will have to take an alternative tact to explain their crap.

Wow, skiing right on down that slippery slope now ain't ya. Okay. One you state that the adult population is not in school to be taught any more, now you talk about rectifying their education by easy to understanding but correct teaching. You lay this at the feet of the scientists who job does not entail teaching us. Their job is to make the discoveries that will be taught. Your basic premise here is that people are taught wrong in the first place - and that if we don't correct this generation, here, now, we'll never undo the damage. That we'll spire into a dark age of which they're will be no recovery. I challenge this. We've had fundamentalist backslides in the past (in 1950s atheism was considered to link you to communism and thereby unamerican.) and we've yet to sink into the unrecoverable dark age, explain how this situation is different. Why will we forever be destined to walk the dark path?

I noticed that you equated the faulty teaching as on the part of tha parents there...nice dodge. You blame the scientists for not coming down off their ivory tower and correcting the landslide of ignorance.  You want the scientists to combat this with the easy to swallow pill form of their theories. Unfortunatlet they do not exist. The problem with "sound byte" theories is that they are neither accurate nor complete. To truly understand what a scientist is trying to tell you without having it sound like or she is talking down to you is for some middle ground to be obtained. A scientist cannot fully explain science to the layman if the layman has no grasp of the scientific method. The drift resulted in the first place by the deficiencies in our education system...that's why they are to blame, and the responsibility to correct this resides in our educators. You attribute science as being unquestionable when in fact it has never been that way. You give scientists this aura of the unquestionable, all-knowing entity who refuses to share their knowledge with the masses (Does this sound at all familiar?) This is a complete red herring. The problem has never been science the ivory tower entity you claim it to be, the problem is the fundamentalists twisting "science" to their own use. It has them bringing up people like Behe who have their doctorates and are spewing things that on the surface sound great, and claiming (almost like you are) that there's this eerie silence from the scientific comunity on the lack of evidence to support their claims. Yet, here we are, smack in the middle of the information age. Able to hop on the internet and look up the information we seek. Why is he able to get away with this? It's not because the scientists don't fire back. It's because A) Behe's got a built in advertising firm for him - fundamentalists churches. and B) the average layman has been taught the apeal to authority falicy (see my earlier post) of high school science and has no concept of how the scientific method works.

So Dawkins can do it, does that mean it is the responsibility of all scientists have to do this? Does this mean that we can now let the educators off the hook for their shameful-less-than-stellar treatment of science in schools. No! This is Dawkins picking the slack up for what should have been done right in the schools in the first place. He's doing a great job, but that does not take away the responsibility from the educators.

Again with the slippery slope. Explain how scientists not explaining their theories to the layman will cause laws to be unenforcable. This isn't so much as a slippery slope as it is a damned cliff. As a matter of fact if recent history has taught us anything it's that the influential generation as you put it, is rebelled against usually just as a matter of course for the new generation to kick the ass of the older generation. And let's be clear here. Changing the education system isn't as long term as you make it, the high school graduates of this year, are next year's voters. The teachers who can understand the concepts are already in place, all that needs be fixed is the curriculum, on the educators side. Dealing with backwards parents will be a problem for a longer term, which is why we still have that nonsense with ID theory wanting to be taught in school 50 years after the scopes trial.

So to conclude, we do have educated teachers in school, who do understand the scientific method, whose curriculums are woefully inadequate to the task of educating our children. We have a generation of children who are ready to rebel against the current generation, yet who have not yet selected a target. Yet you put the responsibility on scientists who have in your opinion remained silent to the masses, yet you dismiss the fact that there have been men like Dawkins and Asimov, and Sagan, and Hawking who have been anything but silent, removed, or unquestionable, who have been writing books, hosting television programs, speaking in public since the 1950s. You claim that they (modern scientists) are arrogant about the problem yet you ascribe this arrogance how? You want the scientists to come charging into the fray guns ablazing to make the creationists cower and run from the holy light of science...oops...sarcasm was set waaay too high on that one. You want this settled in the media where right isn't always decided by who has the most compelling or logical point, but who has got the sympathy of the editor, who has the better sound bite, who can claim victory when the other side has left the stage. You realize that Bill O'Reilly claimed victory over Dawkins a week after their onscreen non-debate correct? Until the general public actually understands the principles behind science - which they are not going to get from a sound bite - they will never be able to see through the flash vs substance that has become creationist "science" vs science debates that we've seen.

I seriously can't see how you can honestly blame scientists for the failures in our education system. It is our educators who have fallen asleep at the watch. It is their responsibility to encourage rational thought and problem solving. They are the educated ones and they have failed to engage sufficient numbers of people over the last few generations through teaching rational problem solving and the scientific method to innoculate the masses against these fraudsters pretending there is equivalence between Evolution and Creationism (ID)

Forgive me here, I'm not au fait with the quoting mechanism. I'm having to pick and choose a representative out of the mix of sarcasm and challenge to prevent this exploding in size exponentially! Maybe we can come back to some of your other points later on.

"So you agree that there is a major problem with the public education system. Okay. But to insinuate that alot of people go into teaching because it's their only choice, I gotta call bullshit there"

 Let me restate that then, it is their best choice given the alternatives when the quality of degree is acheived. It will take me a while to search the public Office of National Statistics report & a DfES study for what was presented annually at NATFE  in the 90s covering the concerns for recruitment into ITE due to the inability to attract a higher qualified applicant into the profession. I was careful to cite the United Kingdom because that is my area of knowledge:

"and a lot of people go into teaching simply because that is the only choice they have with a 3rd class degree ( in the United Kingdom )"

 

"Their job is to make the discoveries that will be taught."

 To a given audience, the quantity of which pretty much represents a pyramid over time and how the pitch needs to be made changes over time.

"Your basic premise here is that people are taught wrong in the first place - and that if we don't correct this generation, here, now, we'll never undo the damage. That we'll spire into a dark age of which they're will be no recovery."

 That is a gross generalisation of the generalisations I've had to make in order to get across my position with reasonable brevity. Let me see if I can tease this out a bit for you. 

• The influential is made up of those that had to study evolution theory to the point of understanding before they got their degree and entered their field of work/research and those that evolution theory education was limited to remedial/school/college level which has evidently been woefully inadequate. The latter group ( say, barristers, politicians, most non specialist journalists etc. ) far far outnumbers the former. That is before you add on the non meritocracy influence strata from the religious bodies.
• If the ever more powerful continue to place politically aligned members who ( for example ) put ID on a par with Evolution into influential positions unchecked ( say, for example the Supreme Court ), and manage to pass laws that permit the teaching of ID alongside of Evolution as an equivalent alternate theory, then is there the grassroots will ( or interest ) from the parents, the influential, to stop it?

The latter is the trojan horse mentioned in the wedge theory. The constitution of the USA supposedly prevents this ( although as we've seen, the Supreme Court doesn't always rule dilligently here ) but it isn't prevented in the United Kingdom from doing this. In fact, in the United Kingdom this has already happenned ( I believe Dawkins covers it in his final chapter - or at least near the end of the book ) to the extent that a blind eye being given to this and the weakening of the state control over the curriculum due to the creation of Academies.

"So Dawkins can do it, does that mean it is the responsibility of all scientists have to do this?"

No. I already said that those that are able to articulate the theory ( or those who are just capable of accurately explaining  without neccessarily being scientists themselves ) in a manner fit for the audience. 

 "Does this mean that we can now let the educators off the hook for their shameful-less-than-stellar treatment of science in schools. No!"

No.

"This is Dawkins picking the slack up for what should have been done right in the schools in the first place."

Exactly my point 

 "He's doing a great job, but that does not take away the responsibility from the educators. "

No argument there. 

"And let's be clear here. Changing the education system isn't as long term as you make it, the high school graduates of this year, are next year's voters."

So evolution is only taught in the final year? My take on this is that misunderstanding starts early, if the basic concepts are taught poorly students switch off in droves - back to the pyramid here. The trick is to flatten the gradient as much as possible. But that is getting into streaming education and whatnot and is diverging from the point. The point I am making is that the influential generation, that which holds the voter majority, is already out there with a crushing ignorance of an even vaguely correct understanding of Evolution so they are able to be browbeaten into thinking there is a logical equivalence. Think of it as an application of the anthropic p\rinciple .

 "Again with the slippery slope. Explain how scientists not explaining their theories to the layman will cause laws to be unenforcable."

I already have done. I'll try again, laws cannot be effectively enforced without the co-operation of the people at grass roots. An example recently is the refusal of educators to hand out Camp Quest leaflets defying those in authority. 

Thus, because we already have crushing ignorance out there it is evident that those with knowledge have flunked in some shape or form at passing that knowledge on. As you say, here:  "This is Dawkins picking the slack up for what should have been done right in the schools in the first place." this is a role that scientists are belatedly realising that they need to fulfil because no one else is.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s and to an extent the 1970s, at least in Britain, it was all about science. Dawkins alludes to this in the God Delusion. Scientific discoveries were feted on TV and journalists constantly sought the scientist for a quote on the issues of the day. The general public had a greater trust in Science as a whole to the extent that it didn't question a lot, and we had a backlash in the 1980s ( for example over BSE and other issues ) and trust in Scientists as a group started to diminish ( I was present at a DTi discussion in 2000 which covered this, again with statistics from the office for national statistics ). 

As for this "You claim that they (modern scientists) are arrogant about the problem", they clearly have been! Perhaps it is different in the USA but generally in the United Kingdom proffessors spend more time on research than they do students. This is immortalised in ( of all places ) Unseen University faculty in Discworld, a fictional place but like all fictional places has a nod towards reality. 

"Dawkins and Asimov, and Sagan, and Hawking who have been anything but silent, removed, or unquestionable, who have been writing books, hosting television programs, speaking in public since the 1950s"

The point about scientists being unquestionable was not to indicate that they hated being questions, but that the public accepted whatever they said at face value ( in general ) in the past whereas these days they are considerably more cynical towards Scientists.

As for Hawking, Dawkins and Sagan, their books and appearances have not been confrontational and clearly not pitched correctly to the layman ( especially Hawking ) and Dawkins himself admits that The God Delusion, his first DIRECT challenge to the religious movement, that there has been a gap for a long while and that Athiests as a group need to become organised ( herding cats ring any bells ) in order to counterbalance the political side.

I've already covered in detail my only critique of Dawkins on this issue. If you want me to expland I will. But it will only be a restatement of what I put in my first post again.

 "You want the scientists to come charging into the fray guns ablazing to make the creationists cower and run from the holy light of science"

Now I think you are deliberately trying to wind me up. Nice try.

 But I highlighted Randi for a reason, as that is what I think the missing role is.  The Rational Response Squad is starting to fill that role, debunking in the face of popular media. But then you knew that was what I was referring to all along, all this talk of "slippery slopes" and "cliffs" and using words like "bullshit" is just usual forum debate banter designed to raise the blood pressure. 

The gap of informing and correcting in popular mainstream media and in lobby groups has to be the domain of the informed. If these aren't those who call themselves Scientists, whose is it? ( Given the assessment that  the education system is clearly doing a poor job! )

If the ignorant do it, that will truly be the blind leading the blind.

This isn't the study I have in mind: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR697.pdf,but it does have a similar quote to the one I am thinking of.

 

27. Specific recruitment problems in relation to maths and science
vacancies included low numbers of applicants, a lack of ‘quality’
candidates, competition from the school sector and difficulties in
recruiting part-time staff.

 

I will have to spend more time looking through the Natfe material, but the downward trend in the quality of degree required to enter into teacher training in the "risk subjects" was clearly laid out, as was the pie chart showing the 3rd class honours applicants making the majority of BSc. applicants ( by a long long margin ) as was the respondant feeling that they had no alternative profession to enter at the time. It also covered PHD entrants too.

The UK has since filled a lot of vacancies with overseas students, which may have increased the trend, but certainly when I was following this debate ( for reasons I will not cover here as it will reveal my identity ) in the 90s it was a desperate downward trend.

Okay I'll concede that the UK might be worse off on the quality of their teachers - Sounds like it's time to fix the issue, not blame an unrelated group for their failings.

But you beg the question of WHO should be presenting it to the audience, which is the educators.

Except for here in the US you've got it backwards, the grass roots drive is/was to PUT ID "Theory" into the system. And this is where the scientists and educators ARE stepping up to the plate. The charge to prevent this started with the teachers with many scientists taking the stand in order to prevent ID from being viewed as anything other than a thinly veiled atempt at teaching creationism in schools. Sounds like UK has it even more rough, you have my sympathies. 

However, as you have stated that this has already happened in the UK, do you believe this is irreverssible?

Sounds to me like you're no longer laying the blame on scientists here, but athiests in general for not speaking up. - if this is the case, I agree.

Not so, you were laying the blame on the scientists in the first place...now you're acknowledging that it was the educators who were to blame...you're coming a long way baby!

Nope, 2nd year of high shool for me. with a gloss over in Jr High. but that sidesteps my point being that the rate of change is not as long as you'd make it.

Not at all, it directly my point Education needs to be fixed. Teach the scientific method early and have all lessons reference to it - sounds like we agree again that education is the problem.

And by your own admission, that generation isn't out to be taught, sounds to me like we need to be raising the next crop of voters. You want a quick fix for this, I don't think there is one.

Actually you did not, you employed a slippery slope falicy by saying a leads to b without showing causation. Again i'll restate "Show how scientists not explaining their theories to the general layman will result in laws not being enforcable. In your example explain which law was broken.

I agree, our educators, those responsible for passing on the knowledge have indeed failed - concession accepted.

Again you acknowledge someone picking the slack up for another group who failed - our educators - ergo they should be held responsible - concession accepted. To further state they they should be responsible for continuing to pick the slack states that our educators are off the hook and they may continue to act irresponsibly.

Point being what? Originally you say that there was an ivory tower philosophy in science that caused mistrust going back as far as the 50s now you're saying that the backlash happened nearer to the 80's and science is greeted with a more cynical eye. This is fine, that actually sounds like progress. An appeal to a scientist authority is just as false as an appeal to a biblical authority.  

I'm sorry, did you just use a work of fiction to try and make your point? Do I really need to point out that a ficticious appeal carries no weight. as far as a university proffessor who spends more time on research than they do on students, I'm asking you what's the point here? How does this equate to arrogance directed at the layman?

Then this alludes back to an ignorance of how the scientific method works - se my previous posts scientific method / education. Any person who understands the basics of the scientific method realizes that science is in fact infinitely questionable. An understanding of the scientific method would seem to be the right step to alleviating this cynicism. Again, this would be the responsibility of the people who first tried to teach us science. Not the people who are working in their various fields.

Hmmm..point 1. You state - their books and appearences have not been pitched correctly to the layman - especially Hawking. You do realize that Steven Hawking is best selling autor? A Brief History of Time sold over 9 million copies. Sagan was also a best selling author, a regular on PBS broadcasting, a corresponant on 20/20, and made appearances on talk shows. Do I really need to go on about the things these men did to make themselves household names? 

Point 2. Not confrontational: Agreed. However the fact that they were accessible is a loooong way from the ivory tower mentality you were describing. And notice what you wrote "Athiests as a group need to become organised." Not just scientists...athiests. I agree, athiests do need to get organized and challenge the religious movement. Again I fail to see where this shows that scientists must shoulder the blame for the poor job our educators have done. 

If I could learn one phrase in latin I would make it my motto "In Sarcasm, Truth" But yeah, guess I was trying to wind you up a bit - apology.

 

 No, I used the terms like "slippery slopes" and "cliffs" to point out obvious logical falicies in your attempt to lay the blame on our level of ignorance on the scientists. "Bullshit" I used because I'm blunt or as some people say, an asshole.

 

I refer you back to your previous statements regarding the RRS, Athiests in general, and educators. I'll even expand the list to include Moderate christians who view the bible as allegorical, engineers, basically anyone, as you put it "those that are able to articulate the theory ( or those who are just capable of accurately explaining  without neccessarily being scientists themselves ) in a manner fit for the audience."

I'm sorry but I have rushed this a bit to qualify a statement which I think is at the core of our misunderstanding.

I said back in my second post:

"Thus, to turn this back we require a two pronged effort.

 1. Fix the education problem.

2. More importantly in the medium term ( because without it you can't do (1) ), check the influence and the lies spread about by those with an agenda against the Scientific principle, and would prefer the population to return to mass credulity and ignorance so that they can continue to take advantage and control. To whit: The Churches."

 So yes, I did agree there was a systemic problem. I called the scientific community out initially for not facing down the conmen and women in public debate. This has created a vacuum ( as I said in my first post ) that RR is redressing. 

There is a direct link, those that operate vicariously as explainers get their knowledge from explanation from the scientists in the first place (especially as they are at the coalface and able to keep the rest of the world up to date ). How many links you put in the chain between the source and the target is immaterial up to the point only the source can check the final link in the chain hasn't done a "Telephone/Chinese Whispers" on the message. Plus, it wasn't really my key point, my key point was that those who are in Science who are articulate ( or those who are not directly in Science but articulate and accurate acting vicariously ) have to take the responsibility on for calling out the conmen/women in the media and rebutting them head on. The Dawkins method of "that would look good on your CV but not on mine" because he is afraid of the selective quotage of Creationists is clearly not working, in contrast with how effective he was with the Liberty University student questions on the fence sitters I forwarded the clips on YouTube to ( private sample, but it matches I think the general impact ). By engaging, he won more than a phyrric victory.

 However, the reason we have our misunderstanding is because you linked my first sentence in paragraph 3 with the first paragraph rather than the latter half of paragraph 2 as I had intended ( ok probably my fault anyhow ). That is, when you replied to my first post. I think if you read it over again, fuding para 2 and 3 together you will see what I mean.

 Arrgh this is going to be inadequate as I can feel myself drifting off here.. ..I don't think you are being an asshole you are probably just really used to throwing that kind of thing into a debate to heat it up.

Thank you for clarifying some of the contrasts with the USA and the UK, my assumption that the USA was just a few decades ahead of the UK on this is clearly found on a bit of ignorance on which I stand corrected. 

Nice speach, but I disagree on one point. I do not blame the scientific community for the general level of scientific ignorance in the US today.

I blame the education systemand the parents. The scientific community's job is to do do scientific reaserch and experiments, to delve into and expand our limited knowledge of the universe.

The education system is one part of the group reposible for teaching our students, and one of those curriculums is science. Yet the scientific method is glossed over as a footnote in most high schools. Instead science is usually taught from one appeal to authority to another. We are taught who discovered what, and a little bit of how...but it's the Reader's Digest version. It does little to open one's mind on how science generally works. It's a big gaping hole in our education system.

A hole that the religious fundamentalists exploit. They counter the high school science appeal to authority (A) with creationist appeal to authority (B) and say that B debunked A fo A is False. Like the high schools, they explain who but not the how then they back it up with the mother of all appeal to authorities, the bible (C) as in B+C > A.

Parents are the other side of the education system. It's not enough to ask what your child learned, but to help your child understand it. I work with my son on a nightly basis to reinforce what he's learned in school, and to try and cover the gaps that his teachers may have left out, and to ensure he truly understands the concepts he's being taught.

If more people in this country were better educated on how science really works the individual people would be less apt to fall for those logical falicies. It is just fortunate that there are people in the world like Dawkins who will stand up and say what needs to be said, but all to often debates of the manner that he takes part in drift away from the intent and are witnessed by people who, not understanding the science involved (see - education) are instead swayed on style vs substance tactics.

So if we want to put blame on the level of ignorance in this country somewhere, I think we need to put it on the people who are directly involved with educating our children...the education system and the parents.

However, it was a very interesting post.

The part about

was both horrifying and interesting.