It's a little bit sad that this guy dropped out (got forced out) of the GOP race. At least he was forcing the discussion. Now, no one's talking about science except to deny it.
One of the phrases I keep hearing passed around is "You're entitled to your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts." Well…. duh. It seems like common sense but I realize that most of the time when I debate people, or hear others debate, they're not debating opinions anymore. They're debating the validity of the set of facts they're using. However, the definition of "debate" involves "consideration" and "deliberation." To me, that includes logical, rational, thoughtful time-spent analysis over the validity of all sides of an argument.
Take the GOP debates as a perfect example of opinion pandering. No one watches the candidates to determine if they're intelligent, well-educated, or even thinking long-term. The general populace is watching to gauge whether or not the candidates say things that reinforce their own opinions. We want validation for what we already think we know. WE LIKE PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH US. It's easier that way. Disagreements or gaps in our knowledge leave us feeling… empty, lost, confused.
A perfect explanation for why people refuse to learn about evolution (or any science). We simply don't know everything. We can't know everything (yet, probably ever). And that makes some people very, very uncomfortable, and perhaps a bit depressed and lost. Does that mean life is pointless? Of course not. Maybe I'm an exception (and I don't really think that's true), but that particular lack of knowledge EXCITES ME. It's an undiscovered frontier! In the same way that explorers used to travel to distant lands and name them, we can travel inwards and outwards (to the level of atoms, and outer space, and everywhere in between).
Facts are rock-solid. Facts are scientifically-backed, tried and tested. Facts are reality.
I couldn't agree more that people need to have their thought challenged. It disturbs me to think of how many voters have not changed their political or ethical views since they were 18. The most common response I see when other people's views get challenged is to run. I appreciate when people throw their own views out there to be challenged, so that's what I'll do now.
ReplyDeleteI can't (and won't) speak for Gov. Perry on this particular point, but most libertarian/conservative types like me believe human actions do, in fact, impact the environment and that greenhouse gases probably play some role in meteorology. We do not believe, however, that it is a dominant factor. The UK's Daily Mail reported on Jan. 29th that there hasn't been any warming in the last 15 years, despite the largest human inputs of greenhouse gases on record. Those gases may play some small role, but that role pales in comparison to the big orange candle in the sky. And as of yet, we can't control that.
This is where Gov. Perry is correct. It's not economically reasonable to damage a weak economy for very marginal benefits. Given that nearly every plan I have seen to curtail greenhouse gases has made exemptions for places like China (the number one source of CO2 in the world), I have to question how much of those plans is about science.
And my last point has to be how unscientific some supporters of AGW are being (not necessarily you). Critics are often kept from publishing and supporters do not make their data public. Criticism is the heart and soul of science; dogma should have no place here. Critical evidence should be refuted, not censored, and we shouldn't have to hack into East Anglia's e-mails to find out what is going on ("hide the decline").
Gov. Perry may not understand scientific lingo, but his overall point is correct: from a rational cost/benefit analysis, AGW is not something that appears worth fighting at the moment. Conservatives (with the exception of Johny Boy, apparently) are not going to venerate scientists, because they are people with political and personal agendas just like everyone else. The most simple fact we need to know is that AGW is not a threat to anyone reading this and none of us are willing to risk our livelihoods to combat something that doesn't impact our lives. That's hardly irrational or unscientific.