Skip to main content

Some thoughts upon the day preceding the March for Science

April 21st, 2017

Tomorrow, it is my intent to add my body to the crowd that will be seen for the March for Science 2017. My role is just adding to the body count, so the journalists covering the event can remark on the human turnout for this cause. This will be for the San Francisco “Satellite March for Science”, not the hopefully big March for Science to held in the Nation’s Capital. There are 609 such satellite events around the World.

The events will of course be open to all manner of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians, and also sympathizers, supporters, friends, and the merely curious. Among the STEM people, we may have “practicing” (i.e. they get paid to do research, teaching, or other support of science) and non-practicing (otherwise employed, retired). As the Marches were deliberately scheduled for the annual Earth Day, and because the motivation for the Marches is in part due to recent changes in the USA federal government, there will be a strong environmental activist component within the Marches. I expect a family family, peaceful event. There are always a few “habitual activists” who come for the glory of smashing windows and yelling tirades, but I suspect this will be literally on the margins.

So how many will be in the Marches? Worldwide, there are perhaps fifteen to twenty million acknowledged scientists (persons trained in science and possessing some credentials). UNESCO indicates that about seven million are active in research or teaching or science support. There are unacknowledged scientists as well, being persons who might be self taught or did not complete academic training, who adhere to scientific principles of understanding. In religion, one need not be a priest to be catholic, and in science one need not be hauling academic degrees and a bunch of name suffixes to be a scientist.

In my own general area of study, there are to an order of magnitude, one million physicists. This is substantially above the number back when I was in school some fifty years ago. The increase was perhaps driven by the technologies introduced in the past half century.

Still given a World population of seven billion, only 0.3% can be said to be educated as scientists, and in a random crowd of Woodstock size (“half a million strong”), you might find seventy or so physicists. The consequence is that we are pretty easy to ignore. As a voting block, despite the recent close elections, we do not rise to a level that politicians will consider significant. On Facebook, each of us is drowned out by 300 other non-scientist voices.

Furthermore, we are hampered by our tendency to avoid rhetoric in favor of logic. The general population prefers rhetoric. Historically, rhetoric has always been effective.

Aristotle taught that we have three ways to convince others of a belief: ethos, pathos, logos.

Ethos is use of your character to persuade your audience. “I am a wizard, with the high council, therefore you must take heed.”

Pathos is the appeal to emotion (you might say an appeal to your audience’s character). “You are good moral men, one and all. Surely you see the pain that the eating of ducks visits upon the duck world.”

Logos is not a construction of little plastic bricks - that would be “Lego’s(™)” - but is the use of logic. “Examining prepositions 12 through 35, combined with 78b and 94c, d, and e, the consequence is that the theorem must be accepted.” Somehow the general public just doesn’t seem to like logos.

So a march for any cause is not logos, it a combination of ethos and pathos. Our hopes are that this tiny minority called scientists will be seen, will be heard, and will be respected.

“In to the valley…”

— Robert Brown


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Creation of Money, with comments related to Speculative Investment and BitCoins

The Creation of Money In the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", Jimmy Stewart in the character of George Bailey gives a concise description of how money is created. It may not be what you think. In the film, George Bailey is the president of a building and loan association. This is the about same as a savings and loan, except that the building and loan association focusses on using deposits to fund single owner construction projects. A savings and loan association has a broader reach, adding commercial startups and expansions, and other types of loans. In the film's story, which is set in the year 1939, there is a panic about the supply of money. As a consequence, in a single day a large number of the depositors wish to withdraw their money, because they fear the bank will fail and their money will vanish. George, being well aware that the bank can not, at a single given time, return all of the depositors money, has to calm down the depositors, re-assure them that

Observation, Hypothesis, and Theory

A friend asked me to explain hypothesis and theory. There are so many excellent resources on this topic, I should simply point the reader toward such. For example my favorite is "The Ring of Truth" by  Dr.  Philip Morrison and Phylis Morrison, both of whom have passed from this life, leaving an excellent legacy of science and science writing behind them.  Still it is always educational for a writer to write upon a given topic. No better way to learn (or relearn) than to teach. So here is my expression.   I. Definitions Observation : A statement about things you can see, hear, taste, feel, and so forth. Example: Fossils exist because we actually can dig such up and hold the fossils in our hands.  Observations are often combined. Fossils are old and can be chronologically ordered, because we believe in related geological processes, which were independently observed and determined.  We have natural observations, which are those made by simply looking at the

Engineers Make, Scientists Discover

About a quarter of a century ago, I wrote a little essay about the difference between being a scientist and being an engineer. Here is an updated version. Engineers engineer engineering. The above sentence is grammatically correct and meaningful. It is so because "engineer" is both a noun and verb. In contrast, the following sentence is pure nonsense. Scientists science science. Science is not a verb -- only a noun. It is a thing, not an activity. To make an equivalent defining sentence for scientists as we have done for engineers, we should write this: Scientists discover science. That engineer is a verb and science is a noun is at the core of the difference between being an engineer (one who is engaged in engineering or has been trained for engineering) and a scientist (who is engaged in discovery or elucidation of science). Engineering is about conceiving, designing, planning, building and making. Science is knowledge. Scientists perform observation, investi