i've got two articles on this, and i'm starting to get steamed.  it's been that kind of morning for me. 

first up, climate denial:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nebraska-scientists-balk-go...

the lack of respect for Science from conservatives is disturbing.  they don't care about experts - they think they're the experts.  after all, they can source information from faux scientists at climate denial think tanks. 

next up, Science denial in taxpayer funded schools:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired...

this paragraph really struck me:

Many other historical blunders of science could be mentioned. What we need to keep in mind is that scientists are human beings. The assumption that they are completely objective, error-free, impartial, “cold machines” dressed in white coats is, of course, absurd. Like everyone else, scientists are influenced by prejudice and preconceived ideas. You should also remember that just because most people believe a particular thing does not necessarily make it true.

this kind of deliberate undermining of Science is sickening.  how can this be helpful for society?  our modern world, for better or worse, is largely do to the scientific advances our species has made.  i understand their near term goal - creating doubt in evolution.  but what is their end game?  to have a society of scientifically illiterate adults?  is this part of the repress to control scheme?  keep the sheeple too stupid to know any better?  

how is this happening in the 21st century? 

Views: 329

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Liz E, thank you for honestly stating your point of view. I welcome any information you can provide that will make our message clear, honest, descriptive, and expressed in ways that will be read and thought about. If you can be specific ... let's start with one criticism and how we can word our concerns more productively. 

As a biologist with a background in environmental science who works with the public regularly, I tend to come across three problems most frequently - ones I have had to fix. I find that I am accepted and perceived as open and transparent when I come across not as a biologist telling people "what the science says" but as a public servant, providing technical information, and then asking people what they think.

Plain Talk, Accept Criticism, Engage your Audience

  1. Use clear, succinct Plain English when communicating your points to your audience. Minimize the use of "scienc-y" language unless giving a technical presentation to a target audience with suitable qualifications.
  2. Accept and respect all questions and criticisms. Realize that people may not understand your methodology, your results, your purpose - perhaps you did not explain yourself well enough. Even if they do understand, they do not have to accept it. Everyone has the right to their own set of personal beliefs. They will bring those to the table. Science is not the last word.
  3. Finally, ask your audience to contribute. Engage them. If there are questions or disagreement, engage them and find out what they would like to see, what are their ideas, where is their confusion? Instead of directing the audience with your set of scientific principles ("There are no studies that show any human health effects of GMOs ergo you must accept that GMOs are safe, end of discussion.") you may find that your audience has other concerns (GMOs do lead to increased use of pesticides; what is the difference between pesticide residue levels in GMO and non-GMO crops? How effective are the buffers around GMO crops at preventing superweeds? etc.)

On vacation last year, my Brother-in-Law said that NOTHING would ever convince him that global-warming is caused by humans.  Because I didn't want to start an arguement on vacation, I just laughed.  Really?  He's proud of being willfully ignorant?  And he's an engineer. Glad we don't live too close to each other!!!!

isn't that great?  no amount of evidence could ever change his mind.  now that's science!

Exactly!  Something to be SO proud of!  He has FAITH that there is a GOD.  He KNOWS there is.  But global-warming? NO WAY!!!  He has a college degree and I do not.  I am WAY smarter than he is.  Just goes to show...

The beauty of science is that mistakes generally don't last long ... because someone else interested in the same field may try what the first guy tried ... and if he doesn't come up with the same results, and ESPECIALLY if MULTIPLE EXPERIMENTERS don't ... welp, you got a PROBLEM!  There's also the matter of peer review, where new concepts get taken to the woodshed.  If they can take the heat, we know something new.  If they can't, it gets thrown out.

Religion has NONE OF THIS.  By its very nature, it never has and never will.

Matthew, I have first hand knowledge of abortion clinic bombers; a former family member housed, funded and trained abortion bombers, including Rudolph, the Olympic games bomber. I looked and keep looking to find anyone who objected to their religious operation. 

Apr 8, 2005: Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph agrees to plead guilty

"In October 1998, Rudolph was officially charged in the three Atlanta bombings. He continued to elude authorities, who believed he was hiding in the Appalachian wilderness and possibly getting assistance from supporters in the region. Then, on May 31, 2003, after over five years as a fugitive, Rudolph was arrested by a rookie police officer who found him digging through a grocery store Dumpster in Murphy, North Carolina."

And, as someone recently pointed out during the government shutdown, the religious right conservtise will force a woman to give birth then bitch about the expense to the budget of feeding, housing, and providing medical care to the very ones they gave no choice to.  It makes me mad as hell.  Just how ignorant are these teabaggers.?

Politicians making medical decision!  Who can love whom decisions!  GMO in food decisions!  Real science or pseudoscience education decisions!  Weather reports decisions! 

Jeez, where is it going to stop?!  At some point reason has to take charge. We can't have these developmentally regressive juvenile minds making decisions of such importance!  Those who base their reasoning on fear of the nonexistent and hope on the unsubstantiated make fools of themselves and those who enable them make fools of themselves. 

Freedom, justice and peace need grown-up minds making realistic decisions based on adult reasoning. 

Oh yes, to sticking ones head out of a hole, taking a stand in the face of ignorance, speaking truth to power invites getting shot by some egomaniac who believes he/she knows the will of an almighty. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service