| Green Island Letters |
|
Original Ideas series: Ideas: Science Under Siege June 3,4,5 2015
Sounds good - certainly Harper et al have been doing some really bad stuff to science and scientists the last few years, and there has been pretty widespread outrage across the county. So the kind of 'premier' Canadian CBC 'ideas' show is going to add its voice. But then it got a bit wonderlandish ....
Canadians conducting a 'siege on science'???
Dear Mr Kennedy, Ms Lynk, et al:
RE: Ideas: Science Under Siege , Ideas, June 3-4-5 2015
Regarding the recent Ideas series, Science Under Siege, I felt I had to write, as it was so very objectionable.
Let me explain.
The series starts off ok, with some people noting (as have many before) that the Harper government seems to have a particular dislike of basic science and scientists, as over the last few years he has shut down many basic research centers and taken many very objectionable steps to prevent Cdn scientists from talking to anyone about their work. These criticisms are not controversial, nor new nor really news - I certainly am very unhappy with what Harper et al have been doing in regard to many things including science and scientists - as, it appears, are most Canadians - there has been considerable protest from many quarters about this, as you are no doubt aware there at the CBC, having covered many such stories.
Just for a bit of organisation, I'll 'label' my 4 main problems with the series.
1: 'bait and switch' thesis
2: Unscientific 'opinion' offered as the basis of a program condemning 'opinion based' decision making and supposedly supporting 'evidence based' policy promotion and methodology!
- And one might note also about this 'thesis' of a Cdn 'siege' on democracy, that throughout the series, Ms Lynk and her interviewees all proclaim repeatedly how they strongly support science and the scientific way of 'evidence based' policy making, emphasizing how 'science' is based on observation and evidence, whilst 'opinion' starts with something the expresser of the opinion wants to believe, and/or wants others to believe - and then does exactly what she/they accuse the 'anti-science' 'siege-on-science' average Canadians of - having a 'pre-existing' opinion, not based on 'evidence' of any kind (since I don't think there actually would be any evidence to find to support the notion that Canadians are unscientific etc), and then attempting to support the opinion with clever lawyerly-like arguments and opinions rather than science-based observation and evidence - a completely non-scientific approach, and yet exactly what your host and show are doing when you posit with no evidence at all an uninformed, science-illiterate (and proud of it, a couple of your interviewees even proclaim) population conducting some 'siege on science'. (yes, there are a small number of people out there opposing 'good scientific opinion' and science-based policy etc, but they are present only in very small numbers - to cite a poll on climate change, for example, one of the focuses of your host and various scientists interviewed, only 2% of Canadians don't believe in climate change - and you simply can NOT try to make the case that 2% of the population (pretty much fully denied space in the mainstream media so whatever voice they have is very much in the background anyway) constitutes a 'siege on science'). (and the other 'anti-science' offence that seems to raise the ire of the makers of this documentary and so many others calling themselves 'science supporters' are the very misleadingly labeled 'anti-vaxxers' - there don't seem to be any polls, but again, a reading of the Canadian media since the big controversy started late last year indicates a very strong 'pro-vax' majority here - this article says it took 10,000 phone calls to find 1000 people who admitted to only having questions about some vaccinations, a rate of 10%, which is, again, a long, long ways from a 'siege' on the current vaccination science, particularly when you consider the fierce vitriol with which the 'science supporting' majority greet their questions (there's a great deal more to this story, but here is not the place))
3. The third quite egregious nonsense the series attempts to promulgate:
Well, I am a fairly ordinary Canadian, and to tell me I think science is pretty much magic is highly offensive, and arrogant, and patronising, and just plain stupid - and I will guarantee you would get the same response from a very large majority of Canadians (not just an 'untested opinion' - for some evidence, start with the 98% of Canadians who believe in climate change, for example, as noted above, or have a run through the Exec Summary of this recent report on 'Where Canada Stands in Science Culture - (a bit surprising this report would not at least be acknowledged in your show as a recent academic Canadian report very germane to your thesis, as it examines the way Canadians feel about science - but of course it kind of contradicts your thesis ... oh, I see, as you accuse the unscientific masses of, you have a pre-existing opinion (Canadians are unscientific), and are only looking for 'evidence' that confirms this silly idea - and since you can't really find any evidence, you are trying to make a 'lawyerly' case out of some opinions. Somewhat 'unscientific', however - this report clearly shows that Canadians care about science, and do not share the beliefs and attitudes of people who believe 'science' is so complex it is no different than 'magic' to them ...). But the idea is simply ludicrous in the modern western world, and it raises far more questions about the people who put this show together than it does about Canadians.
It is true I cannot build an Ipad, or a 747, or perform open heart surgery, nor can most Canadians, I suppose (what about you folks at Ideas there - could you build an Ipad? Because of your vast ignorance in this field, do you believe science is so deep and mysterious it is like magic??) - but the notion that these things are so mysterious that I and others would regard them as 'magic' is wildly crazy, a theory perhaps developed in some 'ivory tower' where a completely out-of-touch-with-reality egghead academic sits drawing completely erroneous pictures of a world he or she has never entered, forming theories that somehow, I suppose, feed his ego and sense of superiority, but such *opinions* are not 'evidence', as you ought to know, given the nature of this entire show. I am well aware of modern science and technology, however, as I think most Canadians are, and actually it is highly probable that there would be no more than 2-3 degrees of separation, if you are familiar with the idea, between any average Canadian and someone doing some kind of advanced technology or science - someone in their family, or a close friend, with whom they could converse about such things, and understand very well they are just some learned skills that most of us could master, had we chosen that career path. An Ipad might be like magic to some bushman from PNG who has never been exposed to the modern world before, but to suggest modern Canadians regard such things as the product of mysterious Hogwarts Wizards stirring potions in a cauldron - well, I am really quite surprised an Ideas show could not only suggest but seem to believe such utter nonsense. And, I must note again given the oft-expressed theme in the show that 'evidence-based' decision making is a hallmark of good science, and good policy, and, one supposes, good journalism, should be based on 'evidence' rather than 'opinion', completely free of any evidence, more than a bit ironically, given the general theme of the show that one of our problems today is the lack of evidence-based decision making - what evidence do you there at Ideas have that Canadians regard science as magic? What peer-reviewed properly conducted scientific studies can you point to to back up this wild opinion? I would be very, very surprised if you could even find anything in some internet place about this.
Point 4: The media is trained to be 'balanced' on contentious issues, which then confuses people and encourages them, because they are so poorly educated about science and cannot think critically for themselves, to believe unscientific nonsense ??!!?? - another 'completely separated from reality', evidence-free opinion - this is getting ridiculous, for the CBC.
In Conclusion:
- the CBC Ideas series 'Siege on Science' fails miserably in almost every way:
What else can anyone say, but this series must get an 'F'.
What Might have been done with this idea of Science under Siege
And if a serious teacher were marking this, the mark would be even lower than 'F', since a good marker would consider not only the many falsehoods used to try to defend an essentially undefendable thesis, a good marker would also have to consider the very obvious things that should have been included in any examination of the 'siege on science' in Canada, but were either mentioned only in passing with none of the exploration needed, or simply ignoring some crucial, and obvious, points altogether.
As I noted at the first, I and most Canadians (it is obvious from the written record, various references throughout this letter, many many more available were this any kind of 'study') have been aware for some time that at least some kinds of science are under siege in our country, even though this series, attempting to make the utterly nonsensical case that 'average Canadians' are conducting a 'siege on science', does pretty much nothing in terms of examining the problem in any useful way - that is to say, weapons science doesn't seem to be facing any problems from the government, nor chemical science, nor medical research, nor communications science, and others.
As an idea, exploring 'Science Under Siege in Canada ~2015 - what path might be taken:
You actually touched on the real problem a few times during the series, but did not pursue it further or in depth, for some reason, choosing instead to divert your time and resources to trying to make a (n evidence-free) case for the demonstrably nonsensical idea that 'average Canadians', anti-science all and believing in magic, were at the heart of this siege on science. But of course, as has been recognized for decades now (David Korten's When Corporations Rule the World, Murray Dobbin's Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen in Canada, etc etc etc), it is large corporations, primarily in certain industries, which are behind the siege on science, as they work (at this time in Canada) with Harper to minimise any scientific findings which might give ammunition to those fighting to stop the widespread environmental degradation of our countries, and muzzle scientists working in such areas, from industries producing acid rain to industries devoted to catching all edible fish in the North Atlantic to industries involved with energy based resource extraction to the 'health science' industries working with the big pharmaceutical companies to increase their drug sales. These are not chimeral 'hippy' ideas but represent a very real threat to our endangered planet - but the people controlling the corporations are addicted to profit, and no doubt consider their wealth protects them from any adverse problems they create for everyone else, and thus doing what they can to minimise any evidence that might give the many people fighting them ammunition to demand profit-reducing regulations - and Harper's current 'war on science' is very directly tied to influence from such corporations. Now there is something you could run with - rather than lengthy pretty much meaningless rambles about the fall of the Roman Empire being connected with citizens shunning science, or very questionable ideas about some British 'backlash' against science in the 1800s, etc, you might very much more usefully and pertinently explore the recent history of how corporate money came to be such a major influence on government decision making, becoming a much more powerful force in our governments than the 'democratic will' - a subject which, unlike your 'people think science is magic!' nonsense, has a great deal of evidence to support it.
(actually, it needs to be said - anyone currently considering the many problems with this series would have to consider the question - why is the CBC apparently diverting attention from the well-recognized and true culprits here, large corporations, in the 'siege on science' not only in Canada but in all western countries, and trying to pretend that 'average citizens' are the problem? What is the connection of the CBC with such corporations, that they would agree to such an obvious attempt at misdirection? - I don't suppose the CBC is going to seriously examine itself, but you can be sure such questions are being asked where honest researchers who are truly concerned with what is happening in our country and world gather ...)
I was quite surprised, for example, that you did not even mention Chris Turner, a Canadian writer and his recent book The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada (review here), which speaks directly to your supposed subject, and involves a lot of recent 'evidence' from a Canadian writer - although I suppose if your actual desired thesis was to make Canadians appear supportive of and even responsible for Harper's war on science, and Turner (rightfully, no evidence) does not even consider 'average Canadians' as part of the cause but points the finger directly at Harper et al, with considerably more evidence than your so-called documentary managed to raise to make your case that anti-science Canadians were responsible, and you very obviously were not interested in actual evidence contradicting your 'thesis' - well, avoiding something that knocks the feet from your thesis would not be something your 'form an opinion and find (or create) 'evidence' to support it' approach would be interested in. But many, many people have been aware of the influence of large corporations on government policy, including stifling science that contradicted their desired goals and forcing malleable scientists to keep quiet about various things, for quite a long time now, and had you wished to do a more accurate show on Harper's 'siege on science', pointing fingers and shining lights where these serious powers do not wish lights shone, you could easily have done so.
We 'average sorts of people' here in Canada are not 'anti science' at all, nor so stupid we regard it as magic - but we are surely anti-corporate running of our governments, including the way they stifle anything that gets too close to the truth of what they are doing, and you have done quite a disservice to Canada, really, with this show trying to paint us all as anti-science magic-believing barbarians out to take down the great civilisation we are part of while leaving the real perpetrators pretty much untarnished.
There is a real enemy out there - but it is not 'we the people', who are the victims.
Just a sample of things you might use as a starting point, if you decide to do a somewhat more 'evidence-based' and truthful examination of the 'siege on science' currently under way in Harper's Canada:
- and of course many, many, many more articles condemning Harper's 'war on science' - and how most Canadians are strongly opposed to this - anyone with any experience in research could find quickly - if that is what you actually want to talk about.
Dave Patterson |
|
Back to |