Popularization of science is the best medicine against obscurantism
"Where would you get mammoth meat"?
How to fight pseudoscience, to prove that man descended from a monkey,
and why not stick to the paleo dietEkaterina Shutova, "Newspaper.
Ru" About how to effectively combat pseudoscientific theories, especially those that have become active in Russia recently, and about why you should not stick to the paleodiet, "The newspaper.Ru" was told by Alexander Sokolov, the creator and editor of the scientific and educational portal "Anthropogenesis.ru", the author of the book "Myths about Human Evolution", which was included in the list of nominees for the 2015 Enlightener Prize for Popular Science literature.
– In your book "Myths about Human Evolution", which was included in the long list of the Enlightener Prize, you are fighting against pseudoscientific theories common in our country. How, in your opinion, has pseudoscience lost ground in Russia over the past 5-10 years or, conversely, has it strengthened?
– In my subjective opinion, there have been improvements after all. I even want to believe that our scientific and popularizing contribution contributed to this. Recently, in Russia, despite the disgusting situation with the Dynasty Foundation, there is a lot of high-quality literature, popularization events are held, young people are beginning to be interested in science. Ten years ago, this plan was a complete nightmare!
However, it's too early to rejoice: it is worth moving away from Moscow and St. Petersburg, from big cities, to communicate with local residents, and it becomes clear that many have a medieval ... or even a primitive picture of the world in their heads!
It seems that it has not changed since those very primitive times.
Of course, the worldview of most people in the XXI century is formed with the help of mass media, mainly – still with the help of TV. In large cities, the Internet comes to the fore – and this is a big dump. If there is at least some kind of censorship on television, then there is no filtering of information on the Internet in principle, words splash out into the network directly from the spinal cord, bypassing the neocortex. The World Wide Web is a noise producer. This noise is installed in the heads of network users, displacing even the few knowledge that remained from school. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but you need to be able to use it. Citizens! Sloppy online reading is dangerous for your mental health!
– Immediately a specific question. How would you prove to a person who does not believe that he is descended from a monkey that he is wrong?
– Let the person answer why the gene responsible for the synthesis of vitamin C has broken down.
It works in other mammals, but not in all monkeys and humans. Moreover, we have the same mutation with other monkeys that disabled this gene.
Either in both us and monkeys, the gene "accidentally" broke in the same place (which is very unlikely), or the gene broke in our common ancestor. Since our ancestors (ancient primates) ate a lot of fruits in those distant times, they received vitamin C in excess with food and did not notice the gene breakdown.
– If you take it more broadly. How, in your opinion, is it most effective to fight pseudoscience?
– Of course, the best defense against pseudoscience is a good education. However, I do not believe that our level of education will increase in the near future. So far, we are observing the reverse process.
Further, experience shows that in Russia neither court proceedings nor appeals of scientists to the population through the media to "come to their senses" at the level of facts and logic do not work. The methods of PR remain. That is, scientific propaganda, which generates interest and trust in real science among the population (first of all, among young people). Through the Internet, with the help of popular events, festivals, films, it is necessary to systematically instill the idea that science is great, exciting, fashionable, damn it, what the future is for science.
That we owe all the benefits that we have now to scientists, and not to some shamans with a tambourine.
Pseudoscience only simulates activity, there are no real results there. The problem is that pseudoscience is pure PR. A scientist spends most of his time on scientific work, a pseudo–scientist spends most of his time on "inflating cheeks". False scientists, unlike real scientists, are practically not limited by facts and can easily play on the fears and prejudices of ordinary people. For example, the idea that a man is a rapist by nature, regardless of how it is justified, will resonate with a certain category of citizens – both men and women.
What can we do about it? To contrast the black PR of false scientists with the white PR of scientific propaganda.
The truth is on our side, but the pseudo–scientists are still degraded, and their propaganda methods are poor. It is difficult to win, but it is possible.
– Should the fight against pseudoscience be carried out by the state?
– Of course, in an ideal situation, this should be carried out at the state level – if the "top" wants the country to be competitive in the XXI century – the century of high technologies. But let's look at things realistically. It seems that now our state is not up to it, the authorities are engaged in solving some of their problems, and - in fact, not in words – they care very little about education. Therefore, single enthusiasts are struggling with pseudoscience in our country. It's good that at least they are. It would be good if the state at least did not interfere with this process…
It is ideal, of course, to show the material damage caused by pseudoscience – this is what affects officials.
Their moral sufferings do not touch scientists, but the lost money is another matter. There are some examples of this kind. Let's recall the famous "gravitsapa" or Petrik filters. But how can you prove material damage from false historians, false paleontologists, false linguists?
– What is the status of a scientist in our country?
– On the one hand, statistics show that science is still trusted. On the other hand, if a Russian is asked to draw a portrait of a scientist, an image of a kind of disheveled weirdo with Brown–type glasses from the painting "Back to the Future" will appear. A scientist is an eccentric "nerd", not an example to follow. If we conduct a survey among children about who they want to become in the future, I'm afraid that the profession of a scientist will not be in the top ten. I would like to make a mistake.
– In your book you write: "Where nationalism arises, for some reason historical science tends to end." Do you think that this statement is peculiar only to our country or is it common to all?
– In anthropology, "national-patriotic deformations" have to be encountered not only in Russia. Parochial anthropologists of many countries want to prove that it was on their territory that a man appeared, that their finds are the oldest and, accordingly, the best and most valuable.
Wherever they have not discovered their own human ancestors – in Greece, in China, in Georgia, in England... Of course, in Russia too.
When science enters the clearing of political and nationalist ambitions, a conflict of the desired and the real is inevitable. A real researcher strives to separate his desires from the facts, but in practice no one is free from his beliefs and prejudices. And there may also be a certain "state order". Pseudo-historical movements escalate when there is a crisis in the country. When people have no reason to be proud of reality, they find fictional objects to be proud of. Talk begins that "but it was our ancestors who gave the world all the benefits of civilization."
– You often mention that in science fiction films (for example, Kubrick) and books (for example, Wells) there are improbable images that get used to the consciousness of the layman. It turns out that science fiction should be banned and only popular science books should be written?
– Well, what are you! Quite the contrary, I think that science fiction is a great format for popularizing scientific ideas. Another thing is that the author of the book strives to make the plot exciting, inevitably adds something, throws something out. In Conan Doyle, for example, in the "Lost World" dinosaurs live simultaneously with humans. Although the author certainly knew that by the time the first man appeared, all dinosaurs had long since become extinct. Therefore, it is bad if fiction is the only source from which the reader or viewer draws knowledge. A fantastic book can serve as a great incentive for a teenager to study science. But in order not to take everything you read at face value, you need, if not knowledge, then a certain cultural level. And the conditions so that the desire to study is feasible, and the fascination with fiction does not degenerate into collecting paraphernalia.
– What is your favorite "anthropological" myth?
– If not the most favorite, then the most recent one is about the so–called paleo diet. They say that in ancient times people ate "naturally" – let's go back to the lifestyle of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and start eating like them. Interestingly, the advocates of different diets – raw foodists, vegetarians - justify their choice by "naturalness". But do they understand what it means to "eat naturally" and when exactly a person "ate naturally"? Ten thousand years ago? A hundred thousand? A million years ago? At different times, different groups of people ate very differently.
Cro-Magnons in Europe hunted mammoths and rhinos. Where would you get mammoth meat?
And a skilled person ate carrion, for example. So which diet is right for you? Actually, this is an individual issue, the diet should be recommended by a dietitian. There is an emerging scientific myth. I will definitely cover the topic of paleo diet in my next book!
– You write that in our country there is a rather large gap between scientists and society. It turns out that scientists are also wrong that they do not always clearly convey their thoughts to ordinary citizens, do not want to communicate with journalists?
– Everyone is to blame for the fact that our popularization has failed: scientists, society, and journalists. Journalists can understand: now there is an economic crisis, publications are closing, you need to somehow survive, attract readers. And the easiest way to attract an audience is sensations and scandals. Add here the low qualifications of journalists.
As for scientists, they, in theory, should be engaged in science itself, and not its popularization.
Popularization is a specific thing and requires both special skills and time. Constantly communicating with the media, a scientist is distracted from scientific work and risks simply ending up professionally. A structure, an intermediary between scientists and the mass media, which would take on these tasks, would really not hurt. Such a structure that would be engaged in PR, and the preparation of scientists for broadcasting, public speaking, and even legal assistance to scientists who have suffered from negligent journalists.
– How can you make a "complex" science interesting for the layman? After all, the phrases "radiocarbon analysis", "potassium-argon method" inspire fear to an unenlightened person...
– There are different levels of popularization. At the lowest level, terminology should be kept to a minimum. Relatively speaking, no more than 1-2 terms in a short video, and each term needs to be chewed. Why one-two? Because if there are three of them, we will overload the viewer and he will not watch.
The lower level of popularization is actually focused on the child.
This means that you need to explain on your fingers. Slightly exaggerating: "Australopithecus is a monkey that walked around Africa on its hind legs a long time ago."
It seems to me that a good popular science text is akin to instructions for using household appliances. The instructions also do not use special vocabulary, they will never write "turn the rheostat" there. A housewife does not know what a rheostat is! Therefore , they will write: "Turn the little red stream..."
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru19.06.2015