Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 38 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Take a lesson from Paul Hackett
[Read the article: When cowards attack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The fact that so many conservatives get upset about the chickenhawk label is proof that it hits them hard where it hurts. Jean Schmidt, my U.S. rep here in Ohio who infamously called Murtha a coward, nearly lost to Iraq vet Paul Hackett because he effectively used the chickenhawk label on her. Remember, this all happened in a highly Republican district.
Democrats need to start hitting Republicans hard. We now know this is a better strategy than playing "the better man" or waiting for the media to sort things out. It's sad that we've come to name calling, but the Repugs have really brought it on themselves at this point. Let lose the cannons of war, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Number one issue ... for me
[Read the article: Salon's shameful six]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is why election reform is the number one issue for me these days, with campaign finance reform coming in a close second. How can we feel secure in our democracy, how can we be sure our elected officials truly represent us, if we're not even confident in our voting system? The Iraq war, global warming, health care, energy issues could all be solved if we just had politicians who were truly accountable to their constituents.
-
Nice
[Read the article: I really like gay men, but I'm not gay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great advice Cary. You hit the nail on the head this time.
-
Some problems...
[Read the article: The joys of life without God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really like Shermer. I'm an atheist and skeptic myself, but I have some reservations about some of his positions.
Science is not an isolated, abstract idea. It is and always will be a "thing" like religion. Many Christian folks will take this purist perspective on their religion if you bring up all the horrible things done in the name of Jesus. "But they weren't following the true teachings." "True Christianity is untainted by human imperfection." Etc. Etc.
Of course, if you're an atheist, it's very easy to poke holes in their arguments, since Christianity is a historical religion rooted in a social context. There is tons of scholarship out there confirming that there are many different versions of Christianity, with many dating back to just after Jesus' death. Which version is perfect? None are; they are all unique interpretations of human experience.
Science, like religion, was created by humans in a social context. Much of current scientific research is driven by corporate-funded academia and is hardly uninfluenced by it. Even science's most abstract methods or theories can't truly be separated from the human context. They are still interpretations--albeit, highly refined--of human experience.
Nevertheless, science is the best method we have for describing our world across cultural and language barriers. This is why we need science and should never lose sight of it as a society. But it is certainly not perfect and is not the only way. As Einstein says, "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
-
Reply to Mike in NM
[Read the article: The joys of life without God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I apologize if I made it sound like science has sold out to industry. All I'm saying is that science is not untouched by cultural, political and economic bias, even in it's most abstract form. I have few problems with the NSF or similar institutions and I think the scientific enterprise is overwhelmingly accurate on almost all major issues.
I do take exception to your assertion that "the goal of science is to learn the factual truth about matters." I always learned that science was not about finding the "truth," but about making practical models based on experimental results. We have to be careful about the words we use to describe the process of doing science. Many scientists and philosophers since Karl Popper have recognized the epistemological limitations of science and reject the goal you describe (formally called positivism).