It seems like increasing numbers of scientists nowadays (especially the popular scientists) seem interested in using their credentials as scientists to push political points. For instance, many popular science blogs contain articles about trending political topics like climate-change protests or neurodiversity. The problem is, it sometimes seems like these individuals care more about pushing their political agendas than about the actual scientific basis behind their ideas. For instance, they may dismiss out of hand solutions to the problem of climate change that are not popular in "green" activist circles. They may also ignore aspects of human behavioral ecology, such as the evidence that humans are naturally tribalistic and suspicious of unfamiliar people and behaviors, to push the idea that bigotry is a conspiracy that people are simply being "taught."
What are some specific examples of this phenomenon? Are any outlets particularly known for this? On the other hand, are any outlets better than others at avoiding politics and sticking to the science?
A tricky subject indeed. Let's not forget that there are very few 'scientists' who can afford to self-fund their work. They have to go where the money is and quite often that means politically motivated agenda. 'Climate change' is a good example - it's a big earner! So, when questioning why some scientists appear to pushing a certain political agendum, then follow the money trail. Who or what is funding them and why? Deep research is essential. – Amyus2 years ago
Amyus makes an excellent point. I would also encourage you to consider the historical reasons why some scientific issues have been "politicized" and for which agendas. How did climate change become a "political" issue, and who has benefited from it as something worth debating upon? Also, instead of comparing news outlets, which we all know have specific target audiences that they cater to, I would look to multi-agency scientific studies. – Eden2 years ago
Is there fine line where spiritual beliefs and the observable natural world can meet? Both are part of humanity and helps shape the world. There is an effect and many do not agree to have both combined or integrated. Religion may be in peoples blood and culture, based on the life that is build upon. It helps find meaning that people are not just organisms that evolve from an insect or a grain of sand. The science part of it brings the engineers of the physical world. Science helps people to learn about the world. Discovering that which can be observed and also build peoples lives by learning about every degree and inch of the universe. A higher power may have fine tuned the universe for human being to live here. After readings and studying there are scientists like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkins, Nicola Copernicus that after they reach the limit of their studies, they believe of a higher intelligent mind. At a religious belief some say it is within people, God. Research shows that humans naturally want to know everything, that’s is why people question the world. There is a fine line where most people question a higher power. The world is a beautiful place and people are part of it. The belief of a greater power keeps many people grounded. Many scientists wish to fly within the clouds searching for something that is staring right back. Others are humble even within their intelligent minds to believe that someone or something is guiding the world. This is an important topic that sustains a mind to go within the parameters of people’s existence. The universe is an amazing puzzle and people are the chess of the world.
Interesting and always relevant topic, but it might be too broad. Perhaps you could narrow it down, discussing certain fields or aspects of science and religion? – Stephanie M.3 years ago
Generally I would agree with Stephanie's comments, as your topic suggestion reads a little like a mini-article in itself. Nevertheless it's an topical suggestion for a topic (excuse the pun), considering how crazy the human world is right now. I'd be careful about the Anthropic principle angle though as the assumption that we live in a universe fine tuned for humans is very one-sided. We could, just as easily, have evolved and adapted to the universe as it is - we are, after all, a highly adaptable species. Good luck with your science and religion class. – Amyus3 years ago
Updated and made corrections. – rghtin2be3 years ago
An essay can address where religion and science are compatible The Catholic Church's views expressed by Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture says evolution was discussed by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. There is too much focus on the conflict of Creationism versus Evolution, because TV news shows like that. – Joseph Cernik3 years ago
This is possibly THE question of the last 500 years, big topics and marvellous to think about... Looking back through our developmental history - specifically to the point where moved around hunting less and started farming more, we see a significant separation occur. Human beings (unknowingly i think) started to pull back from the Animism of ancient times - that is, we are one with the natural world and energy of the land and animals is the dominant spirit to which we all return. Everything from this point feeds into the development and spreading of the religious practices as we know them today - what i find intriguing is that really, science is just another branch of religion with very strict rules around what is acceptable or not. Religion and science, as we know them at this very minute, are both looking to understand how we found ourselves floating in space on a massive orb like rock spinning around other orb like rocks with zero explanations except what we come up with. They are also unreconcilable in that science refuses to acknowledge anything that can't be repeated again and again by an experiment with equations. Science claims to be neither form nor against anything but they do manage to frame out consciousness, feelings our internal and existential curiosities i.e. everything we use to motivate, consider and do about anything, which coincidently are the very things that drive religious thinking. My honest belief is that they are both pointing at the wonders of the natural world and ultimately looking at the same thing, but they are reluctant to confess their thesis. You and I should always remember the thing underneath all of this that keeps us going - as you have already said is that the cure for boredom is curiosity and as some of us are now acutely aware, there is no cure for curiosity. Thank goodness for that. – MichaelHall3 years ago
Not quite quantity vs. quality but the application of one wholly, with the artful presence of the other throughout or around it in varying degrees within the same body whether physically or conceptually. Studying the sciences for many years, one can see this idea present in small things such as cells, grain structures within metals and the in the integrity of human cognition and other faculties of the mind. To what extent is this observation true in day-to-day life, art, consumer products? How can this observation or thesis be elaborated, modified or falsified?
Analyse the accuracy of physics and chemistry in modern films and correct them.
You should specify which types of movies like documentaries or dramas, because if a film features superheroes or magic the physics and chemistry will of course not be accurate. – jmcewen6 years ago
Do you have specific examples in mind? This might be a tough one since so many story lines depend on stretching the reality behind science and technology. Or is your intention to pick apart current films and state why they are incorrect and improbable? If this the case, you can probably use any zombie related movie as the chances of creating a virus that causes super strength is improbable. Most diseases seem to weaken and kill instead. You may want to research theories on rabies, however, as this virus tends to give zombie like characteristics prior to killing it. – Tatijana6 years ago