Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Scares - Taking science out of proportion
(OP)
Just finished "Scared to Death" and I had quite an experience.
Needless to say that I will not see all the alarms and warnings in TV, radio, etc... under the same light I used to any more.
Short from verifying all the quotes, links and references, I think what is explained and detailed makes sense; to me at least.
The authors show a very sensible approach on how genuine health/environmental concerns are escalated and taken out of proportion to become a scare.
It has to be taken with a grain of salt though; otherwise your liver will explode.
It presents how we, the public and most affected by these scares, are nothing more than spectators. How policy has been made based on flawed science and how things taken out of context and proportion lead to these policies.
In my personal case, I know I am a little biased and see things in a different light than most people around me where I am at.
Even before I immigrated to a "1st world country" in North America I had some perceptions that are the same that the book presents (might be the 'I lie they verify' case).
I might be chewed on for this, but here they are:
• People need to find something to complain about since most of them (us now for me) have the basic needs already met and secured (and a little more if you get picky). When the daily struggle is to make ends meet and your worry is you own welfare and that of your loved ones, it is pretty hard to start worrying about something you do not really understand. If you have lived all your life in a 1st world country, you might have no clue what really is opening your front door (assuming you are upper middle class and have a roof over your head), seeing your children and having no clue whether you will be able to provide what they need next month (careful, these are the BASIC NEEDS, not the wii that all their friends have and not them). Needless to say that people less fortunate than you will not even have exposure to these scares.
• Bad news sell, period. If it is the press, they will see their numbers soar. If it is a political group, they can gain adepts. If it is an environmental group, well... they also need to eat, cannot afford to loose their source of income.
• Just as with a sex video of Britney with Pamela Anderson making headlines and grasping everybody's attention span (in spite of the fact that this will not affect their lives in the least bit), morbidity will grab people's attention. Bad news, scares, etc... give a legal and socially acceptable morbidity for small talk and more.
• There is some unconscious need (I guess) to feel threatened, especially when the concept is so vague or complex that the normal Joe (or Jane... no chauvinism here) cannot fully grasp. The threat has to seem remote but with a sense of closeness. Something along the lines that it is happening all around you but cannot conceive it happening to you (yeah, hard to grasp what I am trying to explain here, but it is the best I could do).
• People's minds are very relaxed, and as a group, can be easily manipulated.
• There is no conceivable way, in our democratic worlds, to overrule what politicians and power groups do. No matter what the theory of democracy says.
The one I have not seen but, I think, is another factor here (and could also explain the stock market reactions)
• The speed in which news can reach us and information can travel leads to overreaction. The INTERNET is like a double edged sword, but the point is stabbing.
I think technology has advanced much faster than people's education has. There is too much information and not every person with access to it can understand causes and consequences. It is unreal how an event in one side of the world can have such strong consequences on the opposite side (assuming both happened in developed countries).
There are more far more personal and I am pretty sure easily debatable.
• People have short, very short, memories. At least when applied to the collective memories.
• Most scientists are shy. They are not the media type and will not jump up and fight. And the few that have, well, have been labeled. The typical scientist will avoid confrontation with the publicity if he can help it. He can fight data; she can fight the cosmos, but will NOT fight public exposure.
• People are very willing to hear/learn about everything except what is really worth learning.
We are engineers AND scientists and we are also being affected by policy based on flawed conclusions. What are the chances of reviving the scientific approach?
Needless to say that I will not see all the alarms and warnings in TV, radio, etc... under the same light I used to any more.
Short from verifying all the quotes, links and references, I think what is explained and detailed makes sense; to me at least.
The authors show a very sensible approach on how genuine health/environmental concerns are escalated and taken out of proportion to become a scare.
It has to be taken with a grain of salt though; otherwise your liver will explode.
It presents how we, the public and most affected by these scares, are nothing more than spectators. How policy has been made based on flawed science and how things taken out of context and proportion lead to these policies.
In my personal case, I know I am a little biased and see things in a different light than most people around me where I am at.
Even before I immigrated to a "1st world country" in North America I had some perceptions that are the same that the book presents (might be the 'I lie they verify' case).
I might be chewed on for this, but here they are:
• People need to find something to complain about since most of them (us now for me) have the basic needs already met and secured (and a little more if you get picky). When the daily struggle is to make ends meet and your worry is you own welfare and that of your loved ones, it is pretty hard to start worrying about something you do not really understand. If you have lived all your life in a 1st world country, you might have no clue what really is opening your front door (assuming you are upper middle class and have a roof over your head), seeing your children and having no clue whether you will be able to provide what they need next month (careful, these are the BASIC NEEDS, not the wii that all their friends have and not them). Needless to say that people less fortunate than you will not even have exposure to these scares.
• Bad news sell, period. If it is the press, they will see their numbers soar. If it is a political group, they can gain adepts. If it is an environmental group, well... they also need to eat, cannot afford to loose their source of income.
• Just as with a sex video of Britney with Pamela Anderson making headlines and grasping everybody's attention span (in spite of the fact that this will not affect their lives in the least bit), morbidity will grab people's attention. Bad news, scares, etc... give a legal and socially acceptable morbidity for small talk and more.
• There is some unconscious need (I guess) to feel threatened, especially when the concept is so vague or complex that the normal Joe (or Jane... no chauvinism here) cannot fully grasp. The threat has to seem remote but with a sense of closeness. Something along the lines that it is happening all around you but cannot conceive it happening to you (yeah, hard to grasp what I am trying to explain here, but it is the best I could do).
• People's minds are very relaxed, and as a group, can be easily manipulated.
• There is no conceivable way, in our democratic worlds, to overrule what politicians and power groups do. No matter what the theory of democracy says.
The one I have not seen but, I think, is another factor here (and could also explain the stock market reactions)
• The speed in which news can reach us and information can travel leads to overreaction. The INTERNET is like a double edged sword, but the point is stabbing.
I think technology has advanced much faster than people's education has. There is too much information and not every person with access to it can understand causes and consequences. It is unreal how an event in one side of the world can have such strong consequences on the opposite side (assuming both happened in developed countries).
There are more far more personal and I am pretty sure easily debatable.
• People have short, very short, memories. At least when applied to the collective memories.
• Most scientists are shy. They are not the media type and will not jump up and fight. And the few that have, well, have been labeled. The typical scientist will avoid confrontation with the publicity if he can help it. He can fight data; she can fight the cosmos, but will NOT fight public exposure.
• People are very willing to hear/learn about everything except what is really worth learning.
We are engineers AND scientists and we are also being affected by policy based on flawed conclusions. What are the chances of reviving the scientific approach?
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>





RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
It'll have to wait for me to finish the current vomit novel though (some Irvine Welsh nasty).
- Steve
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
I saw a news clip from a Cleveland televiosn news program that was repprting on Ohio's reversion to the 2005 NEC when the homebuilders were complaining to the governor about increased costs. A friend of mine, a building official and electrical inspector, was pointing to a residential panel with arc-faults and saying what the added costs are for complying with the 2008 NEC. The 'reporter' was hyping up how unsafe the new houses will, how little the extra cost, and the sound bite from the governor said something like there was no discussion about safety concerns otherwise he may have decided differently. I am pro-2008 NEC but I felt the news piece was so slanted to my way of thinking, I just did not see it as news and was very biased.
So I tell my kids - believe nothing that you hear and half of what you read.
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
No question that people are idiots generally in relation to risk. But it's reasonable that a person's attitude toward risk depends greatly on whether the risk is voluntarily assumed or is imposed on them by the actions of others. People get into their cars daily without a 2nd thought to the fact that this is the riskiest thing they do in their lives- but they're very concerned about whether or not the additives in the food they eat will give them cancer.
That the average life expectancy has increased dramatically over the past fifty years is evidence that the epidemiology supports the notion that our lives get safer every day. Why is it then that we feel less and less safe? There's worry that life expectancies may start to drop in future, but that too will probably prove to be merely a worry.
The fact is, there are folks who make a living by manipulating people's fears. Journalists and politicians are amongst them. That's something you should never personally forget, and something that you should teach your kids. Be skeptical- but there's a difference amongst skepticism, cynicism and reactionary disbelief.
It's also essential that people realize that the "do nothing" option also comes with risk. Take PCBs: people don't know what they are, but know enough to be scared of them. The neighbours band together to protest against any means used to destroy them on-site so they don't have to be transported to a disposal facility. Then the facility they're stored in catches fire by accident, exposing them to probably 10,000 times the amount they'd have been exposed to if 1950s incineration technology had been used to dispose of them in the first place. Want the example? Google St. Basile le Grand- a place in Quebec where this happened.
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
ht
If I recall correctly it says fear is used by corporations and politicians to gain wealth and power. Examples are the acne cream commercials used to scare teens ("you will not be popular unless you buy our lotion"). And of course there are the weapons of mass deception.
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
I am pleased to know that I am not the only person that feels this a root problem with society.
Unfortunately, the gap is widening!
Rod
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
You had to read a book to realize some of that?
I realized this at about 17 when we studied radiation and got to play with various sources and find out the risks associated with them, how to mitigate these etc. Compared to the public phobia of nuclear power it bore no relation.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Unfortunately I really do not have time to dig into every alarm I hear about. The book presents a nice detail on how things started, progressed and ended, if they did.
Yes, the book brought up to light things that I thought it was "just me thinking differently" and made me put some things into a different perspective. Some of us need that kind of information every now and then.
Personally I am not, apparently, as analytical as you were at 17, but I played with many things that are now bad for you but back then were ok (some still are back home).
The book also shows how the society has been manipulated, over time, to now buy into the scares. This I found very interesting.
The worst part... back home they are going head first into the same things... just a little behind, but catching up fast!
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
There are some things that were fine "back then" that should still be fine now, and yet aren't. Trick-or-treating has almost died out because people are afraid for the safety of their children, even though last I checked there was not a single documented case of stranger-tainted Halloween candy collected during trick-or-treating.
Most "scares" are somewhere between those two. Not all panics are justified (e.g., the cancer-causing mechanism in saccharine turned out to be rat-specific), but on the other hand just because the public at large is scared of something doesn't mean it isn't legitimately scary.
I don't know how to discuss the lack of ability to distinguish between cases where alarm is or is not called for without going on a rant about anti-intellectualism in U.S. society, so I won't.
It's not just about science, though, as josephv points out. What will happen if you vote for Candidate X or if you don't use the right acne cream doesn't have much to do with science but still has everything to do with being able to evaluate situations on one's own. Or knowing where to turn for reliable information if one doesn't have the requisite training (for example, I'm completely unqualified to judge whether panic is called for in the current financial crisis).
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Rod
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
And about "back then", I still run with scissors, but I'm holding the pointy edge inside my fist
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
And I appreciate the calm, learned answers too. Good job all.
My take is pretty in line with the above:
The word "crisis" is waaaay overused and mis-used these days.
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Supposedly for this reason a lot of advertising doesn't work as well on engineers, also a lot of the time engineers supposedly wont get picked for jury duty - the lawyers are concerned we'll actually look at the facts rather than run on the drama & emotion etc.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Luck is a difficult thing to verify and therefore should be tested often. - Me
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Apparently she and Percy Byshe Shelley, Lord Byron et al were assembled round the fire in their Swiss villa by the lake discussing the latest findings of science.
That "new scence" was the work of Volta and Galvani (who made frogs legs twitch when he applied electricity to them).
The dear little woman, there with all these literary luminaries, challenged, she went away and wrote the book that made her more well known than they; "Frankenstein".
The Frankenstein complex has been with us ever since.
It has become axiomatic that science is bad for us.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
In my case, when I caught the beginnings of some of the scares, I saw the basis for their science to be so flawed or unrealistic that my mind quickly dismissed the issue.
It just did not make sense and I thought (poor naive me) that they would be disregarded just because of how unrealistic they were. But lo and behold, they exploded!!!! I guess I tend to give common sense waay too much credit. (I know... common sense is not that common, but come on!! Just a little in some cases?)
So perhaps, most of the scientific community could not concieve that the scares coulr hold any water and is why it was so slow to react (and too late in most cases)
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
-- MechEng2005
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
I was thrown out of jury selection because I said I would not be able to disregard something I had heard in testimony (or otherwise knew, like the case above) even if instructed to disregard it. I guess I'm not sufficiently analytical.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
<http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html>
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
- Steve
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Regards,
Mike
Oh, and AMN4, reason is a slippery thing, but your emotions you can trust:)
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
anyways, cynic that i am thinks there's money to be made in them there scares/panics ... and it's probably easier than a real (engineering?) job.
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
http://
I understand the attempt at standardization, I just think it is unneeded. Soon we'll here people discussing the merits of using butyrum or olus and maris sal with their ovum.
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of these Forums?
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
- Steve
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
That's true, and selling FUD plays right into that.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
This also applies to politics. A group of people that lack education, are divided and are afraid are easy to control. However, a group of people that is educated can't be easily manipulated.
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
An interestig quote from Freeman Dyson:
[quote]In desperation I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, "How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?" I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, "Four." He said, "I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." With that, the conversation was over.{/quote]
So, for example, how many assumptions in the AGW advocate's models?
Should we be more scared of the threatened doom or the assumptions in the models?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Don't get me wrong, they're pretty and I like to look at them but I just don't get the feeling that a group like the VS models will necessarily make good assumptions, and I'd have to see a donkey wearing frilly underwear.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies recently, or taken a look at http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
RE: Scares - Taking science out of proportion
Elephants seem popular with scientists and engineers. There is one about being in a dark room with an elephant and counting 5 legs or something....
Schroedinger used a cat, so perhaps he was was a cat person (or perhaps not since he was concerned with whether or not the cat was alive or dead when you examined the room).
Now there is a story about elephants that might apply here:
Every day the same commuters board the train to the city and each takes his/her usual seat in the usual compartment.
One man spends the journey every day tearing his newspaper into tiny pieces and scattering them on the floor around him.
This being an English train t is some months before someone has the nerve to ask him:
"Excuse me, please can you tell me why you do that?"
"Oh certainly." he replies, "its to keep the elephants away."
"But there are no elephants!" exclaims the other, somewhat surprised.
"I know." says the man with great satisfaction, "Effective, isn't it?".
Somehow, I see see parallels here with EGW. However much money is spent it will be like the witch doctors magic:
If the planet doesn't melt down it will be because the treatment was effective.
If it doesn't, then it will be because we didn't spend enough or because someone wasn't doing their part or because the problem was worse than we thought; e.g. global chilling is masking the full effects of global warming.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com