The writer suggests that people don't think through the benefits of technology, but I also believe we don't think through the costs of technology. Seemingly simple technologies end up coming with unique, and somewhat unforeseeable, unintended consequences. There are social consequences to each advance in narrow-casting, focused marketing, social networking, etc. There are environmental impacts for every kind of energy generation and transportation. We just don't know what they are in advance, in detail. We certainly don't think them through too thoroughly.

So, the question of whether the pendulum is too far towards imagining the benefits or imagining the problems is really open to interpretation. Some people think (about some things) that the precautionary principle should apply - but they didn't apply it to social changes like aspects of feminism, oddly enough, or to technological changes in birth control, even though these have direct impacts on human health and welfare. There are biases at work here, below the level of simply liking or disliking science.

But our friendly author appears to be too much of a Crusader to acknowlege them.

I quote:

"That inconsistency makes us forget the benefits of many technologies, and it has deeply harmful consequences."

Care to apologize?

BenK:

I quote:

"That inconsistency makes us forget the benefits of many technologies, and it has deeply harmful consequences."

Care to apologize?

"Oh, Mr. BenK... now don't you worry a BIT about your upcoming heart transplant. Your surgeon graduated from the very best 'creation science' medical school!"

BenK - I like your thinking on this. From what I've read here on Slate and in the NY Times review, it seems like there are more parsimonious explanations for at least some of what seems to be science denial. You mention here and in other comments several reasons the public should be skeptical of science - "this was good for you, now it's bad for you" and the fact that this year's science often overturns the findings of last decade's science. The result is that Science can't claim to be "right" in a literal sense (not that it's wrong). Even "the Sun will rise in the morning" must be hedged, even if only the minutest amount.

On the other hand, Science, in general, is right about things - like the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.

But when you get to a topic like global warming climate change, the amount of hedging that goes along with the scientific facts cause immense unease. Especially versus the certainty of the "other side."

But I want to add another wrinkle, that I think is hugely significant. And this is the fact that, no matter how much the general public trusts science and thinks it's brought more positives than negatives, it doesn't really understand big numbers very well. The billion or so of us who are generating significant CO2 equivalents, for example, have a very hard time extrapolating from our own relatively small (and of course, completely invisible) CO2 footprint to the nine orders of magnitude bigger CO2 footprint of our fellows.

In homeopathy, the nine orders of magnitude go the other way. But there's a key difference - my 1-billionth share of the CO2 is not negligible. Science claims though that a 1-billionth part of a homeopathic remedy is negligible. But since neither ratio is really imaginable if you don't "get" big numbers, you need to make a different argument in both cases to convince people to change their behavior or the way they vote.

This big number problem shows up in a lot of "denial"-type issues, like the vaccinations scare. First, people just don't know the numbers of cases prevented by vaccines (and they wouldn't understand or likely believe the numbers if they were told). So if ten people die or are injured because of the vaccine, then the risks appear to outweigh the benefits.

The Frankenfood scare combines the trust problem (this time more about technology than science per se) with the numbers problem. And then compounds it with the corporate conspiracy problem - which in my opinion has a much more reasonable basis in fact. If Monsanto tells me something is safe, and they have a huge financial incentive in it being successful, I have a commensurately huge assumption that we're in a risky situation.

So simply saying the the public denies science is clearly simplistic itself.

With proper use of science and technology, that neighbor ought to be able to design those chemical weapons intelligently.

I appreciate your common sense approach, though I differ with you on a few points.

First, I think that vaccine issues are not at all driven by 'number blindness' or whatever would be a good name for the inability to comprehend large orders of magnitudes. In general, there is a difficulty defining 'absence' or 'inaction.' For instance, if you ask people about _giving_ a vaccine that injures a few people, they tend to care about those few people and the injustice of their injuries. However, if you talk about _withholding_ the vaccine, they tend to care about the people who became ill. So, the question is not really action or inaction, but two different actions.

It's different for someone who believes the vaccines are inactive or actually cause cryptic harm in large percentages of cases; in that case, they aren't talking about the few people who get ill, they are talking about the statistical power to measure harm that takes 30 years (or even a generation) in 300 million humans, but apparently doesn't show up in 1 year in 2000 rats, or even 300 people studied intensively at a medical center. This is actually a question about how good the study design is, whether the right endpoints and samples were being taken, etc. It isn't per se about people's trust in science in the abstract, but all about their trust in particular results that may have a very high risk associated with them for individuals. If I am going to put all my weight on a bridge, I need more certainty about that bridge than I do about the strength of a couch. Risk = hazard x probability.

Anyway, simply saying that scientists need to speak out and claim their authority, using it to swamp the concerns of ordinary citizens, is counter-productive. We scientists know how the sausage is made and how much it would cost to make it better. We might not communicate the things that this author wants to hear.

nilsdavis:

...You mention here and in other comments several reasons the public should be skeptical of science - "this was good for you, now it's bad for you" and the fact that this year's science often overturns the findings of last decade's science. ...

If it's scientific reporting you're criticizing, then I wholeheartedly agree. It's possibly the worst aspect of today's news media. Even the simplest of "science" stories tend to be absurdly wrong.

I guess, in the part I quoted from you above, you're referring to various news stories that report on scientific studies. Where the studies are about health issues, especially, the news reporting tends to be of the mode: "Scientists say <whatever> is BAD <or GOOD> for you!"... Which is usually how some dimwitted reporter chose to summarize some article that was published in a scientific journal. Not many reputable studies are really that simple-minded. And, where they are, we are right to be very skeptical of them.

And, yes, Benke, I would, indeed, feel concern about somebody making dangerous materials near my home. If this is not exactly "science", it certainly seems rational enough to me. I wouldn't accept a needless danger to my home and family just because somebody else told me it would be "scientific" to do so. I would assume such a person is a pretty unscientific nutbag.

a kazinsky is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood...

Happy 40th, Sesame Street ;-)

If the vac is hurting people and not reducing mortality, what has been gained? The articles have appeared in some of the most well-respected journals around.

The Lancet <link>

As did the University of Ontario: <link>

The National Institute of Health: <link>

The BMJ : <link>

All of this is reported in the Wall Street Journal as well, questioning the CDC about the number of people actually killed by the flu. <link>

I think some vaccines are great and a boon to mankind. I just don’t think the flu vac is one of them. The risks outweigh the few lives lost to flu.