Posted by taxrelief to gobucks; PatrickHenry; Strategerist; Finny, on 01/26/2005:
Scientific theories rely heavily upon the commonman's faith in the scientific community. That faith is weak at best, and currently it is the fault of weak scientists who put their personal situations ahead of Truth.
For instance, primary- and secondary-school science curricula in this country are polluted with political agenda. Students can clearly see that the extinction of certain species of animals will not affect the earth's ability to be self-sustaining, that rain forests can be replanted, that "old forests" offer no benefit over new forests, and that nuclear power is really the only clean, renewable source of energy currently available.
Undoubtedly, many folks are sucked in by politically-driven science lessons that rely on the "cute, tiger cub factor"; but when they finally realize the Truth they are angry, embarrassed and looking for someone to blame. If they don't entrench themselves in their positions, then the obvious scapegoat will be the Scientific Community as a whole. In other words, they can reasonably conclude that if scientists are misleading folks over one topic, they may be practicing deceit in other areas as well.
Does popular opinion matter, though? The Scientific Community mistakenly believes that if they, who comprise perhaps .05% of the population, know the Truth, then the "opinions" of the other 99.95% of the population are invalid. At the same time, though, the outrage and frustration over the general population's mistrust of Scientists is a regular topic in boardrooms of research organizations and publications across the country. Metaphorically, this dilemma can be compared to the old riddle of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear the 'Bang!', did the tree make a sound?" What use is a theory that only a small majority trust or believe?
What value is public opinion if it is simply wrong? Public opinion in actual fact is The Force that drives public will; and public will is the force that encourages young people to become researchers, technicians and inventors. Public will is the force that funds education, research and medical innovation.
Perhaps the scientific community will eventually accept the fact that it is their duty to improve public opinion, and will work to root out those within the community who perpetrate myths and half-truths for personal gain, whether to win research grants or acceptance of administrations and social peers.
Persuading public opinion will also require the theorists to abandon the practice of passionately defending any theory that has been officially declared a "Theory". They must eventually realize that in the mind of the average reader some of this over-zealous defense is the equivalent of Shakespeare's "The lady doth protest too much!".
Finally, if the scientific community does desire reparation of its tarnished reputation, it must choose reputable scientists to speak out publically when the NY Times, Scientific American and Science News, for example) print articles like "Air pollution trims fetal growth" that rely on correlation data and indirectly related "rat studies".
Taxrelief to PatrickHenry 01/13/2005:
There was a time when one could confidently state that a "scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an event or occurance, formulated from a specific group of phenomena, tested hypotheses, laws and facts."
Unfortunately, the concept of scientific theory has devolved into political stratagem. Christians, Muslims and Jews are pitted against Evolutionists; environmental whackos against geologists; quantum theorists against big-bang theorists; mathematicians against economists; and so on.
Egos now so driven the current trendy "theories", that it is almost shameful to defame the adjective "scientific" by using it as a modifier.
Defenders of these great, politically-motivated, antithetic assumptions continue to discredit all scientists, myself included, leaving us shaking our heads and wondering how we let it happen.
More to come...