Sean Carroll Daily Star

I think we'd do much better if individuals were inoculated against unwarranted speculation and ill-informed opinions in the first place through a much better program of teaching how to access information starting in primary school (e.g. https://www.stopfake.org/en/swedish-kids...ry-school/).

The problem is that advice like "Don't trust what prominent academic scientists say if they are speaking outside their specialist field" may be rather difficult for primary school children to grasp.

I take your point, but most scientists are too busy doing science to pay attention to this stuff.


I don't disagree. But I can't control others' behaviour, only my own. And unfortunately, those scientists who speak on what they know, and specify what is speculation and opinion (which I suspect is a large majority), aren't the ones who get the attention.

I think we'd do much better if individuals were inoculated against unwarranted speculation and ill-informed opinions in the first place through a much better program of teaching how to access information starting in primary school (e.g. https://www.stopfake.org/en/swedish-kids...ry-school/).

Linda

Sorry, we don’t already do that?

The problem is that advice like "Don't trust what prominent academic scientists say if they are speaking outside their specialist field" may be rather difficult for primary school children to grasp.

Yup.  Linda, Chris makes a really good point here.

You are taking an incredibly naïve stance on this topic considering what appears to be your strong desire for people to trust and respect "real science".

Those real practitioners with their heads down calculating need to deal with what their buddy Sean Carroll is doing TO them.  Otherwise, the entire lot risks being painted over with a broad brush off arrogance, intellectual dishonest, and a lack of compassion.

Couldn't resist posting Professor Parkin's take on survival. It seems more thoughtful (or less thoughtless) than Professor Carroll's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYjtxHHjZ00&t=20m40s

I take your point, but most scientists are too busy doing science to pay attention to this stuff.


I don't disagree. But I can't control others' behaviour, only my own. And unfortunately, those scientists who speak on what they know, and specify what is speculation and opinion (which I suspect is a large majority), aren't the ones who get the attention.

I think we'd do much better if individuals were inoculated against unwarranted speculation and ill-informed opinions in the first place through a much better program of teaching how to access information starting in primary school (e.g. https://www.stopfake.org/en/swedish-kids...ry-school/).

Linda

The problem is that advice like "Don't trust what prominent academic scientists say if they are speaking outside their specialist field" may be rather difficult for primary school children to grasp.

Sorry, we don’t already do that?

I'm afraid that such "fake news spotting" initiatives will boil down to "Always trust mainstream sources, never trust alternative sources", with some common damnations for "populism" and "conspiracy theories".

Such desperation shows that modern mainstream is slowly agonising right now.

The question is what (and who) will become the new mainstream when the old one collapses.

Yup.  Linda, Chris makes a really good point here.

You are taking an incredibly naïve stance on this topic considering what appears to be your strong desire for people to trust and respect "real science".

Those real practitioners with their heads down calculating need to deal with what their buddy Sean Carroll is doing TO them.  Otherwise, the entire lot risks being painted over with a broad brush off arrogance, intellectual dishonest, and a lack of compassion.

I'm pretty sure that teaching children how to access information on seemingly fringe topics does not include, "find an article in a tabloid newspaper on the subject" (Men in Black notwithstanding).

However, what's wrong with the expectation that people (even starting when they are children) can learn to distinguish between someone talking within their area of expertise and outside of it?

And I am missing your point, I think. What are we supposed to be doing? Are you suggesting that scientists should be enforcing widespread censorship against blogs? Or that Sean Carroll be taken into a dark alley and beaten into submission? 

Linda

I'm afraid that such "fake news spotting" initiatives will boil down to "Always trust mainstream sources, never trust alternative sources", with some common damnations for "populism" and "conspiracy theories".

Such desperation shows that modern mainstream is slowly agonising right now.

The question is what (and who) will become the new mainstream when the old one collapses.

If The Daily Star is seen as representative of mainstream news then, I'm afraid, we are in a bad way. Hardly anyone in the UK takes it seriously as a news or information source - it is a gossip and sensation rag. If I were Carroll, I'd be horrified to have my opinions headlined in the Star but then, perhaps, the Star is after all the right place for such opinions.

If The Daily Star is seen as representative of mainstream news then, I'm afraid, we are in a bad way. Hardly anyone in the UK takes it seriously as a news or information source - it is a gossip and sensation rag. If I were Carroll, I'd be horrified to have my opinions headlined in the Star but then, perhaps, the Star is after all the right place for such opinions.

The Star article was based on an old blog article by Carroll on the Scientific American website, though.

The Star article was based on an old blog article by Carroll on the Scientific American website, though.

Can't say that surprises me either.

I was curious about where these quotations from Carroll actually came from, and it turns out that bizarrely this "news" item is reporting on a blog article he wrote for Scientific American nearly six and a half years ago, in May 2011:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue...-the-soul/

I was thinking about this today. Carroll's argument really is an extremely weak one.

He gives an equation - the Dirac Equation - governing the wave function of an electron. Then he says this equation doesn't apply at high energies and/or short distances. But, he continues, high energies and/or short distances aren't relevant to the human brain. So this equation does describe the functioning of the human brain, and therefore the human soul (and psi in general) can't exist, because there's nothing in the equation that could represent their effects on matter.

Of course, this argument relies on a logical fallacy. Carroll argues from the proposition that the equation fails under a specified set of conditions, and tries to conclude that if these conditions aren't satisfied this means the equation must be valid. 

Gorillas don't have four legs. Chimpanzees aren't gorillas, so they do have four legs.