In the New York Times
article “Welcome to the Age of Denial,” Adam Frank argues that Americans are no
longer grasping the importance of science. He is not very effective in making this
argument, however, because at most it seems he is grasping at straws—trying to
make a bigger deal out of this situation than it deserves. Instead of “sending
his students into a world that celebrates what science has to offer” he is
tossing them into a world that apparently equates scientific knowledge with
astrology, if I am to use the same dramatics as Frank.
His use of the
statistics to “shock” work against him. First, the two percent increase in
creationists does not feel dramatic, much less relevant to his cause—but more
on that in a minute. The 5% difference in knowledge of climate change is
greater, but I might question the validity of the numbers, due to the fad “going
green” has become in the last five years. From these, Frank argues that people trust
scientific research less (by doubting vaccinations, for example) and their lack
of respect for “scientific fact” has led creationism to develop into “creation
science.”
While I agree that
some “anti-science” causes (by Frank’s definition) such as the decreased use of
vaccinations in some areas of the country are cause for alarm, I do not believe
them to be a part of some bigger, more generalized issue. While religion does go head to head with science, is not the heart of the problem either.
Frank declares people understand and care less—but fails to pin down a defined
reason why. His grand belief that
American society is entering a “dark moment” in history is over-dramatized and
desperate.
Some of Frank's over-dramatic language and his overview of America's stance in accordance to science comes from his obvious passion and respect for it. While that is not a bad thing, he expects, or greatly wishes for, the vast majority of the population to share his views. Yet, he is pretty closed-minded in his argument through his use of bias (and occasionally offensive) language. Science should be appreciated, people should have an amount of care for it, but not everyone should be expected to religiously follow and have a strong interest in it like Frank.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on Frank's article, and I appreciated the emphasis on his tendency to be a bit over-dramatic about the issue at hand. I thought it was interesting that you criticized his statistics, because I did the same thing while I was reading his article. I think many of us have the urge to instantly question what we are told through statistics and discoveries. However, I think something can also be said for the increasing lack of respect this poses to traditional scientists and their discoveries in recent years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your response to the article. He is being way to dramatic. I dislike the part of the article when he talks bad about creationism. If he wanted to prove that science was being forgotten about, he should of used better statistics.
ReplyDelete