Obama: saviour of science?
January 20, 2009 at 11:15 pm | In Maths | 2 CommentsI don’t want to talk in too much detail about the presidential inauguration today, or the speech he gave afterwards, but there was one phrase which I was very happy to see:
We will raise science to its rightful place.
I was watching this in King’s Buildings House, which, if you are not familiar with Edinburgh Uni, is the Union in the Science and Engineering campus, and this quote prompted a rather loud cheer in the room. Then I started to wonder what he actually meant by this.
He went on to talk about replacing current forms of energy with renewable ones, which, while interesting, didn’t seem to follow on naturally from the science statement. Maybe he meant putting science in its place by actually considering the facts of global warming rather than dismissing them offhand by saying technology will cure all ills, I don’t know.
But what on earth is the “proper place” of science and why isn’t it there right now? I’m not sure what he meant by this statement, but I know for sure that in this country, science isn’t really that high on many people’s agenda, for one reason or another. This saddens me, because I know that a large part of my life has been dedicated to the study of science (if you will be gracious enough to classify mathematics as a science) and, to be honest, it’s come to define my life in many ways, so to see it dismissed so readily (especially by “art” snobs*) is quite hurtful.
It’s easy to guess that science is in such a lowly position because people see it as not a worthwhile thing to be studying, either because it’s boring or difficult, but I wonder what else is holding it back (at this point I would like to say I’m not trying to create a false arts v science dichotomy)? I don’t believe the previous president is to blame, rather I wonder if there is some aspect of modern western culture that downplays science. Who knows?
My guess is that hopefully he will introduce better education of science, and utilise research and other data into making informed decisions as to what to do about the environment amongst other things, and perhaps it might trickle over here. That would make me very happy indeed.
* by this I mean people involved in the “arts” who look down their nose at science (a minority), not just any old “arts” person, I am not trying to imply people involved in the arts are all snobs!
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
One could argue the oppposite. Perhaps science needs to step back a bit. Perhaps it has gotten to big for it’s boots. But this all depends on your definition of science. Maybe it’s proper place is for it to be a little bit less prominent.
If we can finally remove the philosophy of naturalism from science then we might have something that can be great again. However I fear that what Obama said, or more likely many interpreted it to mean, was that we should throw off any Christian hindrance and let scientific naturalism become the dominant philosophy of the USA and the West.
Comment by Lincoln — January 21, 2009 #
I really don’t think that’s what he meant, but you probably have better sources than me.
I doubt he would want to throw off “christian hindrance”, as a Christian himself, I think he would be cautious about accidentally (or deliberately) promoting naturalism.
Anyway he’s here now, so we can come back to this in four years and see what’s happened.
Comment by ulsterscot84 — January 21, 2009 #