Posted on 07/21/2008 3:13:42 PM PDT by markomalley
Why do certain ideas in science become targets of social criticism and others do not?
It would be easy to assume that the controversy occurs when science challenges "ignorance," especially ignorance created by cultural myths and religion. This is very neat if you believe you are being scientific, but it doesn't pass the test.
For example, Darwin's idea on evolution and Freud's ideas of the mind and behavior were met with strong social and cultural opposition which could be interpreted as a contest between religion and science.
On the other hand, theories about the quantum nature of reality, the big bang theory of creation, physical causes of mental illness, and others have not generally raised conflicts between religion, culture and science even though all of these ideas have strong religious elements.
No, there is something more happening when a controversy is ignited other than a simple morality play featuring "logic" against the villain "ignorance."
Let's use global warming as an example. Why should a scientific theory be so embraced by some and so opposed by others? What is it about global warming that divides the population based on conservative-liberal leanings, or big vs. small government ideals, between different types of scientists, and even between religionists?
Why do some people feel their position on this issue justifies being untruthful or utilizing propaganda? Note a recent AP story about the White House "ignoring advice on global warming." First of all, the White House did not ignore the report, they simply refused to change the Constitution, the present form of government, and the nature of the American economy to comply with the report's suggestions.
In the AP story, the "dismissed" report was not produced by the usual White House advisers, it was produced by "experts," and they were not just any experts, they were "top experts."
This week we learned more Americans are likely "to suffer" from kidney stones because of global warming. Is it any wonder part of the population gets cynical?
Many ideas in science have become controversial because the scientists have left their science and jumped headlong into religious or political arenas, which insures that their names appear in the media and research money continues to flow. Then they act outraged when their involvement creates a religious or political response.
Freud, for example, used the stories and ideals of his own Western culture to explain observed behavior. He then rejected Western religions as being God-given because he could explain religious tenets in terms of his observational theories. This is a tidy little tautology that many nonreligious people use to bash their own culture without logically examining its premise.
If an idea is presented that the world is going to be destroyed, and destroyed by human action, then the people who always wanted to control and manage human behavior will gravitate to the ideas to justify what they always wanted to do.
If an argument can be made that the world is being destroyed by too much freedom, too much commerce, too much reliance on obsolete religion and cultural ideals, then the people who never liked freedom, commerce or traditional values will be attracted toward these ideas.
When these advocates are lauded as "experts" and "top" experts, which almost all intelligent people know is an exaggeration, and when much less than "top" intellects, like Al Gore, win Nobel Prizes for pushing propaganda, then it is little wonder that many people become skeptical about the theories.
When people who hate capitalism begin to use global warming as the blunt weapon to control it, and when others begin to use the same ideas to control freedom and further strengthen the power of the federal government and the failed United Nations, then it makes no sense to include opponents to global warming under the rubrics of ignorance. Bluntly put, you can't use a scientific theory as a weapon and still naively assume that people will not defend themselves.
Global warming is in part good science, part bad science, part propaganda and part nonsense. The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.
Global warming is in partgoodjunk science, part bad science, part propaganda and part nonsense. The larger problem, however, is in assuming that it is all science, or all nonsense.
But I fixed it.
It’s a government made “problem” that will justify the government regulating the economy even more.
David Horowitz told us years ago that the "issue" is not the issue. The Left uses "issues."
The issue for them is an ideological objective.
I understand that to mean The Issue is, to put it into the words of the 1960s, "Bring it all down, man."
Michael Crichton said it well in State of Fear - “Global Warming” replaces the “Cold War” in the “let’s-all-be-afraid-and-trust-the-government-to-protect-us” category...in other words, “let’s generate a State of Fear so that we can control the population!”
Clearly, a vehicle to introduce new taxation.
A consumption tax based on how much carbon is converted to carbon dioxide.
Essentially, a tax on just breathing, and it goes up from there.
The general public IMO needs a formal means to adopt such a resolution.
For example, be it resolved that Al Gore's sanity be checked; absent that he should not be given a public platform.
Of course, this is merely an opinion and even if shared by the majority of the public it does not in any way intend to deny Mr. Gore his unalienable right of free speech nor the right of MSM employees to worship Mr. Gore.
But what of those who accept Gore? Who actually believe Gore? Who are these sentimental frauds? Sappy-headed hoaxes.
Time to get real & understand where the Religion of Environmentalism is leading us!
Electing politicians, who have catered to the religion of environmentalism, has compromised every facet of our society.
It’s long past the time for Americans to realize that the modern environmental movement is actually a religion. Too many Americans emotionally & blindly support the environmental organizations, and by doing so are actually supporting and aligning themselves with a nature based religion - which is really quite similar to the Pagan & Wicca religions. Just search “Wicca, Pagan” on any good computer search engine, and with a little effort, you will soon see how similar they are to organizations like the CBD. They consider land, rivers, animals & plants as sacred and as such they are their gods. The earth is even called “Mother Earth.”
America has gradually allowed this earth based religion to drive America’s politics and form many of our national policies. The “endangered species act” and the “Marine Mammal protection act” are two that fall into that category. This new religion has attacked, destroyed or at least neutered many of our most productive industries. It has also compromised much of our military training and even permeated our educational system. We now teach or children to hug trees, worship nature and celebrate earth days, while at the same time we make it illegal to post the Judeo/Christian Ten Commandments on the school walls. Yet these same Eco-Pagans (the greens, the environmentalists) that want to prevent off-roaders from using public lands (and even private lands in many cases), think they are making our country better. But you don’t have to look very hard to find where they are leading America, because all that is necessary is to look around the world today and locate any nation where a large portion of the population embraces a nature based religion, and you will ALWAYS find a third world nation. It never raises up a nation, it always holds or drags it down.
Do you like the current inflated gas prices? Thank the Eco-Pagans! A thriving modern society needs energy but our politicians, by catering to the eco-pagans, have virtually locked-up every future source of energy in America. We can not dam our rivers because some insect god lives in the area where the new lake will form, we can’t install solar energy in most of our best areas because it is the domain of the “desert tortoise god,” wind turbines kill birds, drilling off our coasts is off limits, nuclear energy is out, obtaining coal resources “scars the earth,” and the Alaska oil reserves are off limits. What do we have left? Nothing! If you like our current inflation and gas prices thank the politicians that cater to the Eco-Pagans!
This does not mean we don’t stop pollution that will kill or endanger our population, but it does mean that we are realistic about “set asides” for various supposedly endangered species or realistically evaluate the potential risks of offshore oil production, drilling in ANWR, or using nuclear power and our vast coal resources. Great technical progress has been made over the last 40 years in all these areas. The problems of 40 years ago have been solved or greatly migated. Blindly saying NO to all these options will not lead us forward. We have to acknowledge the progress that has been made & use it for a better future.
(This excellent article was not written by me — I just copied an e-mail I received from a smart friend)
Check this little gem out. Outrageous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg
Very good article, IMO. Yes, I see a few little places of “wiggle room” in it, but I’m saving it to read again and then present to any seemingly-intelligent friends who might benefit from it.
Thanks for posting it.
That was a great analogy comparing enviro-whacks to wicca. Now watch some wiccan say you violated his/her beliefs and attempt to sue you, another VERY big problem with America these days.
And now you can't even yell for help. Rising sea levels have driven all those useful shore people far inland to higher ground. Shop owners who once sold heavy winter clothing have all gone into sun tan oils and Panama hats. Yet, here on Freerepublic, no one seems to take Global Warming very seriously at all.
As soon as our new President, Barack Hussein Obama settles up the War on Terror and pulls the troops home, I am sure he will devote much of his time to saving us from certain doom on this rapidly heating planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
