Astronomer Royal Martin Rees: We're in a race between science education and catastrophe

[marmar]

Astronomer Royal Martin Rees: We're in a race between science education and catastrophe
The renowned scientist weighs in on what the public misunderstands about science

By MARTIN REES
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 20, 2022 2:00PM (EST)


(Salon) The word "scientist" still conjures up an image of an Albert Einstein lookalike — an unkempt figure (usually male and elderly) — or else a youthful geek. There's now of course far more racial and gender diversity among scientists, though still not enough.

But even in earlier centuries, scientists weren't all in the same mould. Consider, for instance two of the greatest: Newton and Darwin. Newton's mental powers were really "off the scale": when asked how he cracked such deep problems, he said "by thinking on them continually." He was solitary and reclusive when young; vain and vindictive in his later years. Darwin, by contrast, was an agreeable and sympathetic personality, and modest in his self-assessment. "I have a fair share of invention," he wrote in his autobiography," and of common sense or judgment, such as every fairly successful lawyer or doctor must have, but not, I believe, in any higher degree."

Scientists have collectively, transformed our world. Without their insights, we'd be denied the everyday benefits whereby our lives differ from those of our forebears – electricity, health care, transport, computers and the internet. But continuing advances raise profound concerns. Who should access the "readout" of our personal genetic code? How might lengthening lifespans affect society? Should we build nuclear power stations, or wind farms, if we want to keep the lights on? Should we use more insecticides, or plant genetically modified crops? Should the law allow "designer babies?" Will we accept a machine's decisions on issues that matter to us?

Through its response to COVID-19, the scientific community has been our salvation— through urgent worldwide efforts to develop and deploy vaccines, combined with honest attempts to keep the public informed and acknowledge uncertainties.

This globe-spanning plague offered scientists unprecedented public prominence. But there's a scientific component to most policies on health, energy, climate and the environment. Yet if democratic debate is to rise above mere sloganeering, everyone needs a greater "feel" for science to avoid becoming bamboozled by propaganda and bad statistics. ..............(more)

https://www.salon.com/2022/11/20/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-were-in-a-race-between-science-education-and/

[Kid Berwyn]

1. Rees is profound.

He explains how the simple ant is incredibly more complex than the most unusual star:

LORD REES: Well, indeed I think even a small insect is much more complicated than a star because a star is huge ball of gas and it’s crushed by gravity and is so hot that all chemicals are broken down into their atomic constituencies.

KRISTA TIPPETT: Mm-hmm.

LORD REES: There’s no complex structure, whereas even a small insect has a layer upon layer of structure — protein, cells, and all the rest of it. And so, the smallest living thing is indeed more complicated than a star. And also, to go back to your point, everything about humans is very complicated. In fact, it may seem ironic that I could talk with some confidence about, uh, a galaxy a billion light years away …

https://onbeing.org/programs/martin-rees-cosmic-origami-and-what-we-dont-know/

[chriscan64]

2. Science is the only field where you get credit for proving yourself wrong.

Or where "we don't know" is an acceptable answer when it is the truth. It is an exercise in truth finding and truth telling. It has led to improvements in the daily condition and has been an engine for economic growth. New scientific knowledge has been opposed for religious reasons, and one could argue these objections were indirectly related to economics, but only recently has it been rejected for purely secular economic reasons. Sowing doubt among the untrained masses about scientific consensus concerning global warming has laid the groundwork for rejection of any financially or politically inconvenient fact, scientific or otherwise. We live in very dangerous times given that so many are unmoved by proof and truth.

[Dysfunctional]

3. If it wasn't for science, people would not live as long,

there would be very little of the industry we have, and there is a lot we would not have, including climate change. So what is better, that we have had a lot of good things and climate change, or we continued to be hunters, gatherers, and farmers and the planet would be healthy?