I recently read an article in National Geographic titled Why
Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science
by Joel Achenbach
, about how many in society today are
rejecting science, from evolution to GMO’s to fluoride in the water. The
article was a full defense of science today. Now I am not looking to bash
science, in fact I love it and embrace it. BUT …
The article started with a funny scene from Dr. Strangelove
where General Ripper who has started a nuclear war with Russia, while defending
his command he starts telling Mandrake about the reason he drinks rain water,
fluoride!! The gist is, it was absurd to question it in 1964 and even more so
in 2015 since there has been decades of science showing no harm. Yet their
point was many still question the addition of fluoride to the water system.
Just watch or listen to Alex Jones and you will hear this a bunch.
Now in defense of the anti-fluoride people, there is very
little research on what has been the long term effects on this. Also, while fluoride
is “natural” the chemicals used are often waste from toxic production, so
granted small quantities may be helpful, it seems often if you follow the money
you will find that science is often corrupted. The idea is small amounts of
this toxic material contain fluoride and therefore may be helpful and we can
dump it in the water without the EPA coming down. See the ugly loop.
Now the article was taking the stance that the nay-sayers
were backwards and ignorant not believing science, although time and time again
they find science today is agenda driven for money. Take another of their
examples, climate change. No one can deny that pollution is having some effect
on the environment, often very negative. Yet, if one questions the science of
climate change we are conspiracy theorists. Former VP Al Gore lectured us in
his book and movie An Inconvenient Truth and gave us a “hockey stick” graph
showing the impending doom. As time continued and the data did not fit that
graph, people started questioning the science and the conspiracy was exposed on
how the data was manipulated and tweaked to make the result what science
desired.
This is the bias that is injected into science which people
question. It’s not GMO’s that are the problem, heck without GMO’s and science
manipulating evolution we would not have seedless grapes. What was not
discussed was Monsanto manipulating corn, by splicing a toxic substance to make
it “Round-up resistant” so the growers could plant these seeds that could then
be sprayed for weed control. Then we are told that the testing showing the corn
was safe could be trusted, even though an independent lab did the same test
over a longer period with horrific results was disclosed.
Then there is evolution and how bias in science has made
even the religious leaders reject chapter 1 of the Bible. How could the earth
be young? How could anyone question that who has looked at the data? But ever
wonder why radiometric dating has an exponential component? See once the graph
goes beyond where we can verify we see the linear data get stretched out into a
timeline that dismissed God. One who questions this data are “flat earthers” yet
the equations may be linear if we could actually look at the data with a bias
slanted towards a young earth.
Where this article bugged me was how Galileo’s work showing
how the planets orbited around the sun and rotated on its axis was so
revolutionary, but today we know it to be basic first grade science. Then they
juxtapose this with climate change and evolution to say how rejecting this is
like rejecting planetary science. They failed to mention WHY people question
climate change or evolution (beyond theological reasons).
The obvious BIAS to the article is no different than BIAS
scientists have. Sure “bucking” the trend is where Galileo’s findings became
known as true, but they assume then we must trust science. They mention science
may be wrong, but will eventually find truth. And they did highlight the bias
in the medical field, where drugs are often released with sloppy testing and
buried harmful side-effects that could cost the company billions if ethically
disclosed. At what cost though.
My point was the other BIASED positions were not displayed.
Climate Change is driven by scientist who believe that man-made pollution is
causing irreparable damage to our planet. While science that can show
ecosystems that repair themselves quickly from harm are rejected since they are
funded by “big oil”. Evolutionary science when questioned about say life came
from a single point and man “evolved” from lower level primates, they are not
answered but rather ridiculed as believe sand-script over hundreds of years of
science. The article showed people who question evolution like the
father/daughter team in the movie Paul, where they had a wholesale rejection of
evolution and looked like fools. Yet someone like Professor Walter Vieth who
makes a very detailed scientific argument FOR creation is ignored and lumped
into the same group as the Paul characters.