> I think we should be careful about being too critical of
> society in general for embracing technology, but not the
> science behind it.

I do want to be a little critical, although perhaps I can be critical both of society and scientists. It bothers me that not only do some people not embrace the science, but they are actively hostile towards science: They really don't want to hear scientists tell them that astrology is wrong, magnet therapy is wrong, that electric power lines aren't causing cancer.

For example, consider "theraputic touch" therapy, where the practitioner manipulates the human energy field to help people feel better. There was that famous test about a year ago where a young girl tested the ability of TT practitioners to sense the human energy field; the few that volunteered scored no better than chance.

What amazed me about that test was that (1) the practitioners denied that this test had proven they had no ability to sense the human energy field, (2) very few practitioners were even willing to participate in the test, and (3) nobody who refused to participate in the test proposed an alternative test that would satisfy scientists. So there is this whole community of people who believes they are doing something valid that does not understand what scientists find objectionable about their field. And vice-versa: somehow the scientists are unable to communicate why they are skeptical to these TT practitioners.

So what has gone wrong here? Why can't the TT people & the skeptics communicate? How can the scientists do what Amanda suggests:
> To change this situation, we need to clearly demonstrate the
> value of being personally familar with the results and methods
> of science. We need to show how critical thinking can improve
> people's lives;

In fact perhaps TT practitioners would argue that scientists are trying to stop them from healing people, rather than to improve people's lives. And perhaps that is the skeptics' failure, that they seem somehow insistent that their viewpoint is correct, and thus alienate their audience. I don't really know.

So... perhaps I am dragging this away from "appreciation of science" and more towards "science -vs- pseudoscience". But whether this is society's fault, or more likely scientists' fault, it's an area where I see need for improvement: hostility of the general public towards hearing scientists' critique of various topics. And probably the scientists are the ones who need to find better ways to address these topics, so that they don't come off sounding like condescending, arrogant experts trying to impose their viewpoints... although I suspect that may be how this email I just wrote sounds, so, my apologies. I can point to the problem but I don't know how to solve it.

--Eric

ps: In reference to an earlier email, I wanted to mention -- I too run the SETI@Home screensaver on my computer, I agree this is a great way to get lots of people involved in a scientific project!