Let Oprah know you don't approve of her giving a TV show to anti-science loon and former Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy. Promoting paranormal woo is one thing. This anti-vax stuff is downright dangerous, and threatens to once again unleash diseases like measles upon us in force which we once had under control.
Jenny McCarthy is the perfect answer to the question "What is the harm?" when people defend sloppy irrational thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
If someone spends an extraordinary amount of time arguing against Christianity, but leaves the other religions alone or is even friendly to them, is he necessarily anti-religious?
If someone spends an extraordinary amount of time arguing about vaccines, but leaves the other fields of science alone or is even friendly to them, is he necessarily anti-science?
PS: I believe McCarthy is wrong in her quest. No need to convince me of that.
If one rejects a finding of science, then one is anti-science, just as if one rejects a finding of mathematics, one is anti-mathematics. It matters not one whit if whatever epistemology one follows happens to come to the same conclusions sometimes. One is still taking an anti-science view.
I think you left out a crucial word, but perhaps you intended it to be implied:
"If one rejects a TRUE finding of science..." (I'm not yelling when I use caps.)
Your most recent comment inadvertantly has the flavor of "scientists, even large GROUPS of scientists, NEVER make mistakes, but even if you think they DO, you'd be anti-science to challenge them." I know you don't believe that, so I'm puzzled.
I find the "true" adjective superfluous at best, and question begging at worst, so I don't use it.
I'm even more puzzled than you, since I spoke of science, not scientists. Science is a process, not a person or group of people. One of its great strengths, which I tout often, is that it presumes biases and mistakes on the part of those who use it.
So what is the difference between a finding of science and a finding of scientists?
A finding from the practice of science is science whether the practitioner is a scientist or not. Contrarily, a scientist is quite capable of making a claim not based in science. Is this really so difficult to grasp? Just because someone is a carpenter doesn't make everything they do carpentry, and likewise, just because someone does some carpentry doesn't make them a carpenter. One is the act, the other the person.
There are too many overthrown, once-well-established scientific theories out there for you to rashly say that Jenny (who I disagree with, mind you) rejects "science" as opposed to "a particular theory proposed by many scientists."
Is this so difficult to grasp?
It's not difficult to grasp that you are making shit up again Alex, since what Jenny disagrees with is a universal, robust finding of science, whereas what she has supporting her is a the traditional weapon of cranks and quacks: anecdote. Nothing rash about that evaluation.
Also this idea that there are many overthrown, once-well-established scientific theories out there is complete fiction, weaved from pre-scientific stories, or again, invented out of whole cloth. Further, when scientific findings are revised, it always scientists doing science that are responsible, not shrill ignoramuses like McCarthy.
I must say I'm uncomfortable with this position. Sure, Jenny's an ignoramus. And she's shrill. But can't a civilian disagree, even through his biases, with a universal robust finding of science without being called "anti-science"?
If a layman and a scientist takes this kind of maverick position (for example, see yesterday's http://www.newscientist.com/article/
mg20227084.500-flat-universe-may-be-the-new-flat-earth.html which challenges a very robust position)
the layman would be considered anti-science and the scientist wouldn't.
I'm very uncomfortable with this labeling. Especially if the layman shows he is PRO-science in many other areas of science. It's like calling someone "anti-religious" if all he does is blast Islam.
LOL, I just noticed my comment about Islam seems to be echoing Alex's above about Christianity. I guess that's okay, since I didn't notice you address that part.
"But can't a civilian disagree, even through his biases, with a universal robust finding of science without being called "anti-science"?"No. That's what "anti-science" means - rejecting evidence due to personal biases. The only way one can disagree with a finding of science and not be anti-science is to conduct some science of their own that says otherwise.
I'm very uncomfortable with this labeling. Especially if the layman shows he is PRO-science in many other areas of science. It's like calling someone "anti-religious" if all he does is blast Islam.No, it isn't. One cannot be pro-science in one area and not another because the process of science is fundamentally the same in all cases. One either accepts the iterative process of hypothesize, experiment, analyze, revise... or one doesn't. If one only accepts it only if it agrees with the teachings of presumption X, then it is presumption X that is the guiding principle in the person's life, not science.
Religion on the other hand is a haphazard melange of conflicting faith beliefs. There's no way to consistently accept them all, because there is no universal consistent epistemological method, which is why religious groups stand in permanent opposition to each other in the first place. One can easily accept the epistemology of religion (faith) and blast Islam.
Religion and science are not the same, not even close, and it'd be best for your clarity of thought to stop trying to twist them together.
I'll review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
Post a Comment