Mea Culpa

My apologies for being somewhat slack in keeping the blog updated. As you know, I spend a great deal of time out of the country on business in a place where internet access is spotty. Then life happened. I can say that I am indeed glad 2016 is over and done.

My plans for the 2017 is to do more explanation of science theory and policy. By “science theory”, I mean to discuss what the term “science” means in a broad sense although I may have to bring in some scientific theories in as examples.

I have undertaken this task because I am absolutely disgusted that science – as an ideal – has been hijacked into the realm of politics for activists of both parties to make and score narrow points. In doing this, they have created an environment that is internally inconsistent. To wit, if argument X works for one side, the other side uses the exact opposite of X to bolster their side. That is like saying “water is wet because of X”, and the other side saying water is not wet because of X” – it is illogical on its face.

That is not to say that paradoxes do not exist – light is both a particle and a wave – but the entire field of scientific inquiry cannot be a paradox. We (as scientists, citizens, or both) need to begin to consider what is science and what is “science-like”.

We need to admit that there are biases, and I will try to keep politics out of the discussion for two reasons, although I recognize it may be difficult to do so. First, if we accept that science is the search for the true nature of our universe, then science on its face is apolitical. Second, politics have degraded the nature of the national discussion to the point where everyone is screaming past each other, rather than discussing substantive topics.

I welcome comments, but please keep it civil. And remember, I am the arbiter of civility.

1 thought on “Mea Culpa

  1. I’m looking forward to your return and your remarks on the politicization of science. As a scientist myself, I’m afraid this mostly escaped me until I had been out of grad school for a few years. I had been aware long before then of Senator Proxmire and his “Golden Fleece award” ignorant grandstanding, but the real eye opener for me was Peter Duesberg’s book _Inventing the Aids Virus_. Regardless of what one thinks about Duesberg or his ideas on HIV, the portions of his book devoted to the politics involved in the process of obtaining federal research grants make a compelling case that the end result is tantamount to thought control. Important areas of scientific inquiry are being driven to fit a political narrative and agenda. This was strongly reinforced by the recent resignation of Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry for the same reasons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s