Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.

He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.

This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.-YT
Yogisays...

I liked this very much and it really put Climategate into context for me. I like the presenter as well, he's so innocent and he wants to be kind and understanding towards doubters and deniers and give them a fair piece of the argument. However when I watch it, all I can hear is Dr. House in the back of my head going "You're an idiot."

People who challenge science with anything other than facts or science aren't supposed to be listened to, they're supposed to be ignored. Especially when they write articles and claim that all the scientists are under this massive conspiracy to get us all to drive electric cars. Whom ever believes that is a moron...fuck'em.

BoneyDsays...

^ Potholer54 did a pretty thorough evaluation of the Climategate event in a couple of videos, if you want to see a more detailed explaination:
6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
and a follow up video:
7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

My sense is that the reason people can be so hard to convince (aside from those that have a 'vested' interest in the contrary), is that it takes a very humble sensibility to admit that your long-held opinions are wrong. Especially if you had held the positon strongly and even spoke publicly in favour of it; inherently staking your personal reputation. Overcomming people's natural instinct to resist possibly looking like a fool for being wrong is the challenge. A greater public knowledge of the principles of the scientific process, e.g. 'peer-review' and its jargon (like "trick") is essential.

*promote

Jinxsays...

I don't think science is really any more under attack than it ever has been. If you go back far enough I think you'd say it was much less under attack. I think the majority are pretty on board with climate change, some are still weighing it up and then there are nutjobs who will deny almost anything regardless of evidence to the contary. Some people still think the Earth is flat, or that we are at the center of the Universe, that Evolution isn't true. Those people aren't going away, they've always been there and there is really very little point trying to convince them. They've made up their minds, they've locked themselves out because deep inside they think that changing (or any change at all for that matter) your mind about something is a sign of weakness. So they pick a card and stubbornly stick with it until they die. And they call it a virtue.

That rant went a little off reservation. Basically, I think its better and it will get better. There will always be some opposition. Ignore it.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More