Science Vs Politics series.
As a scientist, I view the world with science eyes. I see political decisions get made and it sometimes depresses me, sometimes makes me laugh, and sometimes makes me proud. It got me thinking, if our politicians represent us, who amongst them represents our passion for science.
I thought it would be interesting to see who of our political representatives has a science/engineering background. This is almost a 'litmus test' of our politicians to see who among them are scientifically literate. Granted, you don’t have to have a science degree to be scientifically literate, but I think in this sort of office, there really is a lot to be said for formal science training. I’ll start with the House of Representatives; this is not the full story.
If you want to find out more about any of these yourself, just go to the Parliament of Australia website like I did. There is a ‘Bio’ link on each of the members, and where that info wasn’t enough, I went to their personal home pages, also linked on the members’ page.
The list in alphabetical order is:
Karen Andrews - Liberal - McPherson (Qld) - Mechanical Engineering
Darren Cheeseman - Labour - Corangamite (Vic) - Applied Science( Geology)
Greg Combet - Labour - Charlton (NSW) - Engineering (Mining)
John Forrest - National - Mallee (Vic) - Science and Engineering
Harry Jenkins - Labour - Scullin (Vic) - Science
Dennis Jensen - Liberal - Tangney (WA) - Applied Science (PhD)
Richard Marles - Labour - Corio (Vic) - Science
Scott Morrison - Liberal - Cook (NSW) - Applied Science (Geology)
Laura Smythe - Labour - La trobe (Vic) - Science
This list consists of 9 people amongst 150 elected members have some formal university training in science or engineering. The majority of the other university qualifications seemed to be either law, arts or commerce. There were a few farmers, journalists and teachers, and one who has zero university qualifications, as he has barely left high school!
Disclaimer: I’m not trying to suggest that politicians that don’t have a university qualification in science are not as capable or intelligent as others. I'm sure our representatives are all very intelligent and work hard for our nation. Also, I'm sure their advisors and officers employ people with science backgrounds.
While I think that politicians are experts at being politicians, I also think that only 6% of our representatives have some formal science qualifications, is a little low. What is the point? this is simply for information and a discussion point and I hope it is successful in that aim.
I will also trawl through the senators' information and make another list of the scientists in the upper house next time. I intend to make a list of all politicians state and federal, upper and lower house that have formal scientific qualifications, just for information...but not just yet!
My solution is to raise awareness of science in places where I see a need. I see a need in our political system to have a greater understanding of science and a greater respect for its worth and value.
Showing posts with label science-vs-politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science-vs-politics. Show all posts
Friday, June 1, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
IAMA Scientist
Science Vs Politics series.
I am a scientist, and I’m proud.
I recently had a long conversation with a scientist that I respect, about the state of science research, policy, funding, interest in Australia, Based on the discussion, Mal and I agreed that he would never read this article and I openly told him that I would probably use a lot of what he has to say in a blog post about the topics we covered. This is that post.
The conversation started when I asked….actually I don’t know where it started, but it did. At some point in our conversation I mentioned that I think all the latest cuts to science amount to something of a tragedy for science and science education in our country, along with the resignation of our chief scientist for reasons that imply a less than inclusive government. It is my opinion that we are viewing science in this country in a skewed way.
Mal asked me, “Why should we treat science differently, why do we need places like Questacon, and science week, and countless other programs that push science down our throats.” I feel in a way he was being slightly argumentative, but his point was well made. It begs the question, why do we not have National Law week, or the Australian Taxi Drivers Festival or something.
Scientists are incredibly proud of their jobs, we are excited about what we might discover in the lab, we even want to tell others about it. We have these programs because enough of us think that it is important enough to communicate. Science is the persuit of knowledge. It's about asking the question why, discovery, finding out about the world we live in. Why shouldn't we blow our own trumpets and try and excite people about this very noble and human endeavor?
The question made me try and search for a justification for why science is important, then I realised, that I shouldn't need any justification. If there are enough scientists who want to add to the discussion, to educate the public, to get enthusiastic about their job, then let them. If accountants don't want to get the word out about their chosen profession, then will not force them. So in a way my answer to the question of what is so special about science, is the special people that do it.
I hope that politicians understand this but fear that they dont. Representation and exploration are two very different ideas. Politics and science are not the same language, so when a scientist talks about their chosen field, it isn't necessarily because they are after funding or because they think they are special, it is probably because they're human.
I am a scientist, and I’m proud.
I recently had a long conversation with a scientist that I respect, about the state of science research, policy, funding, interest in Australia, Based on the discussion, Mal and I agreed that he would never read this article and I openly told him that I would probably use a lot of what he has to say in a blog post about the topics we covered. This is that post.
The conversation started when I asked….actually I don’t know where it started, but it did. At some point in our conversation I mentioned that I think all the latest cuts to science amount to something of a tragedy for science and science education in our country, along with the resignation of our chief scientist for reasons that imply a less than inclusive government. It is my opinion that we are viewing science in this country in a skewed way.
Mal asked me, “Why should we treat science differently, why do we need places like Questacon, and science week, and countless other programs that push science down our throats.” I feel in a way he was being slightly argumentative, but his point was well made. It begs the question, why do we not have National Law week, or the Australian Taxi Drivers Festival or something.
Scientists are incredibly proud of their jobs, we are excited about what we might discover in the lab, we even want to tell others about it. We have these programs because enough of us think that it is important enough to communicate. Science is the persuit of knowledge. It's about asking the question why, discovery, finding out about the world we live in. Why shouldn't we blow our own trumpets and try and excite people about this very noble and human endeavor?
The question made me try and search for a justification for why science is important, then I realised, that I shouldn't need any justification. If there are enough scientists who want to add to the discussion, to educate the public, to get enthusiastic about their job, then let them. If accountants don't want to get the word out about their chosen profession, then will not force them. So in a way my answer to the question of what is so special about science, is the special people that do it.
I hope that politicians understand this but fear that they dont. Representation and exploration are two very different ideas. Politics and science are not the same language, so when a scientist talks about their chosen field, it isn't necessarily because they are after funding or because they think they are special, it is probably because they're human.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The rules
Science Vs Politics series.
Science is a game, with rules. The rules are simple and you can’t break them. People try and cheat, but that never ends well.
Science is a game, with rules. The rules are simple and you can’t break them. People try and cheat, but that never ends well.
- Research. Find out if people have done this before. If they have, maybe you can learn something from their hard work.
- Record. Observation is nothing without data to back it up. or as Edwin Hubble put it “Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure, science”
- Repeat. Your results must be repeatable, not just by you, by others as well.
- Consult widely. Once you've lost the community's trust, you'll never get it back.'
- Always try quiet diplomacy first. Once you're in a public dispute, you've already lost.'
- Follow-through is paramount.'
- Keep your sense of humour. It makes all other rules possible.
There are a number of laws in science, such as Newtons laws of gravity, the Laws of thermodynamics etc, and the one rule here is, you must obey these laws. but I want to go a little bit more broad with the rules of science. When we do science, what rules do we follow? I have identified the following rules of the game we call science.
Politics is also a game, sometimes it seems like a very immature game of schoolyard name calling, but what are the rules here? and what happens if you break them?
The rules of politics are as follows:
Here’s a clear cut example of how the rules of science and politics differ:
Our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, had a great idea to enforce a server level Internet filter. This means, that there are certain websites that are blocked from us visiting them. It puts the responsibility of who accesses what onto the server, not the consumer.
This is great, right up until the point where it doesn’t work! Many examples were shown of how this Internet filter does not work, Wikileaks had a whole number of leaks to do with the fact that the filter is useless. During the Internet filter trial, I found a whole heap of instructional videos from teenagers, showing us how to get around it. The ABC program ‘Hungry Beast’ also gave a quick in principle guide about how to bypass the filter. Further, the filter has managed to block sites that are clearly not dangerous. Sites like personal home pages with innocent content and businesses such as a Queensand dentists page. Added to all of that, the government refuses to publish the blacklisted websites.
Politics is also a game, sometimes it seems like a very immature game of schoolyard name calling, but what are the rules here? and what happens if you break them?
The rules of politics are as follows:
Here’s a clear cut example of how the rules of science and politics differ:
Our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, had a great idea to enforce a server level Internet filter. This means, that there are certain websites that are blocked from us visiting them. It puts the responsibility of who accesses what onto the server, not the consumer.
This is great, right up until the point where it doesn’t work! Many examples were shown of how this Internet filter does not work, Wikileaks had a whole number of leaks to do with the fact that the filter is useless. During the Internet filter trial, I found a whole heap of instructional videos from teenagers, showing us how to get around it. The ABC program ‘Hungry Beast’ also gave a quick in principle guide about how to bypass the filter. Further, the filter has managed to block sites that are clearly not dangerous. Sites like personal home pages with innocent content and businesses such as a Queensand dentists page. Added to all of that, the government refuses to publish the blacklisted websites.
Guys, IT DOESN’T WORK.
Here’s where science and politics differ. In science, if your experiment doesn’t work, you have to change your hypothesis. In this case, Stephon Conroy just stuck to his message. Also not only does the experiment have to be repeatable, it has to be be repeated by your peers, It is called peer review, and it is one of the of the backbones of science research. In this case, your peers Senator Conroy, (13 year old school kids) have proven that your results can not be repeated.
This was a fail for politics, and by my reckoning, a fail for science too, due to the fact that the political arguments were accepted, despite ALL scientific evidence against the decision. It begs the question, “who wins?”
All the rules of science have been adhered to, as I said before, you actually can’t break them or, by definition, you are not doing science. Whereas at least 3 of the four identified rules of politics have been been broken.And it seems as though the punishment for breaking these political rules, is lots of funding and waste of public money on a technology that doesn't work.
I can see and agree with the principles of the idea. Protecting children, I'm all for that. But the clear disregard for evidence and common sense annoys me. True, we are not doing scientific research, but a little application of some of the principles of scientific processes would surely strengthen your argument or even help you to get a better policy.
I’m a big advocate of strong social policies, but I would also like to see some scientific common sense and awareness on discussions like this.
I guess the same could be said for the climate change debate, but I might leave that for another time.
Here’s where science and politics differ. In science, if your experiment doesn’t work, you have to change your hypothesis. In this case, Stephon Conroy just stuck to his message. Also not only does the experiment have to be repeatable, it has to be be repeated by your peers, It is called peer review, and it is one of the of the backbones of science research. In this case, your peers Senator Conroy, (13 year old school kids) have proven that your results can not be repeated.
This was a fail for politics, and by my reckoning, a fail for science too, due to the fact that the political arguments were accepted, despite ALL scientific evidence against the decision. It begs the question, “who wins?”
All the rules of science have been adhered to, as I said before, you actually can’t break them or, by definition, you are not doing science. Whereas at least 3 of the four identified rules of politics have been been broken.And it seems as though the punishment for breaking these political rules, is lots of funding and waste of public money on a technology that doesn't work.
I can see and agree with the principles of the idea. Protecting children, I'm all for that. But the clear disregard for evidence and common sense annoys me. True, we are not doing scientific research, but a little application of some of the principles of scientific processes would surely strengthen your argument or even help you to get a better policy.
I’m a big advocate of strong social policies, but I would also like to see some scientific common sense and awareness on discussions like this.
I guess the same could be said for the climate change debate, but I might leave that for another time.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Learn from mistakes
Science Vs Politics series.
There are some things we know, and other things we don’t know. And as a scientist, this really excites me. I love the fact that we have no idea about some things. In fact there are very few things in science that we can be certain about.
It’s actually very simple to find the limit of what we know in science. Simple questions such as, what happened before the big bang? Is there life on other planets? If I’m in a car travelling at the speed of light and I switch my lights on, what happens? These are very simple questions that have no good answer.
A good scientist will say “we don’t know”, then go into an explanation of what we think may be the case. This explanation will be accompanied with lots of hand waving, the true sign that whatever the scientist is saying at the time is being made up! A poor scientist will go straight into the explanation, complete with hand waving.
Science prides itself on being wrong, it is how science works. We make a theory, then when it is wrong, change the theory to fit our new observations. It is really the only way that science progresses. In fact it is the only way that anything progresses. This is where the phrase “we learn from our mistakes” comes from.
A scientist aims to have their results published in scientific journals. To get published the report must go through a process called peer review where other scientists check over the work, comment and make changes. The peers in this case are not always of the opinion, in fact sometimes in direct opposition. It’s all out in the open and an integral part of science.
So why can’t we learn from our political mistakes? How often does a politician make a statement and back it up with facts? How often do you hear a politician say “I was wrong?” How many productive peer discussions are there between the government and the opposition?
I want more scientific logic in our political discussions. This means more actual discussion, and less name calling. It means, if you are wrong, that you have learnt something, and gained a chance to make your policy better, not that you are a liar and an economy destroyer. It means the people that vote for you will understand your policies better.
There are some things we know, and other things we don’t know. And as a scientist, this really excites me. I love the fact that we have no idea about some things. In fact there are very few things in science that we can be certain about.
It’s actually very simple to find the limit of what we know in science. Simple questions such as, what happened before the big bang? Is there life on other planets? If I’m in a car travelling at the speed of light and I switch my lights on, what happens? These are very simple questions that have no good answer.
A good scientist will say “we don’t know”, then go into an explanation of what we think may be the case. This explanation will be accompanied with lots of hand waving, the true sign that whatever the scientist is saying at the time is being made up! A poor scientist will go straight into the explanation, complete with hand waving.
Science prides itself on being wrong, it is how science works. We make a theory, then when it is wrong, change the theory to fit our new observations. It is really the only way that science progresses. In fact it is the only way that anything progresses. This is where the phrase “we learn from our mistakes” comes from.
A scientist aims to have their results published in scientific journals. To get published the report must go through a process called peer review where other scientists check over the work, comment and make changes. The peers in this case are not always of the opinion, in fact sometimes in direct opposition. It’s all out in the open and an integral part of science.
So why can’t we learn from our political mistakes? How often does a politician make a statement and back it up with facts? How often do you hear a politician say “I was wrong?” How many productive peer discussions are there between the government and the opposition?
I want more scientific logic in our political discussions. This means more actual discussion, and less name calling. It means, if you are wrong, that you have learnt something, and gained a chance to make your policy better, not that you are a liar and an economy destroyer. It means the people that vote for you will understand your policies better.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
There's an error in the uncertainty of your measurements
Science vs Politics series.
This title can be interpreted in two very different ways. And the differences highlight the challenge of talking science to politicians and politics to scientists. It is very interesting and I think a little bit misunderstood. That is to say, more awareness of these differences will foster better communication between these two groups in society. It is a little bit scary to me that only one of these groups gets to make the decisions about our society. I think both (in fact all, of societies vast range of groups) should get a say.
The three words in particular in this title are instrument, uncertainty and error. These three words are very different concepts depending on who you’re talking to.
An instrument, to a scientist, is the thing that you observe with. It could be a microscope, a telescope, a seismometer, a scale etc. To a politician, an instrument is a piece of paper that can be used in court as evidence, or in parliament as a law.
Uncertainty in science gives a level of confidence that a measurement lies within a prescribed range. It tells you that no matter how well you make your measurement, you can not be spot on. For example, the temperature today is 15 ˚C ± 0.5 ˚C. Where 0.5 ˚C is the uncertainty, or the range where the temperature actually is. The temperature in this case could be anywhere between 14.5 ˚C to 15.5 ˚C. In politics, if you use the word uncertainty, it means you are not sure, a dangerous thing to admit.
Error, the last and is probably most volatile of these three concepts. In science, error is the difference between your measurement and the actual value of the thing you are measuring. There will always be error in measurement. Error in politics simply means you are wrong. In science, you need to understand and discuss the error, you are not being a good scientist of you don’t. In politics, you avoid it.
Here is a political translation of a scientific statement:
”The error and uncertainty of the instrument were known” = “Not only where there mistakes and things you weren’t sure about in the policy document, but you knew about it and didn’t tell anyone, shame.”
I’d like to see the day where politicians can use these words with confidence in parliament, without being harangued for being wrong and unsure. I’d love to hear the opposition ask the government in questions time “what was the uncertainty of your measurement?” or “Could you characterise your errors?”, rather than “You are wrong, why are you lying to us?”
I’m uncertain that I’ll ever see this happen, hopefully that's my fault!
This title can be interpreted in two very different ways. And the differences highlight the challenge of talking science to politicians and politics to scientists. It is very interesting and I think a little bit misunderstood. That is to say, more awareness of these differences will foster better communication between these two groups in society. It is a little bit scary to me that only one of these groups gets to make the decisions about our society. I think both (in fact all, of societies vast range of groups) should get a say.
The three words in particular in this title are instrument, uncertainty and error. These three words are very different concepts depending on who you’re talking to.
An instrument, to a scientist, is the thing that you observe with. It could be a microscope, a telescope, a seismometer, a scale etc. To a politician, an instrument is a piece of paper that can be used in court as evidence, or in parliament as a law.
Uncertainty in science gives a level of confidence that a measurement lies within a prescribed range. It tells you that no matter how well you make your measurement, you can not be spot on. For example, the temperature today is 15 ˚C ± 0.5 ˚C. Where 0.5 ˚C is the uncertainty, or the range where the temperature actually is. The temperature in this case could be anywhere between 14.5 ˚C to 15.5 ˚C. In politics, if you use the word uncertainty, it means you are not sure, a dangerous thing to admit.
Error, the last and is probably most volatile of these three concepts. In science, error is the difference between your measurement and the actual value of the thing you are measuring. There will always be error in measurement. Error in politics simply means you are wrong. In science, you need to understand and discuss the error, you are not being a good scientist of you don’t. In politics, you avoid it.
Here is a political translation of a scientific statement:
”The error and uncertainty of the instrument were known” = “Not only where there mistakes and things you weren’t sure about in the policy document, but you knew about it and didn’t tell anyone, shame.”
I’d like to see the day where politicians can use these words with confidence in parliament, without being harangued for being wrong and unsure. I’d love to hear the opposition ask the government in questions time “what was the uncertainty of your measurement?” or “Could you characterise your errors?”, rather than “You are wrong, why are you lying to us?”
I’m uncertain that I’ll ever see this happen, hopefully that's my fault!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
How not to ask a scientific question
Science Vs Politics series.
There is a real skill when it comes to asking questions. Science has nailed it, in fact the entire method behind science is based on asking good questions. Politicians however, still have some room for improvement.
There is a real skill when it comes to asking questions. Science has nailed it, in fact the entire method behind science is based on asking good questions. Politicians however, still have some room for improvement.
There are many ways to ask a question. My 2 year old daughter asks a lot of questions, all the time. This is her way of learning about the world. Her questions are great questions for their purpose but wouldn't hold up in a microbiology lab or in question time. "Mr. Speaker, What you doing?"
Indigenous Australians asked question, only when they were ready to do so. This method of questioning works very well for them. It is how they get most of their information. If you don't know something, there is probably a good reason for it, so wait until you are told!
Here is a great example of a skeptics opinion of what a great question is. PZ Meyers in this case, writes an open letter to a 9-year old girl in order to prepare her better for asking good questions. In short, his advice is this. Don't ask questions you know the answer to, ask a question where you will learn something!
As mentioned before, most scientists, are pretty flash at this. Think Julius Sumner Miller, and his great catch phrase. "Why is it so?" Perfect, this is a great question, and almost unlimited to how much you can learn with this question. Jump to question time in the lower house now, and the situation is very different. From what I have seen, and what is reported to us, none of these questions follow any good definition of a good question.
I have characterised the questions I see in question time into a few groups:
- Provocative
- Loaded
- Unanswerable
- 9-year old question
Provocative question wil not get an answer but a response. Remember back in the day when you would purposely annoy your brother oir sister in order to get a response, you weren't looking for an intelligent answer, you just wanted them to snap! "Why does the Govermnent refuse to...blah, blah, blah?" falls into this category.
Loaded questions really have nothing in them except for emotion and bias. A loaded question will never get a satisfactory response, it will leave the responder feel like they have dodged a bullet and the questioner feel like their question has not been answered. for example, "When will the minister stop deceiving and lying to the Australian people and blah, blah, blah...?
Unanswerable questions, are designed to be unanswerable in order to make the responder look silly either by a pathetic response or no response at all. "Can the government guarantee that no jobs will be lost in the blah, blah blah?" This questions can simply not be answered, so when an answer is given, it is not an answer to the question asked. In this case the questioner can use the favourite line, "The government doesn't know what they are talking about." It is best for all involved if no answer is given. Both sides win. No stupid answer is given, therefore no misinterpretation or embarrassment, and the questioner can use their other favourite, loaded, line " The Government refused to comment" and getting some cheap points.
The 9-year old question is similar to the one asked in the article referred to earlier. They are kids questions asked by adults who know better. Things like "What was the government thinking when blah, blah blah..."
If we could only install some good questioning techniques into the so-called question time. I'd love to see some thoughtful, well placed, questions that can actually be classed as questions, rather than insults or cheap points scoring. A question is not to make a point, a question is to learn something. I haven't learn that much recently from question time!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Really? Death Threats?
Science Vs Politics series.
Are we seriously accepting this? How is this ok that scientists, doing their job, investigating, asking questions, are receiving death threats?
Recently, climate scientists have been receiving death threats, obviously to intimidate them to cease their research, or stop them from producing scientific results on climate science. From any perspective, this is wrong. A death threat has no references and carries little scientific weight, a scientist can simply not respond to a death threat
Scientists (from the Latin word Scientia, meaning knowledge) deal with observable facts. We observe something, record it, repeat the observation and then try and predict what will happen, based on the previous observations, what we will see next. If we are wrong, and we often are, we change our prediction, then test again. It really is that simple.
So what are these people scared of? Why do they think it is necessary to offer death threats? What possible bad can come out of observing facts and making predictions? A death threat is really not the way to go about scientific criticism. Produce some facts, and research, then go to a scientist, and keep the emotive, irrational and inflammatory stuff out of it.
Can I make a prediction myself, and say that I bet these people making the death threats are not scientists. No scientist would go about making a criticism in this way. Can I also hypothesise that these people are not using the rational part of their brain when making these death threats. A rational human would probably realise that a threat to kill someone will probably not fix their problem. Further, I’ll guess that these people aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. For a start there is no uncertainty that human induced climate change has and will continue to change our planet.
It's confusing to me why we accept scientific comments from non scientists that say stupid, irrational things.
Doing something about climate change based on our accepted scientific theories is really a no-brainer. If we are right, action now will probably save the lives of our grandchildren and ultimately life as we know it on this planet. There is seriously no doubt. If we are wrong, we have we lost nothing but our dependency on non renewable fuel and better energy efficiency? (that translates to cheaper!) Not really all that bad if you ask me!
Just saying.
Are we seriously accepting this? How is this ok that scientists, doing their job, investigating, asking questions, are receiving death threats?
Recently, climate scientists have been receiving death threats, obviously to intimidate them to cease their research, or stop them from producing scientific results on climate science. From any perspective, this is wrong. A death threat has no references and carries little scientific weight, a scientist can simply not respond to a death threat
Scientists (from the Latin word Scientia, meaning knowledge) deal with observable facts. We observe something, record it, repeat the observation and then try and predict what will happen, based on the previous observations, what we will see next. If we are wrong, and we often are, we change our prediction, then test again. It really is that simple.
So what are these people scared of? Why do they think it is necessary to offer death threats? What possible bad can come out of observing facts and making predictions? A death threat is really not the way to go about scientific criticism. Produce some facts, and research, then go to a scientist, and keep the emotive, irrational and inflammatory stuff out of it.
Can I make a prediction myself, and say that I bet these people making the death threats are not scientists. No scientist would go about making a criticism in this way. Can I also hypothesise that these people are not using the rational part of their brain when making these death threats. A rational human would probably realise that a threat to kill someone will probably not fix their problem. Further, I’ll guess that these people aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. For a start there is no uncertainty that human induced climate change has and will continue to change our planet.
It's confusing to me why we accept scientific comments from non scientists that say stupid, irrational things.
Doing something about climate change based on our accepted scientific theories is really a no-brainer. If we are right, action now will probably save the lives of our grandchildren and ultimately life as we know it on this planet. There is seriously no doubt. If we are wrong, we have we lost nothing but our dependency on non renewable fuel and better energy efficiency? (that translates to cheaper!) Not really all that bad if you ask me!
Just saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)