“Science” Means Something Very Specific
A particularly abrasive commenter notes on my post about the March for Science: What you are really saying is: “March for the Science I support!”
Come on, dude; that’s not what I’m saying at all, and you know it. Science means changing one’s mind based on evidence, and to the best of my ability I’ve been doing that all my life.
I would love to Learn that fossil fuels don’t cause climate change, and that our planet’s not in trouble for hundreds of other reasons. I’d also like to be convinced that smoking doesn’t cause cancer (I used to love to smoke), and that drinking beer would help me lose weight.
Of course, I don’t expect to hear anything along these lines, because the existing scientific evidence is so overwhelming. But again, anyone who refuses to change their minds when the evidence changes is an idiot.
Craig,
Abrasive ? Not really. I simply commented citing you own phrases as evidence of your constantly shifting and confused definition of “science”.
I didn’t invent your combining support for ‘science’ with support for Obamacare, you did. I didn’t invent your false claims regarding the President’s actions, with a defence of ‘science”, again I only quoted your own words.
(Although, I note you haven’t bothered to either refute or apologize for your inaccurate claims).
Nor do I think I was being gratuitously abrasive or offensive.
All activists, especially advocates, see all issues through the prism of their political/ideological/philosophic beliefs.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does reduce objectivity and add an element of bias.
It would be most “unscientific” not to question if some hidden agenda may lurk beneath seemingly innocuous advocacy, don’t you think ? 🙂