Social Science Big Bang Theory Effect

[GreyCrow]

The TV show not the theory.

From another thread :

Finding it more and more difficult to cope with the ever increasing anti-science, anti-intelligence mindset these days, to the point where I pretty much ignore 95% of mainstream and social media

Ever since the BBT became very popular I was under the impression that the geeks were inheriting the earth. The internet has always been an enclave of specialized groups of people with their own interests , but now I feel it has become more mainstream, what with Comic-Con and AV-Con , the above named TV show, movies such as Star Wars and Star Trek remaining popular and scientists like Hawking, Higgs and Degrasse-Tyson all to the forefront.

Or like Genesis67 are there undercurrents that will push these all back underground? I understand the idea of someone like Trump as POTUS may scare a lot of people but will it come to pass.

What have your experiences been and are they changing back or forward?

 

[Genesis67]

The TV show not the theory.

From another thread :

Ever since the BBT became very popular I was under the impression that the geeks were inheriting the earth. The internet has always been an enclave of specialized groups of people with their own interests , but now I feel it has become more mainstream, what with Comic-Con and AV-Con , the above named TV show, movies such as Star Wars and Star Trek remaining popular and scientists like Hawking, Higgs and Degrasse-Tyson all to the forefront.

Or like Genesis67 are there undercurrents that will push these all back underground? I understand the idea of someone like Trump as POTUS may scare a lot of people but will it come to pass.

What have your experiences been and are they changing back or forward?

I think that in the long-term, the geeks will inherit the Earth. It's inevitable. The issue is, the journey to that point is going to be a painful one, now more than ever.

There are simply too many voters who think with their remote controls. Right-wing politics is easy. Rule 1: instill fear of the unknown. Rule 2: manipulate that fear. Humanity has been doing it for our entire existence, and we've become very good at it. The advent of social media, of YouTube and reality TV has made propagating those two rules simpler than ever before. And left-wingers have become lazy. We hit a real high spot during the 2000's and early this decade. We started to assume that everybody would see the light of day. That line of thought and effort is how Small-hands ended up POTUS-elect. That's how we ended up with Brexit. The two key ingredients to intelligence, respect and tolerance; travel and good education, are becoming out of reach for all but a small fraction of society, even western society.

Do I hope the Trump administration proves me wrong, and I end up with pie on my face? Yep, I sure do.

Do I think it'll actually end up worse than we fear, no matter how bad we fear it will be? Sadly, yes. My fiancee is an American (Michigan, so a state that swung Red). We keep a house both here and in the US, and spend substantial time at both ends of the world. The average Michigander has no idea what they've got themselves into, no concept that the US middle class is going to cop it worse than anyone else.

And both the sciences and the arts are going to cop it worst of all....

Did you know that David 'StickThatAvocadoWhereTheSunDontShine' Wolfe has more Twitter followers than DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye combined?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'm not sure I can give an unbiased answer as my newsfeeds are tailored to see lots of science pages and accounts....therefore I am of the opinion that Science is winning.


But then again, I see a fair amount of s**t being shared from "the mind unleashed" and other pseudoscience rubbish.

Overall intelligence and scientific awareness is increasing, in my opinion, and that's with the success of the Internet.

Not only has it created worldwide fads like planking and ice bucket challenges, but it's also brought general knowledge and understanding of the natural world to the fingertips of anyone with a PC and modem, unlike any period of time up to this point.

I like to think that we are currently in a period of scientific enlightenment, and I believe the Internet has played a big part in this.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I'm not sure I can give an unbiased answer as my newsfeeds are tailored to see lots of science pages and accounts....therefore I am of the opinion that Science is winning.


But then again, I see a fair amount of s**t being shared from "the mind unleashed" and other pseudoscience rubbish.

Overall intelligence and scientific awareness is increasing, in my opinion, and that's with the success of the Internet.

Not only has it created worldwide fads like planking and ice bucket challenges, but it's also brought general knowledge and understanding of the natural world to the fingertips of anyone with a PC and modem, unlike any period of time up to this point.

I like to think that we are currently in a period of scientific enlightenment, and I believe the Internet has played a big part in this.

I agree with this, largely. The one thing I'll add, though, is that technology has also made it easier to share myths and misappropriated information and has blurred the lines between legitimate and untrustworthy sources. Blatant myths like, "We only use 10% of our brains," are still spread and believed far too commonly, for example.

Pop science websites, forums and such whatever also make it very easy to misunderstand findings, and the media reporting on things they don't fully understand doesn't help. I can't remember the details but the news covered a potential treatment for a neurological disorder the other night, excitedly proclaiming that it could fix the problems of sufferers soon. They mentioned that it had only been trialled on animals at this point but then continued to imply that it was both infallible and almost ready for release. Tacked onto the end of the story was a one-sentence comment about it starting human trials towards the end of next year. Given that, you're not going to see it on the shelf anytime soon - and still may never - but that's not how it was reported at all. A minor example, sure, but I think it displays how details can get twisted and manipulated with ease - sometimes through sheer ignorance, and other times for more sinister reasons.

Overall, I agree that science is winning but I also do think people in general are a little too willing to believe things that are transmitted via the Internet. It's making the legitimate information more accessible but you could say the same about illegitimate information - and the difference isn't always obvious.

As an aside, that thought always reminds me of this...

 

[GreyCrow]

As an aside , in the 70s when I was but a boy, Greenhouse Gases and Hole in the Ozone Layer ( over Antarctica) were the future threats. There weren't many Ozone Deniers ( none that I saw) , it was accepted as some future issue. Now Climate Change has a real divide.

I don't want to pick on the US Republicans but from my perspective I must. Ronald Reagan and his ''good friend Pat Robertson'' set the Science community back when they lurched to the Christian Right . This was the time that the MM and similar organisations turned the clocks off. From an open 70s society we returned to knee length dresses and white shirts. NASA was only given money to build a shuttle to take components to ''Death Stars'' - the Star Wars program mooted to blow Russia to oblivion from space.

Then GW Bush emerged victorious with a few hanging chads and the moral right again asserted itself with the rise in ''Intelligent Design'' and the ''either with us or agin us'' mentality.

As much as I want to hope Trump is going to be good for science. I just cant see it.

 

[Rotayjay]

but now I feel it has become more mainstream, what with Comic-Con and AV-Con , QUOTE]

I love science, but I wouldn't be caught dead at one of those conventions

The Brexit vote and election of Trump seem like triumphs of anti-intellectualism. However, I personally don't see us descending into a sort of Anti-Enlightemnent Age. I think the younger generations (meaning the current 'hipsters' and the current ankle-biters who master tablets before entering primary school) are better-educated, less violent and more appreciative of science and technology than previous generations. That bloke on Youtube (his channel is called Veritasium) notes the apparent paradox of the 2010s: that today most people have almost unlimited access to facts, yet anti-intellectualism and fake news have grown. To me it seems overblown - facts will always triumph over rubbish in the long term, and science will become more prominent in our lives, not less.

Trump and Brexit weren't really anti-science (except for Trump's global warming denialism). I daresay that the vast, vast majority of people are firmly pro-vaccination. As a person, I'm pessimistic about the future economy (as one said, 'are the jobs of the future going to come in time to replace all the jobs that will be eliminated?') but I'm optimistic about technology. I'm certain that, in my remaining lifetime, there will be another technological revolution that we cannot even imagine today.

 

[SwampRat]

I agree with this, largely. The one thing I'll add, though, is that technology has also made it easier to share myths and misappropriated information and has blurred the lines between legitimate and untrustworthy sources. Blatant myths like, "We only use 10% of our brains," are still spread and believed far too commonly, for example.

Pop science websites, forums and such whatever also make it very easy to misunderstand findings, and the media reporting on things they don't fully understand doesn't help. I can't remember the details but the news covered a potential treatment for a neurological disorder the other night, excitedly proclaiming that it could fix the problems of sufferers soon. They mentioned that it had only been trialled on animals at this point but then continued to imply that it was both infallible and almost ready for release. Tacked onto the end of the story was a one-sentence comment about it starting human trials towards the end of next year. Given that, you're not going to see it on the shelf anytime soon - and still may never - but that's not how it was reported at all. A minor example, sure, but I think it displays how details can get twisted and manipulated with ease - sometimes through sheer ignorance, and other times for more sinister reasons.

Overall, I agree that science is winning but I also do think people in general are a little too willing to believe things that are transmitted via the Internet. It's making the legitimate information more accessible but you could say the same about illegitimate information - and the difference isn't always obvious.

As an aside, that thought always reminds me of this...

 

[Genesis67]

Only sort of on topic, but yesterday, while watching Last Week Tonight (an old ep), my 14 year old son went "GO TRUMP!!!"

I said "That's not funny. Even as a pisstake". He replied with "SO!?!? It's not going to affect me. Stupid Americans" (keep in mind that his stepmother and stepbrother are both Americans, and technically still US residents).

I spat the dummy and went off on him, putting into clarity exactly how it is already having an effect on his life, and will increasingly continue to do so. I used economic examples like how his Xbox games will change in price, overseas travel, etc etc. Environmental and social examples galore, reminding him that a) most of his friends are immigrants and b) it'll be his generation that has to clean up the mess.

Yelled at him for about 10 minutes straight, as he sat there bewildered, with a "WTF?!?!?!?" look on his face. In the end, I simply ended with "if you decide you actually want to learn something, rather than just be a dickhead, come see me". I'm glad to say, when we had a chance to go to the movies last night, just the two of us, he started asking smart questions.

There's hope yet.

 

[Big Animal]

I'm not convinced the interest in, or the respect for science has seen a net increase or decrease. People who have a natural interest in it still do, those with alternative theories still reject bits and pieces of it, some people still avoid doctors, politicians on the most part still avoid it, corporations make money from it, and the majority of people aren't really that fussed.

I see the Brexit vote and election of Trump, and the increase in support for the right's catch cries around many 'Western' countries as being a reaction to change as a result of economic globalisation forces gathering momentum through this century (not so much anti-intellectualism). The divide in wealth increases each year. The security of employment decreases with every new corporate cost-saving fad. Traditional jobs are being replaced by automation, disappearing, or moving off-shore. The middle and lower class are feeling the pinch and not seeing their lot improve or that of people around them and they are scared for the future. Anyone who appears to stand for them is currently getting their vote, whether it will actually result in any real benefit or not.

I also don't consider that people across the board are getting any more intelligent. Yes, those willing to make time to absorb and use some of the vast knowledge available on the net are increasing their knowledge. But many more are not. My family of origin are very academic with multiple tertiary degrees each. Each of us visit various sites on the internet for fun as well as for work to increase our knowledge on certain areas of science and technology that would not have been possible a few decades back. Alternatively, my in-laws are not from what you could refer to as an academic background. The internet is purely for sharing photos, contacting friends to organise social life, organise holidays, shop, watch programs, follow sporting teams, make bookings, look up businesses, gamble, follow celebrities, and read the mainstream media, or at least the headlines and first few lines to get the gist.

This is another key issue. For the many people who absorb most new information from the net from the mainstream media, Facebook, or blogs, I see the information provided to them as decreasing in quality or at least decreasing in actual facts and increasing in opinions. The 24 h news cycle, consolidation of sources due to globalisation, cost-cutting, and a depleted revenue base, has seen a loss of old-school journalism by trained journos with a budget and time. Instead, articles are rushed, bought from other sources, taken from Facebook pages, budgets have decreased, journos have minimal time to research anything, leading to the jumble of sports, celebrities, Reuters articles, opinion pieces, that are constantly being updated throughout the day to generate clicks from mostly controversy or curiosity, and of course, if it bleeds - it leads. Well-researched articles on topics such as science that don't announce the latest treatment for a disease like it will be out tomorrow (though probably won't for at least 10 y, if ever), rarely make it and if they do, quickly get skipped over by most to see what Kim and Kayne named their latest kid, another shark sighting, or whether a bloke punching a kangaroo should lose his job.

Einstein said: "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions." So, if the majority are served up crap on a platter in the form of mainstream news and Facebook articles, well, that will be what educates the masses, regardless of what else is available to us all with connection to the internet.

 

[Genesis67]

I also don't consider that people across the board are getting any more intelligent. Yes, those willing to make time to absorb and use some of the vast knowledge available on the net are increasing their knowledge. But many more are not.

There's a psych principle called the Flynn Theory, that suggests that each divisional generation (easily identifiable generation, so 10-15 years) is about 5-9 IQ points higher than the previous. I find it very interesting, but I've never been able to discern how well it takes into accounts the haves-and-have-not's conundrum. That gap is seemingly as large now as any other time, despite our best efforts.

 

[GreyCrow]

There's a psych principle called the Flynn Theory, that suggests that each divisional generation (easily identifiable generation, so 10-15 years) is about 5-9 IQ points higher than the previous. I find it very interesting, but I've never been able to discern how well it takes into accounts the haves-and-have-not's conundrum. That gap is seemingly as large now as any other time, despite our best efforts.

The other issue for me is what is measurable? I struggle to use an iPhone and gadget/apps yet others find them simple. Yet I know I can use power tools etc with the best of them. I could work the DVD and dishwasher but my parents struggled. ie each generation can use the tools they were raised with.

 

[Big Animal]

For those interested in the increasing divide in wealth and opportunity (probably going off the science topic a bit. sorry), I found an interesting article by the billionaire Nick Hanauer a couple of years back which made the election of trump for me more understandable. Worth a read.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

 

[grumbleguts]

Wonderful thread.

My generation were given Julius Sumner Miller and Carl Sagan and the Curiosity Show
we were entertained with Star Trek, Lost in Space, and later, Star Wars.

Sometimes these shows like big Big Bang Theory get you thinking about things. An example:
One of the characters (I don't watch the show because my wife isn't enamoured of it) the one who appears to be autistic was denigrating a speakers belittling of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. The speaker had likened it to choosing from a chinese menu where you could have menu A or menu B or a bit of menu A and a bit of B but you couldn't have all of A or all of B.

I wondered how well this got the point across to someone who hadn't heard of the principle.

The following day a student came and told me he'd seen BBT that night and asked me about Heisenberg's principle. Exactly what it was. I made me think of another analogy. If you spin a coin on a table, you can see its spin, and can measure it and know about its direction and speed, but you can't tell whether it's heads or tails.

If you slam your hand down on the coin and stop its spin immediately you lose the motion data but now know with absolute certainty whether it is heads or tails.

I thank the show for this.

On another note, Captain Kirk was easily the best Jedi in Lord of the Rings.

 

[GreyCrow]

I now like Schrodingers Lotto.

I have the winning ticket until I check to see if I have the winning ticket.

 

[grumbleguts]

I now like Schrodingers Lotto.

I have the winning ticket until I check to see if I have the winning ticket.

This is similar to the Melbourne city tram lotto when they did away with tram conductors.
You didn't pay $1.50 for the chance to lose $400

 

[Pessimistic]

This is similar to the Melbourne city tram lotto when they did away with tram conductors.
You didn't pay $1.50 for the chance to lose $400

They should have introduced scratchers with prizes not fines. Would have been a raging success