Easy to critisize. You know a better system?
That's not the point. The point is that the corruption in the system, regardless of how much of it that there is relative to any other system. Any corruption of science by scientists demonstrates lack of integrity. Your assertion that they "do the best they can" is condoning corruption of science, which you claim to value. The question is not where or whether there's a better system. The question is how much credibility to award the system we have. Your putting scientists on a pedestal is unwarranted. That's not to suggest that I find flawed scientists any more corrupt than the average person. My point is only that they don't belong on your pedestal. I certainly don't want to defer running the country to them.
Evolution is more complicated than knowing the earth is round, but not so complicated as understanding existentialism, which many/most great minds do not, so is not a good proxy for measurement.
I take your point about the relative complexity of evolution. But you are judging intelligence using a measure that ignores other variables. I agree with you that anyone who can't understand evolution at a basic level is conspicuously dim. But understanding it and acknowledging it as scientific truth are not the same thing. Sure, some people who deny evolution may really be that stupid. But other factors are in play. A key factor is cognitive dissonance, which is more about bias than about brains. Smart people suffer from cognitive bias, too, including some of those heretofore mentioned scientists. Another factor is one's hierarchy of values, what weight a person puts on scientific knowledge vs belief. And cultural values, how one grew up, tradition. Personally, I have a great deal of difficulty getting my head around any degree of religiosity let alone fundamentalism. But I think it unfair and simplistic to relegate it to stupidity. An agile brain does not oversimplify or judge without examining all the factors.
With regard to evolution as a political issue, I think you are overestimating the amount of serious opposition. Sometimes folks make statements just to affirm their group identity. Politicians do that all the time. Look at the political threads on SI where sides are drawn up. Someone from one team posts something banal or even downright stupid and a bunch of folks from his team jump in with "great post!" They're not really judging it a brilliant post. They're saying, "yeah, go team, I'm on your side." Evolution is a populist issue on the right. Everyone wears the t-shirt whether they agree with the slogan on it or not. I raise this not to show approval of that process, since I disapprove of mindless team affiliation and political polarization every bit as much as I disapprove of corrupting science, I mention it only to encourage a more thoughtful and respectful examination of the topic. Populist crap makes me gag, but not to the point of giving up my intellectual integrity in judging the basis for it.
Would you quibble with me if I were to say I believe the sun is round?
I would if you did so in a discussion about science vs religion. It's the critical difference.
no, the evolution denyers more like the global warming denyers and gay is natural denyers. Same population over and over. The correlations are very strong
Yesterday, one topic was the association between compassion and science. That association turned out to be nothing more than two things the liberals have in common, in your mind. The two items have no common root, do not stem from some common principle, they are just two items in a collection that supposedly coincide in said cohort. So now you list three things that correlate with a different cohort. Do they have some common basis or are they as independent as are science and compassion?
From your phrasing, I infer that you consider denial of science to be the commonality. I suggest that a more thoughtful examination shows that to be another simplistic judgment. The gay thing is based on some combination or religion, tradition, and homophobia. The evolution thing is about religion. The climate thing is about economics, statism, change, and science. Re the science, virtually no one challenges the scientific fact that the climate is changing. It's what, if anything, to do about the change that's the political issue. To the extent that it's actually about science, it is skepticism about the extent to which religious-like fervor might be compromising the integrity of the science.
(On this issue, BTW, it's the left that is resisting change, not the right, as I mentioned up thread.)
You start with the premise that the right is anti-science. Then you cherrypick three issues that they share and that you can, if you are so motivated, connect to science, and then claim "eureka, a correlation." A correlation can be nothing more than coincidence. Or an amusing irrelevancy, like liberals preferring arugula and conservatives preferring iceburg. More is needed to find deep meaning among factors that coincide in a cohort. |
