"Are you for or against the March for Science?"
I don't know anything about it so I don't know. The link you sent me, I have to say its symbol of "an atom*" made me think of the atheist-fundamentalists who have also adopted something like that as part of their absurd campaign to claim that atheists own science. If that isn't the intent of the founders of the March, maybe someone should point out the possibility of that association being made. The last thing that the advancement of science needs is for atheists to try to turn it into their campaign against religion. I mean more so than they already have, but I don't want to go into cosmology, evolutionary science, neuroscience.... though just yesterday an atheist commenting at Religion Dispatches pretty much claimed neuroscience for materialism, not inaccurately as I doubt anyone but a full blown materialist could get far in it today. The few people I looked up involved in planning the march look like they might not be trying to do that, though I don't know much of anything else about them.
I am all for the funding of science, high quality science that brings good things to life and protects life, there's way too much funding of garbage such as in the so-called social sciences and ideological campaigning. I'm all for legitimate, rigorous science having a large role in politics and the law. But by that I don't mean we need to build the Lords of Creation their next big multi-billion dollar collider that, no doubt, they want and will probably dupe politicians into buying for them. Rupert Sheldrake had an idea that more people would be interested in science if a small portion of the national science research budgets were allocated on the basis of popular votes, funding science people were interested in. I, for the life of me, can't see why that would be a bad idea.
There is no science more important than environmental science, especially that surrounding climate change and there is no science that is probably more endangered than environmental science. The fascists find it unprofitable so it's under attack. You would think that the many scientists who shill for industry would have rushed to its defense against the very corporations they work for and, in many cases, lie on behalf of. They can do that because science doesn't do morality and it doesn't kick people out for lying, it doesn't pull their credentials. Not when it's profitable to someone or some military.
If they're including weapons science, oil and gas and coal geology and those other fields that are endangering us all, if they're including stuff that convinces people that they are not equal and that they have a moral obligation to treat each other well, that their minds are only material and that consciousness is an illusion, if that's the science they're marching for, I'm against it.
* Of course, it's not a picture of "an atom" it's a seriously out of date, obviously deceptive and misleading symbol that misleads people into think of atoms as some kind of concrete object that is simple and easily understood. It's about on the same level of accuracy as those old "Ascent of Man" or "The Evolution of the Horse" pictures that are lousy science and mislead even allegedly educated people down the wrong path in thinking about evolution. The old argument of some was that it led people to think of evolution as "progressive" or directed. I think the idea that evolution is progressive is the fault of scientists who can't avoid that due to the claims of natural selection. As to evolution being directed, the only problem with that is a. it's undefined as to what it means, b. it's not something science can determine through science, c. it makes atheists whine when people believe in direction because "God" even though their own evolution talk constantly reveal they believe that, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment