When I was in school (I know, a couple of thousand years ago plus or minus five hundred years) scientific method included throwing as many questions about the theory as was possible to see if it could stand up to the scutiny of the other scientists. A few years ago one theory came out with a lot of fanfare and excitement due to the potential wonders this theory could do for EVERYONE. The theory, "cold fusion". What a boon that would have been for all sorts of things. Just to think that we could get energy of fantastic quantities with a generator working at room temperatures, instead of the fantastic heat and pressure necessary for fusion. The media was all over the upside of this "discovery" until it was found that no one else could repeat the cold fusion group's experimental results. Of course, the media then pooh-poohed the whole idea and somehow passed on the thought that they "knew" the idea was full of bologna even before the scientific community had made any efforts to prove or disprove the theory. While the "cold fusion" scientists were disappointed and disheartened by the lack of substantiation, they were men of science and didn't point fingers at the "non-scientists" for any kind of conspiracy against "cold fusion". One theory that held a lot of promise for a lot of people was shown to be false by the scientific method.
There are two areas of science related theories that still have not been proven or substantiated to any great extent that have proponents accusing those who don't "believe" that the evidence is sufficient to accept the theories as fact are right wing religious fanatics and (even worse) ignorant non-scientists. The two theories, Evolution and Global Warming. I want to make clear that I can understand the concepts of both, BUT I don't agree with everything that is being said about them. I have stated before in other areas that those who believe in Evolution or in Intelligent Design are both starting from a philosophical premise that is diametrically opposed. One believes that there is no god and so tries to figure out how everything came to be. The other believes in the possibility of a god and so tries to figure out the same thing. Where the Intelligent Design folks are trying for dialogue with anyone including Evolutionists for discussion on many points, the Evolutionists pooh-pooh the idea of ID and refuse to even allow for anyone to hold those concepts without ridiculing those who do.
The global warming folks fall into the same trap. They refuse to even have dialogue with anyone who disagrees with their "science", even going so far as to shout down any disagreements. Do they use science to ridicule opposition? NO! They call those who disagree all kinds of names, including, right wing religious fanatics.
Somehow these two concepts have become "scientific facts", without the benefit of efforts on both sides to have a dialogue about the disagreements. Somehow the ones who want dialogue are involving themselves in a "conspiracy to quiet the proponents of these "scientific facts". The amount of anger and disdain directed at the disagreeing people seems to me to rise to the level of, shall I say it?, religious fanaticism. Polite discourse is something of the "old-fashioned" sort, especially when the ones holding one concept's "absolute inviability" feel that no one else's ideas have any merit or should have an audience.
So, the answer to my question seems to be, when enough people get emotional about the ideas to be able to scream louder than the others.
No comments:
Post a Comment