"I don't understand. Why don't they want to know the facts? Is it just stupidity, or am I missing something?"
There are several factors here. One is that the word "theory" means something very different to a non-scientist than it does to a scientist. In science, something that rises to the status of a theory carries a certain degree of proof along with it. Some theories have a tremendous body of proof behind them, like evolution. Whereas in the vernacular, a theory is often an opinion, if not a wild assed guess.
Another factor is that the "scientific community" is seen by many as a bunch of elitist snobs who hold most people in low regard. We can thank Hollywood and TV for a lot of this. That is how scientists are often portrayed, when they aren't portrayed as bumbling, social misfits. And the scientific community has not been good at cultivating spokespeople. Isaac Asimov was very good in print, and Uncle Carl(Sagan) was probably the best in recent memory. Ans Asimov died 14 years ago and Carl 10. Carl, in particular, was resented by many scientists. They viewed him as a showboater. Which he was. But BFD, he effectively communicated what science was all about at a time when many Americans couldn't have cared less. We desperately need several Carls right now and there doesn't appear to be any in the offing.
A third factor is a relatively new one. There are those who believe that reality is fungible. Ok, that isn't quite true. They believe that we can't really know what is going on, so our explanations are subject to political expediency. So we have the "reality-based", who believe there is some objective truth, and the "faith-based", who believe that we can't know the objective truth. We just have our interpretations, very much in line with Plato. Although they would hack off various bodily appendages before they would admit that... |
