Chris Mooney Unscientific America Analysis

In the Living on Earth radio segment the host interviews Chris Mooney, the author of the book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. The host and Mooney discuses a 2009 Pew Research center poll that found that most Americans don’t believe humans have induced climate change. Mooney argues in the interview — and in his book— that there is a growing gap between scientists and the public. He argues that sciences has been politicalized in recent year, and he mentions another Pew Poll that found that Republicans— even well educated Republicans are less likely to admit Climate Change is human induced. Additionally, Democrats in the past have also been critical of certain medical vaccinations, thus he finds that both parties can reject the consensus of the scientific community. Essentially, Mooney maintains that the scientific community has a problem communicating their work to everyday people. Moreover, Scientists can’t oversimplify their work, because the scientific community may be angered. Furthermore, the host and Monney discuss the CERN supercollider, and how a rap song was created to explain what the supercollider is and how it works. Mooney says this rap song is a step in the right direction, but he finishes the interviews stressing the point that students studying science should also study communications and politics. Overall, Mooney is hopeful that the gap between the scientific comment and society can be bridged by integrating scientists into “society.” In the keynote address for the American Association for the Advancement of Science keynote addressee at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference on Promoting Climate Literacy Naomi Oreskes explains the scientific history of climate change and address why there is a gap between what is accepted theory in the scientific community and what the public believes. First, explains how the Keeling curve in the 1970 helped create a census in the scientific community that climate change will occur. Additionally, she explains how in 1995 the IPCC released a report that said evidence suggested humans have impacted the global climate. Furthermore, she counters some common claims against climate change theory— for example the idea that volcanos are producing the most CO2. Oreskes then introduces her book— coauthored by Erik Conway— the Merchant of Doubt. Essentially, she argues that a small group -Seitz,Jastrow, of people have exploited scientific uncertainty to defend an ideology favoring limited government. Specifically, she demonstrates how a small group of political connected physicist were abled to question the merits of climate change. She mentions how this small group also helped defend the tobacco industry when the scientific community b She reads the conclusion of her book, and emphases how in there are not always two sides to scientific issues, unlike most political issues.She notes that doubt in scientific community led to misconceptions about science by the public. She argues that we need to use scientific realism, essentially admit that science offers no absolutes, but rather science is a process. To form a more realistic view of science she asserts that the public needs to trust …show more content…
However, I would argue they don’t offer a clear solution to address this problem. Mooney suggest that science students should increase their engagement with politics and communications; however, I would argue, science might become even more political. I completely agree that the scientific community has a public relations problem, but I think the the real problem here is America’s education system. Instead on just relying on training scientists to be effective communicators, society should attempt to advance the knowledge of all people. Even just ensuring that people understand the scientific method is a step in the right direction. Additionally, it is important that people understands that it is healthy to ask questions and raise concerns, but people need to learn that not every concern is valid. Skepticism is needed in a free society, and science can often only be conducted in a free society, but this does not mean we shouldn’t believe what the scientific community discovers about the world around us. Thus, the real solution is a free educated society. Thus, I would argue that the solution is not just making science “popular” by integrating into pop culture, but instead the solution is creating a better education systems in