Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WealthyRadish]

The unironic use of the word "laypeople" is one of several pretty good places to start when asking why many seem to be putting less faith in science. Not that this is a specific criticism of Trekkin, since its usage isn't unique to them.

[Rolan7]

Does "laypeople" look bad, now?  Is there a better way to describe people who haven't devoted their lives to a specific science?
It shouldn't look bad, nobody's actually a master of everything...  But I can see some people getting upset about it anyway, so maybe we should disrespect their sense and change our wording.

[PTTG??]

Carl Sagan had a great way of speaking with authority on a subject without talking down to people.

[Rolan7]

And he was a treasure, but I think Neil Degrasse Tyson took up the mantle just fine, and modernized certain things.

Basically every person is a layman for specific disciplines, it's not supposed to be an insult.  I'm honestly (and bitterly) wondering if there's a better word.

Because if there is no permissible word for "someone who studies a subject" - if that concept is inherently conceited and bad - that is a problem.  It's literally the road to the movie Idiocracy.

[Trekkin]

Carl Sagan had a great way of speaking with authority on a subject without talking down to people.

Which was mostly to speak in pleasant if banal generalities about things that really don't fit accurately into commonly used English. There's nothing wrong with that, at least for entertainment purposes and general outreach, but it's not sufficient when someone asks where their jetpack is, so to speak.

[Baffler]

The problem is that scientists look down on 'laypeople' and think their opinion carries more weight on subjects that they don't study either simply because they're scientists. I work in a laboratory and I see that sort of smarmy condescension almost every day even from people who are otherwise fairly personable. It's extremely annoying, and the realization that knowing everything there is to know about membrane kinetics or whatever amounts to exactly zero expertise in microeconomics, or geophysics, or home repair, or any other subject you could name is depressingly rare.

[WealthyRadish]

I alluded a bit to the essence of my objection by using the term "faith in science"; the word "laypeople" has its origin in the Catholic church, denoting any unannointed individual not capable of preaching the great mystery. That this specific term has kept currency in the sciences can be considered no more than a historical curiosity without significance in itself, but what's objectionable is if the attitude behind the term remains unchanged. It shouldn't be surprising to scientists that the public will reject them if scientists adopt a paternalistic outlook as a distinct social class with a monopoly on the dissemination of truth (whether the public is right for thinking that or not).

[Trekkin]

The problem is that scientists look down on 'laypeople' and think their opinion carries more weight on subjects that they don't study either simply because they're scientists. I work in a laboratory and I see that sort of smarmy condescension almost every day even from people who are otherwise fairly personable. It's extremely annoying, and the realization that knowing everything there is to know about membrane kinetics or whatever amounts to exactly zero expertise in economics, or geophysics, or home repair, or any other subject you could name is depressingly rare.

There is a tiny grain of truth to that line of thinking, though, insofar as training in any form of hard science involves more statistical literacy than you might expect to find in a random member of the population. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to raise your eyebrows when 4 cases this year of a disease with 2 cases last year in a population of millions is billed as a 100% increase.

Unfortunately, we don't tend to hear from statistically literate nonscientists (of which there are many), because they aren't the ones claiming amethysts can cure autism or whatever -- and those are also the people most volubly interested in talking to scientists about it. That's not to say it's a sensible worldview, mind you, only that the problem is larger than snooty scientists.

It shouldn't be surprising to scientists that the public will reject them if scientists adopt a paternalistic outlook as a distinct social class with a monopoly on the dissemination of truth (whether the public is right for thinking that or not).

Did anyone say we're surprised?

[sluissa]

And he was a treasure, but I think Neil Degrasse Tyson took up the mantle just fine, and modernized certain things.

Basically every person is a layman for specific disciplines, it's not supposed to be an insult.  I'm honestly (and bitterly) wondering if there's a better word.

Because if there is no permissible word for "someone who studies a subject" - if that concept is inherently conceited and bad - that is a problem.  It's literally the road to the movie Idiocracy.

Just to be the counter example. I really don't like Tyson. He's got a holier than thou attitude that Sagan more or less managed to avoid. Tyson is perfectly willing to talk at length to people who agree with him, but he has no patience for those who might not. Which is typical in this era, but it really is a distinct division between himself and Sagan. Sagan put in the effort to speak to those that might not agree. He was vicious against wrong ideas and opinions. But he never seemed to be vicious against the people who held them. Tyson doesn't seem to even bother with those who don't agree, preferring to stick to agreeable audiences and when he does have something to say to those who oppose him it's always condescending. Being unable to separate a person from their ideas is one of the most apt uses for the metaphor "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" I've ever come across.

[redwallzyl]

.

[sluissa]

Pardon? Please re-read.

[Starver]

Oh, you meant the standard conflation of science fiction tropes and movie references that laypeople try to 'envision' low-speed interstellar spacecraft out of. At least you didn't mention an Alcubierre drive, I guess.

Well, I actually cut that expansion out of whole cloth from the "how would I actually see it happening if, perchance, I had anything to do with putting together such a mission", not from mashing together SF sources from dead tree archive, small-screen, big-screen, etc.

Hence the lack of mentioning warp drives, wormholes, reactionless propulsion, stasis pods, etc.

If you see (apart from in my obvious quote, tagged onto the original) a similarity between a fictional setup and the one I suggest, it's more likely because it's real speculation seconded to that fiction's scenario by its creator than me pinching from them.


Which is a long way from US Politics, now, and this particular diversion is probably my fault in some proportion.

(And Sargon the Great seemed to do well enough. Everyone who called him an asshole, to his face, is now dead of course.)

[Lord Shonus]

And he was a treasure, but I think Neil Degrasse Tyson took up the mantle just fine, and modernized certain things.

Basically every person is a layman for specific disciplines, it's not supposed to be an insult.  I'm honestly (and bitterly) wondering if there's a better word.

Because if there is no permissible word for "someone who studies a subject" - if that concept is inherently conceited and bad - that is a problem.  It's literally the road to the movie Idiocracy.

Just to be the counter example. I really don't like Tyson. He's got a holier than thou attitude that Sagan more or less managed to avoid. Tyson is perfectly willing to talk at length to people who agree with him, but he has no patience for those who might not. Which is typical in this era, but it really is a distinct division between himself and Sagan. Sagan put in the effort to speak to those that might not agree. He was vicious against wrong ideas and opinions. But he never seemed to be vicious against the people who held them. Tyson doesn't seem to even bother with those who don't agree, preferring to stick to agreeable audiences and when he does have something to say to those who oppose him it's always condescending. Being unable to separate a person from their ideas is one of the most apt uses for the metaphor "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" I've ever come across.

Everything I've seen of Tyson suggests he's the epitome of "I'm an expert in one field, that makes me an expert in EVERY field." I'm pretty sure I remember seeing an interview where he went on and on about how anthropologists will assign everything to religion out of laziness, and how the existence of "Manhattanhenge" proves that the alignment of Stonehenge is pure coincidence.

[redwallzyl]

.

[Descan]

Again. Re-read. He said Sagan. As in Carl Sagan. As in the guy people had already been talking about for some posts already.

Nobody except you brought up Sargon.