Global Warming
The Church of Gaia
| March 12, 2007
| Tim
You might want to consider watching this. Please.
And here's what has happened to some of the scientists who spoke out in that documentary.
Also, if you've never seen it before, and are interested in the question of whether hurricane frequency or severity is being impacted by global warming, you might want to read the resignation letter of Dr. Chris Landsea, of the NOAA, from the IPCC.
The big irony here for conservatives is that two of the first drivers of this thing where apparently Maraget Thatcher and George HW Bush. Though I'm not entirely surprised: Although I think George HW Bush is a fine example in regard to personal behavior, I did not enjoy his presidency and didn't agree with a lot of his policies and their underlying suppositions.
But hey: this is what happens when you politicize science.
Too bad the poor always have to pay.
Back in college I did a fair bit of reading on Prof. Peter Duesberg, who argued the point that HIV was not the cause of AIDS.
Ignoring the truth or falsity of his position for a moment ( I don't buy into it, but think some of his ideas were relevant) what was interesting was how Duesberg was treated. Deusberg had discovered the first oncogene, and had received the NIH's "Outstanding Investigator" grant. But because there was such a push to achieve 'scientific consensus' his own university damaged his career as far as they were able and the NIH unfairly rescinded his grant. My genetics professor, while disagreeing with Duesberg's theories, said that what happened to Duesberg was horribly unjust.
What bugs me is that there's not much, at least as far as I can find, in the communication literature about scientists behaving in this way. Even the whole Social Text hoax seemed to surprise a lot of folks.
I know what you mean, Ryan.
I remember coming across some professor in a New York university who wasn't a Darwinian. He simply believed new species had been formed by chromosonal tangling -- which, at first blush, seems to make a bit more sense to me. But he'd published a good number of the letters written against him by his peers, and it was sort of astounding to see how little interest there is in science versus demagogery.
Two friends I know reported that their professor sent a strong signal that questions weren't welcomed. One was a biology course dealing with evolution in my college, another was a Masters' level course on global warming taking by a friend of mine who is an environmental scientist. Both areas which currently have political implications, and I'm pointing that out because I believe it's a or the major factor. (And right or wrong, that's hardly an effective strategy, as it leaves the class wondering what you're hiding, just afraid to ask.)
I suspect one of the downsides of the ID/evolution debate is that a number of scientists seem to have tired of explaining their view and refuting the competition. (Or perhaps they really don't have good answers on certain points, and are simply afraid to admit that for one reason or another.)
As Rodney Stark (an agnostic) points out, physicists have had to live with such unanswered questions and ambiguities also, but seem to have more tolerance for simply saying "we're not sure yet":
Modern physics provides a model of how science benefits from being willing to live with open questions rather than embracing obviously flawed conjectures....
Even when the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology, he was subjected to public condemnations and much personal abuse.
(I have no idea if he's right on his thesis sentence, but he does correctly characterize the way the participants have often behaved.)
It's sad, because science shouldn't be about achieving complete consensus. It should be about the beautiful fight of conflicting ideas, and struggle for supremacy which is achieved ideally on intellectual merit alone, not via coercive means. And exercising patience and tolerance in the meantime.
Video link is fixed, BTW. Thanks.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Terabithia, Pooh, Moral Relativism, Etc. |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Truffles Galore? »
|
Back in college I did a fair bit of reading on Prof. Peter Duesberg, who argued the point that HIV was not the cause of AIDS.
Ignoring the truth or falsity of his position for a moment ( I don't buy into it, but think some of his ideas were relevant) what was interesting was how Duesberg was treated. Deusberg had discovered the first oncogene, and had received the NIH's "Outstanding Investigator" grant. But because there was such a push to achieve 'scientific consensus' his own university damaged his career as far as they were able and the NIH unfairly rescinded his grant. My genetics professor, while disagreeing with Duesberg's theories, said that what happened to Duesberg was horribly unjust.
What bugs me is that there's not much, at least as far as I can find, in the communication literature about scientists behaving in this way. Even the whole Social Text hoax seemed to surprise a lot of folks.
Posted by: Ryan W. on March 15, 2007 01:28 PM