How science is distorted at both ends of the political spectrum
Believe it or not, and I suspect most readers will not, but there is a liberal war on science. Sorry?!
Many are aware of the Republican War on Science thanks to Chris Murray's 2006 book of that name (published by Basic Books). I also criticized the conservatives in 2006 in my book "Why Darwin Matters" (published by Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to the breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that "58% of Republicans believe God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years," compared to 41% of Democrats. A 2011 survey conducted by the Institute for the Study of Public Religion found that 81% of Democrats, and only 49% of Republicans believe that the Earth is warming. Many conservatives seem to believe that fetuses in the early stages of development have a higher moral status than adults with diabetes that destroys their health and that it may be possible to cure it with stem cells. And just recently, Republican Senate candidate from Missouri, Todd Akin, chatted about the ability of a woman's body to avoid pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape." The situation is therefore getting worse.
The evidence for the left's war on science already begins with the data mentioned above: 41% of Democrats are creationists who believe that the earth is young, and 19% of them doubt that the earth is warming. These numbers don't particularly fit the popular view that liberals advocate for science. In addition, think about the "cognitive creationists", people who I define as those who accept the theory of evolution to explain the development of the human body, but not of the brain. The psychologist Steven Pinker from Harvard University dealt with the subject in 2002 in his book The Smooth Plan - about the denial of the innate nature of man nowadays (published in Hebrew by Mater). He documents how the claim that the human mind is a "tabula rasa" (smooth board) shaped almost entirely by culture became an accepted mantra mainly in liberal intellectual circles. Through extreme left-wing groups, with Orwellian names such as "Science for the People", these circles in the 80s and 90s conducted a sweeping attack against evolutionary psychology due to its claim, which today is indisputable, that human thinking and behavior were shaped, at least in part, by the hands of the past our evolutionary
Even now, an anti-science attack is underway from the progressives on the extreme left, as documented in 2012 by journalists Alex B. Barzov and Hank Campbell in their book Science Left Behind (published by Public Affairs). And so they write: "If it is true that the conservatives declared war against science, then the progressives declared a war between Gog and Magog." On energy issues, for example, the authors claim that progressive liberals tend to oppose nuclear energy because of the problem of waste disposal, against mineral fuels because of global warming, against hydroelectric power because dams harm the ecological environment of rivers, and against wind energy because it harms birds. Basically, the common line is the belief that "everything natural is good, and everything unnatural is bad."
While conservatives are compulsively concerned with the purity and sanctity of sexual relations, the sacred values of the left are fixed on environmental issues. This led the people of the left to worship with an almost religious fervor the purity and sanctity of the air, of the water and especially of the food. Try to have a conversation with progressive liberals about genetically modified food (GMO) without the words "profits" and "Monsanto" [a company that produces agricultural products, including genetically modified crops - the editors] being thrown like time bombs. On October 19, 2012, for example, entertainer Bill Maher asked on his show Real Time show on the HBO channel Gary Hirschberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm [a company specializing in organic food], if on the scale of evil he gives Monsanto a score of 10 ("bad") or 11 ("fucking bad"). But in truth we have been genetically modifying living things for the last 10,000 years through hybridization and selection. This is the only way to feed billions of people.
Polls show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science more or less equally (with variations in some areas). For this reason, scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the US National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates on both sides to rein in the extremists on issues like evolution and climate change. Extremism may not be an obscene measure in the defense of freedom, but it is such in the war on science, where facts are more important than belief, whether religious or secular, and where moderation in the pursuit of truth is a virtue.
About the author
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com His latest book is The Believing Mind. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelshermer
31 תגובות
Miracles, hello.
I heard you were a fighter pilot in your past, is that true?
a different one
Earlier you said that before the creation of the universe there were no laws of physics, and now you say the opposite... decide 🙂
Beyond that - it is possible that the laws of physics are not contingent - that is, they are mandatory. We don't know today.
For a different one, Assaf and Shmolik respectfully
Because I saw that you can play with time - backwards and forwards, fast and slow
One gets the feeling that every physical law "known" to us is dynamic
You may laugh, but with respect, truly with respect
a different one,
I recommend watching Kraus's lecture again. There is no stopping the laws of physics from forming once the universe was created.
You are using your own logic when you wrote your comment (which sounds reasonable) but the universe is not beholden to your logic or mine.
Again, go watch the lecture. Every Kraus lecture is instructive.
Nobody enacted the laws of physics, the laws are just an attempt to describe the existing situation.
Miracles
1. The laws of physics were created at some point. Certainly before the creation of the universe.
2. What caused the creation of the laws of physics and what created what caused their creation and so on? Unequivocal answer: no.
miracles and a different one,
I have not read Kraus's book, and I am not a physicist and am not able to defend any of his claims, but in his lectures he clearly states that it is possible (and the fact that we can say possible should be celebrated) that our universe could have been formed without space, without time and without the laws of physics, out of nowhere
You are invited to hear his last lecture in Sweden followed by a debate he held with a panel.
The point of his words is that it is possible that our universe is part of a multiverse, when the multiverse itself is eternal but our universe itself could have been created, from nothing. He gives "nothing" 3 definitions where the strictest definition is: no space, no time and no laws of physics.
The lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly6xDuwjLD8
Panel discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL84Yg2dNsg
Is it nothing you think about? First of all define nothing. He says that after many conversations with religious men and philosophers, he came to the conclusion that they define nothing as something that only God can create from. Nothing he defines is physical.
In addition, you can ask what created the multiverse and claim that God is still needed for that, but the point is that if the multiverse exists, the fine tuning problem is solved, which is apparently the best argument for God's fans and also places a barrier before a personal God, and in addition, apparently the theories say that the multiverse He is eternal (again, I am not a physicist and cannot defend this claim).
By the way, he himself says that there is no proof of the existence of the multiverse, but he does not stop there and you will have to see the panel to get an answer as to why he is willing to refer to the multiverse.
a different one
1 - what to read again?
2 - On what basis did you determine this?
3 - On what basis did you determine this?
So you ask what created God? 🙂
Miracles
1.- Read again
2. Science does not accept that something was created out of nothing, so from nothing, from nothing.
3. The laws of physics as we know them today, will not exist before the creation of the universe.
What caused the creation of the laws of physics and what created what caused their creation? And so on…
a different one
You write a lot of assertions that are not necessarily true and draw a conclusion that has nothing to do with your assertions.
You write that science does not accept that it was created "from nothing". This is not true.
You write that there were no laws of physics before the creation of the universe. This is not true.
1+1=2 is a definition in general. What does physics have to do with it?
And from all this - even if it were true - it does not follow that there is any room for faith. Not that I understand what you mean by the word "faith"...
Here there is room for faith.
This does not answer the question for me, I do not accept the concept that if there was nothing then it is not possible to ask...
The science we are all chasing does not accept that nothing was created out of nothing. This statement is a belief.
does not answer the question.
The laws of physics as we know them did not exist before the creation of the universe. If so, what nevertheless created them and what came out of what created them and so on... a pure and unequivocal answer as 1+1 = 2 does not exist.
Miracles:
I repeat for your convenience the question of a different one:
"My claim is that there is one thing that we will never get a pure understanding of why the first particle was created, from what energy it was created, from what energy was created the energy that created the energy to create it, etc...."
The question refers only to physical entities and not to laws.
That is why there is an answer in the book.
There is also speculation on the issue of laws, but that is outside the scope of a different question.
Some of the speculations on this question are presented in two articles by Marius Cohen on this website:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-1-0204103/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-2-0704103/
You can also find a short reference to this topic (and others) in the post "All beginnings are difficult” I wrote in the blog “MThe cart of a secular"on site"One against all religion"
Miracles,
The answer to your question is that there is no question since it is possible that there could have been nothing and the fact is that there is something. If there was nothing, there would also be no question.. another language: in a world where there is nothing there is no question. Either way there is no question.
Michael Rothschild
The book explains how. Another asked why. And I claim that this is indeed a legitimate scientific question. That is, "Why are the laws like this and not others? Could there be other laws?”
legitimate and scientific. You don't need to be afraid to answer - voila - I have no idea...
Michael Rothschild
Again - I do not agree with you 🙂 The book does not explain what the principle is that causes this to be the case. Why are the laws like this and not otherwise? That's what someone else is asking, I understand.
I think if there is an answer to this then the answer is physical. But the question is in the field of science.
Miracles:
You can ask whatever you want but the book answers the question asked by a different person.
Michael Rothschild
Don't get me wrong... I don't think for a moment that there is anything that is not part of nature. It is clear that "why" in the meaning of "for what purpose" is a retarded question. The book does not answer why there is something instead of nothing. After all, there could have been nothing - why is there something after all? If you answer me - because that's how the laws of nature are, then I ask - why are the laws of nature like that?
Why questions have no place in science because they presuppose the baseless assumption that there is someone who has a goal they want to achieve through the world.
There is only room for questions about why (for what reason) or how (in what manner) things happened.
The book answers these questions.
Michael Rothschild
It's a great book - but - it doesn't answer the question of "why is there something". On the other hand, even if there is a God, you have no answer…..
It does solve the "how there is something" on the other hand.
A different one:
read the book A universe from nothing by Lawrence Krauss
another one
I think there are a lot of things we won't be able to know. For example - what was the Olympic record in running in 464 BC?
I don't see that any conclusion can be drawn from this....
Miracles - I agree with you on almost everything. My claim is that there is one thing that we will never get a pure understanding of why the first particle was created, from what energy it was created, from what energy was created the energy that created the energy to create it, etc....
We will try to understand him, but we will not have the ability to understand him as we understand Dumas's affairs, as 1+1=2.
A few things about the article and the comments that don't always relate to it.
1. Where exactly did Father Nissim get the statement that humanity or we think that everything can be understood? Already Kuhn (and I assume he drew this from others) claimed that every theory is true until it is disproved and that is the greatness of science. He now means that in fact it is an endless process at least in the relevant human consciousness.
3. The comment-enlightenment about American egocentrism is true and saddening, it's just a shame that the Americans don't really understand what exactly is wanted from them in the rest of the world. The article in front of us is a fairly representative example.
2. The article is indeed interesting, but not really in-depth. It is always good to read a review, of course in directions that are not so usual, but nevertheless it is also very important to bring some factual reasons and not just to give general marks.
a different one
What you say is a very slippery slope. Humanity progresses because we think that it is possible to understand everything. 100 years ago they thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe, and that everything was static. Today we have models that describe the universe starting from a millionth of a millionth of a second from its beginning.
I don't think the ant comparison helps here. We ask questions and find answers. Some of us ask at least, some really live like ants...
Science and human rationale do not contradict the fact that there are things we cannot understand. Just as an "ant" does not understand what the universe is and it is not part of its "equation of life", so we do not fully understand who the "creator" is - why was the first particle created, from what energy was it created, and from what energy was the energy created that created the energy for its creation, etc. I'm not saying that the God in question necessarily exists, but there is definitely a factor that we don't put into the equation, that we don't understand now, and humanity will probably never have the ability to understand it the way it understands the affairs of Dumas, but it is there somewhere.
One more mistake "In truth we have been genetically modifying living things for the last 10,000 years through hybridization and selection." which is to compare royal selection with genetic engineering. But an article that gives an interesting angle even though I don't agree with it on almost anything.
There is an embarrassing mistake in the settings.
With the exception of "heresy" in evolution from the right (creationism) and the left (smooth plate theory) there is no argument with facts - that is, science.
Those who defined the fetus as a person will oppose the use of stem cells.
Those who sanctified nature (and this sanctification does not stem from hard "facts" of course) will oppose genetically modified food.
There are moral-value decisions here.
There is no opposition to science here, but to its technological applications.
Why link the opposition to Monsanto to the opposition to genetic modifications in food?
I don't have a problem with genetic changes but I detest the methods Monsanto uses and the damage it causes to humanity (especially the weak among us) and the environment
To the extreme believers in creation on the right and ideal nature on the left should be added many who believe that the center of the universe (as well as its known borders) is America.
Although the article is translated from Scientific American, it is precisely in the field of the spillover of religious and political beliefs into science that the United States suffers from severe extremism, which has indeed severely damaged the centrality of American science.
It will help the Americans to remember that the discussion is not limited to the borders of their country - perhaps they will discover new insights.
Looking to the sky and looking for flying pigs….