Published: Tuesday, May 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves while wiser people are always full of
Michael,Flouridated water is bad for you, vaccines are causing
autism, and the earth is only 6000 years old (and flat).We certainly
don't need scientists to weigh in on matters where religion, politics or
conspiracy theories have already provided perfectly good answers.
God is our Kind, Loving Father, who by profession happens to be a Scientist, not
a Magician.He has also given us a beautiful home, and told us
to take good care of it.So we should ignore the false prophet
college drop outs on the radio, and clean it up before he gets here.
The text book example of discrediting science was written by the tobacco
industry. They exploited the fact that you can't prove a negative. For
example you can say:"he didn't die from the bullet to the
heart, he could have died from cardiac arrhythmia just be he was being
shot"In other words, you can never be totally, absolutely,
certain about anything, but science is our best bet for figuring out what is
going on. The minute we reject science we are left with tea leaf
reading, religion, or more probably, junk "science" information
generated by the well funded special interests.
"...I met a South African health official who argued that AIDS could be
treated with garlic because she believed that pharmaceutical treatment was a
neocolonial plot. Resistance to evolution in America is often associated with
conservative religion. And skepticism about climate change is correlated with
libertarian and free-market beliefs...".Credo...As
long as science confirms a pre-conceived bias...It's all good.
@Michael GersonAnd what happens when the sea level stays constant,
the coasts don't flood, the fisheries don't shift, the ocean
doesn't acidify, the water supply remains, the fields continue to yield
crops, and the ecosystems don't vanish?(I would add: ...when
global average temperatures don't rise, the glaciers don't melt, the
ice caps don't disappear, and the polar bears don't go extinct.)Do you keep on believing in the myth, or do you adjust your thinking?
Are you really willing to go wherever the science leads you?
“How can you make serious political decisions based on scientific
likelihoods when politics thrives on the feeding of ideological
certainties?”There is no ideological certainty. There is only ideological certitude, especially if you’re referencing
the wacky world of Right Wing Ideology. And yes, the resistance to Science in
the certitudinous world of "Conservative" America is undeniable and
unyielding.“Is a 40 percent increase in the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution driving
disruptive warming?” Well yeah. A 40 percent increase is a lot.
We’ve already gone past the tipping point, but optimists say we can still
remediate some of the worst effects of global warming . . . unless we
cannot.It looks like GMO technology has arrived at just the right
time. Instead of transplanting millions of displaced coastal denizens to higher
ground, maybe we can just give them gills and let them stay where they are.
Articles of Faith9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does
now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.===== Truth
(i.e., Science) falls into this category as well.NatePleasant
Grove, UT@Michael GersonAnd what happens when it DOES... Conservatives can't even admit following GW Bush was wrong, let alone when Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck are.
Nate,But, what happens if it does.From Nasa dot gov
yesterday."The new finding that the eventual loss of a major
section of West Antarctica's ice sheet "appears unstoppable" was
not completely unexpected by scientists who study this area. "The right just may embrace these scientific findings because it plays right
into what they want to hear. If it is "unstoppable" then we don't
have to make any changes. Which appears to be their ultimate
solution on most things.
@Roland Kayser – “Bertrand Russell quote…”Maybe the best and most appropriate description of the growing
anti-intellectual “distrust of our best & brightest” group of
politically active citizens I’ve seen posted here.Science will
always have doubts – it’s the difference between inductive and
deductive knowledge, and this growing group of anti-intellectuals is very good
at inserting ideology (or God) into the gaps of scientific knowledge… a
strategy we should note (the only thing that gives me hope) that has always
eventually backfired. And yet these people continue to believe in the project of
magical thinking as a legitimate path to knowledge… crazy.It’s telling that when Reagan was elected something like 40% of all
scientists were Republicans. Today that number is below 10%.Of
course I have no doubt that this will be explained away by calling scientists a
bunch of conspiratorial leftists (because if facts conflict with your ideology,
you naturally jettison the facts), but given the basic disposition of most
scientists (logical, evidence based thinkers) the truth is damning.But by all means, keep getting your facts from AM radio emotional button
pushing, magical thinkers.
There's good reason that people are skeptical of scientific claims.
It's this critical nature of our brain that helps separate truth from
speculation. It's the key to moving scientific discovery forward.How many of us were, or possibly still are, 100% convinced that eating
saturated fats as found in butter, cheese, whole milk, red meat and eggs is
strongly correlated with heart attack, cardiovascular disease and stroke? How
many billions on dollars have been spent on the production and consumption of
low-fat, non-fat, non-dairy and meat substitute products in the certainty that
these “terrible” foods would kill us? After all, the science on
high-fat diet was settled, right? For 50 years we've been bombarded with
dietary advice from every doctor, health expert, 10's of thousands of books
and the media that saturated fat was very bad stuff.If you
haven't caught up with the latest “science” on diet: google
“meta-analysis American Journal of Clinical Nutrition”.
The real problem for some, well all of us at times I guess, is when science
shows that some belief we hold dear is false. That is the test. In almost every
case where science shows some matter of faith to be wrong - that person usually
dismisses the science as wrong. This in turn makes it easier to dismiss other
aspects of science for even less sincere reasons like denying climate change
simply because of a political belief.I believe this has resulted in
a large part of society lacking the ability to consider issues in a rational
fact based way. Basing decisions more on what they want to be true or feel to be
true rather rationally reviewing the available facts. I've heard too many
politicians and religious leaders speak dismissively of science or even show
outright contempt of science (or any higher education). It's all very
...and liberals stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "Nya, nya, nay.
I'm not listening," when you try to explain the scientific truth that
global warming comes from the sun, along with it's variability, and the
distance and orientation of the earth to the sun, which is also variable. Those
variability factors are several orders of magnitude greater than the measly
output of homo sapiens. As long as you refuse to recognize the Author and
Designer of that celestial orb that keeps us from freezing or boiling away,
you'll never understand anything.
"the scientific truth that global warming comes from the sun, along with
it's variability, and the distance and orientation of the earth to the sun,
which is also variable. "Gee Kiddsport.I hope all of
the climate scientists read your post. Possibly they just neglected to factor
in all of these variables when they did their research. Thanks for pointing it
@JoeI can hear them all now. The SUN! Oh my I can't believe we
forgot to include the sun! This is going to change everything.
Roland Kayser, the irony of that quote is that Bertrand Russell was a fool and a
fanatic, continually sure of himself when he should have had some doubts.None of his serious work in philosophy and logic has held up well under
the test of time.His more popular works- the cheap shots he took at
Christians, those who were fighting totalitarianism, etc- can now be appreciated
as the dishonest tripe they always were. His writings on ethics and critique of
"traditional morality" from the basis of his own supposed moral
superiority appear sadly ironic in light of the disastrous consequences of his
immoral behavior in the lives of those closest to him (see Ray Monk's
Scientists lost credibility when they allowed themselves to become political
pawns.If "global warming" had been studied without
government interference and government imposition, it would either stand on its
own merits or have gone the way of the "global cooling" fad of the
This article appears to be written with a political agenda, as are many of the
comments- persuade people that climate change is happening and is caused by
man-made CO2 emissions. Does the author reference scientific articles to back
up his claim? Like too many these days, he seems to be trying to bully others
into believing as he does by name calling, ridiculing, and appeal to scientific
"authorities". Just because you are a scientist doesn't make your
investigations and conclusions valid!This article has nothing to do
with science, nor the scientific method. The preposterous quote that "GMOs
have 'been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for
more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects'". What do they mean
no reported ill effects? Is that the result of a scientific study where
populations consuming the GMO foods are compared to populations who do not,
while correcting for other factors? No, because this article is not based on
science, but is propaganda, with a little truth mixed in.
@Joe Blow "appears unstoppable"And yet, in spite of all the
speculation, Antarctic sea ice is setting new records. Extent in April was at
the highest levels since 1979, when measurements began.My question
again: do you believe the myth, or the measurements?
Those on the left have plenty of science denialism as well.As Gerson
notes, most of the hysterical anti-GMO claims have long since been
scientifically refuted. The case is similar with many of the claims made in
support of supposedly environmentalist food fads (organic, locavore, etc), the
real environmental benefits of which are effectively nil. (The only food fads
which could have a large environmental benefit are vegetarianism/flexitarianism;
that we should consume much less meat should not surprise anyone who's read
the Word of Wisdom.)And those who trust Paul Krugman over the
consensus in macroeconomics are the mirror image of those who rely on some of
the leading "global warming skeptics." In each case you have someone who
did some good scientific work long ago (microeconomics) but is now making
overhyped claims defying the scientific consensus in another field where they
have no expertise or real accomplishments, being well-paid to tell people what
they want to hear rather than the politically inconvenient truth.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments