Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
let me also add that, in addition to some conservatives, some liberals probably believe the sun revolves around the earth too.
If I ever committed a murder, I'd love to have some of these posters in the jury box. Their standards of allowable doubt are so incredibly narrow that I'd be able to leave a confession note on the body and still get away scott-free.
This unreasonable doubt will be impossible to satisfy. I think that it will not be worthwhile to try - there will always be a "but". I say this as a mathematician; it happens even in a place where we can actually provide rigorous proofs and theorems. Take a look at lists like this: http://www.crank.net/maths.html You'll see what I mean.
Global warming is obviously the MOST important issue of all the issues that could come under the umbrella of "anti-science."
But I think if there's going to be a general call to arms against "anti-science," then the issues have to be broadened to include more than just the usual politically correct, risk free issues.
The pet "anti-science" issues are creationism and global warming.
But let's look at the AAAS, to see how another kind of anti-science has not only been tolerated by rewarded by American scientists.
This organization hired as CEO Dr. Alan Leshner, the man who said there didn't need to be any scientific research into medical marijuana, because federal drug policy had already declared it medically useless.
OH that's really scientific. If the federal government says it's true, then we don't need any science to test whether it's really true.
So the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has espoused views that are directly anti-science.
However -- drug policy is a risky area to care about, because you end up being slimed as some stoned out hedonist and get told to shove bongs in various personal orifices.
THis nasty stigmatization is probably why the American science community has disconnected with science so badly when it comes to drug policy that they hired one of the most anti-scientific drug policy leaders in the business as their leader.
The same scientists who want to stop the creationists hire a man to lead them who says once the federal government takes a position on policy, no further scrutiny from science is welcome or needed.
If the science community wants to stop global warming, I'm all for that.
But let's not paint this as a war between science and anti-science, because right now the science community is being led by a man who epitomizes American anti-science.
That's very thoughtful. I'm also of the opinion that we all have faith, just in different things, and are all idiots in our own way, but your post was quite poignant. It reminds me of stories my mother, a nurse, tells of the hospital where she works... they scheduled a 94 year old man to have heart surgery. A 94 year old man, because he could not face the reality that he would die, and because he had money. The surgeons hoped-not knew, hoped-he would live another year or so with that surgery. They put their faith in something researched, studied, but not solidly known. These doctors scoff at the notion of God-but they worship at the altar of Almighty Medicine.
What I find depressing is the tendency of people on both political slants to press their fingers into their ears and go "La la la." Even from my geology professors I can get no straight answer. They concern themselves with the past and with past patterns-and since we are comparing current times ("it's hotter!") to past times ("it's colder!") I thought they might have a take on it. The best my professor could manage is that "Humans are having an impact. But we're also coming out of an ice cage. Rock formations and fossils demonstrate that when the dinosaurs existed, the climate was much, much hotter, and much of the Earth covered in water."
She was not disputing global warming, per say. But that was one of the few coherent arguments/discussions I have been privy to. A poster earlier said, in response to my post, that "studies were ongoing." Well, if studies are still ongoing, and there is nothing very conclusive to show me, a scientific layman, then what can you hope for? I admit I am not talented at science-that's why I didn't go into a scientific field. The narcassism that it requires to say "I know everything about global warming, and thus can 100% refute/support my theroy!" is ludicrious unless you YOURSELF are one of the leading scientists in the field.
Also, far be it from me to be flippant, but science can be wrong. Science, and how we relate to it, is constantly changing. Look even at the 1890's, barely over a century ago. They could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt in their eyes, that black people were inferior because of the size of their skulls. We think it's beyond silly, but in those times, it was "science." It was unbiased.
I fear anyone who claims no bias, or who cannot admit there is a margin of error, and this goes for the scientific and the religious. I am religious; but I could be wrong. You hope a new heart will give a 94 year old man a year; you could be wrong. I just wish that instead of blasting each other, we might sit down and find common ground.
If you pay attention to scientific exploration and discovery, you know the earth is 4.5 billion years old, has undergone dry and wet spells throughout millennia, and that these periods are cyclical. For example, some of the most exciting prehistoric rock art in the world exists in sub-Saharan Africa. These drawings show an abundance of lush flora and fauna where there now exists sand and rocks. Probably there were a few million people on the earth then. Some estimate 10 million. Who knows?
If you believe Wikipedia, Princeton University, the U.S. Census Bureau, today’s human population is around 6.6 billion, expected to mushroom to 9 billion by 2042. My arithmetic says we humans keep multiplying at the same rate we are subtracting the flora, fauna and clean oxygen we need to survive. Somethin’s Gotta Give!
So what’s the point of political wrangling about who or what is causing the alarming climate change? It’s a fact! Substantive evidence points to the planet’s pattern of chilling and warming. Population growth plus careless disregard for, or just plain ignorance of, how to live in harmony with the planet will lead to consequences too frightening to contemplate. Perhaps some of our anti-science senators are also creationist-thinking gentlemen who choose to avoid that subject by interjecting party-line gibberish. Okay. But progressives have a responsibility to put some backbone into this dispute and make sure the legislation does the right thing for the country.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
