What Brief Article Most Affected You?
Frank J
http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/1997/july/provisional.pdf
(scroll to page 3)
It was published 10 years ago tomorrow in Chemical and Engineering
News, and about a year before I discovered Talk Origins.
At the time my political and religious views were evolving, and
biological evolution kept popping up in many topics that I found
interesting. I'm still amazed at how so few words cleared up 30 years
of confusion:
"From the left, the postmodernists declare that science does not really
deal with facts and that accepted models only represent the opinion of
the scientific establishment.... On the right, creationists want to
teach religious concepts as science. On other fronts, a large fraction
of the populace believes in ghosts, angels, ESP, astrology, and magic
crystals."
Little did I know at the time that a soon-to-be leading anti-evolution
movement was "naturally selecting" the most effective strategies from
the left, right, and "other fronts" to perpetrate it's neat little
scam.
Desertphile
> For me it was "The Antiscience Cancer" by Allen J. Bard:
>
> http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/1997/july/provisional.pdf
>
> (scroll to page 3)
>
> It was published 10 years ago tomorrow in Chemical and Engineering
> News, and about a year before I discovered Talk Origins.
>
> At the time my political and religious views were evolving, and
> biological evolution kept popping up in many topics that I found
> interesting. I'm still amazed at how so few words cleared up 30 years
> of confusion:
>
> "From the left, the postmodernists declare that science does not really
> deal with facts and that accepted models only represent the opinion of
> the scientific establishment....
I'm hyper liberal (to toot my own horn; I don't usually self-praise)
and I insist science very much deals with facts; I reject as absurd the
belief that science is based upon popular opinions among scientists.
*POOF!* goes Bard's absurd generalization.
Alexander
Desertphile wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
>
> > For me it was "The Antiscience Cancer" by Allen J. Bard:
> >
> > http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/1997/july/provisional.pdf
> >
> > (scroll to page 3)
> >
> > It was published 10 years ago tomorrow in Chemical and Engineering
> > News, and about a year before I discovered Talk Origins.
> >
> > At the time my political and religious views were evolving, and
> > biological evolution kept popping up in many topics that I found
> > interesting. I'm still amazed at how so few words cleared up 30 years
> > of confusion:
> >
> > "From the left, the postmodernists declare that science does not really
> > deal with facts and that accepted models only represent the opinion of
> > the scientific establishment....
>
> I'm hyper liberal (to toot my own horn; I don't usually self-praise)
> and I insist science very much deals with facts; I reject as absurd the
> belief that science is based upon popular opinions among scientists.
>
> *POOF!* goes Bard's absurd generalization.
A generalisation based on a supposition on leftist principles as well
as on postmodernism that might have been vaguely true at the time (the
time being between the 60's and 70's and even then only within certain
branches or fields of thought) - certainly isn't now - and then only
because the worst of it had been popularised as an 'everything goes'
approach
>
> > On the right, creationists want to
> > teach religious concepts as science. On other fronts, a large fraction
> > of the populace believes in ghosts, angels, ESP, astrology, and magic
> > crystals."
> >
> > Little did I know at the time that a soon-to-be leading anti-evolution
> > movement was "naturally selecting" the most effective strategies from
> > the left, right, and "other fronts" to perpetrate it's neat little
> > scam.
There's no selection here, just opportunism reacting to an apathetic
populace that doesn't understand science or that science is not a
'democratic' institution.
Frank J
Desertphile wrote:
> Frank J wrote:
>
> > For me it was "The Antiscience Cancer" by Allen J. Bard:
> >
> > http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/1997/july/provisional.pdf
> >
> > (scroll to page 3)
> >
> > It was published 10 years ago tomorrow in Chemical and Engineering
> > News, and about a year before I discovered Talk Origins.
> >
> > At the time my political and religious views were evolving, and
> > biological evolution kept popping up in many topics that I found
> > interesting. I'm still amazed at how so few words cleared up 30 years
> > of confusion:
> >
> > "From the left, the postmodernists declare that science does not really
> > deal with facts and that accepted models only represent the opinion of
> > the scientific establishment....
>
> I'm hyper liberal (to toot my own horn; I don't usually self-praise)
> and I insist science very much deals with facts; I reject as absurd the
> belief that science is based upon popular opinions among scientists.
>
> *POOF!* goes Bard's absurd generalization.
He didn't say that all liberals, or all conservatives, reject science.
And in fact few of the science-literate ones anywhere along the
politcal spectrum do.
Frank J
Opportunism is what I meant by "NS", hence the quotes.