The current state of scientific discussion within society is beginning to resemble Issac Asimov's famous quote that ignorance is "… nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "
This emerging paradigm is likely caused by a combination of factors. The first is inadequate science education, the second an intersection of hyper-partisanship and cognitive bias, in which people wield scientific data only when it suits their argument. In this way, the input of researchers is not only commonly dismissed in policy discussions, but often denigrated as "partisan screed of the biased liberal elite" or "tool of systemic oppression" when it runs contrary to the speaker's preconceived notions.
These statements could not be further from the truth. More to the point, the body of knowledge built by the scientific community is so interwoven and complex that one could not possibly cherry-pick the things that support their conclusions without committing to a massive number of logical paradoxes.
To illustrate my point, the body of knowledge upon which the assertions that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for warming our atmosphere is based on the law that matter (specifically carbon dioxide and other gasses) absorbs and re-emits light as described in an equation derived by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
If the case were made that warming of Earth's atmosphere is independent of the increasing levels of greenhouse gases, it would mean that his equation was wrong. But that equation also governs our understanding of chemistry, as we use the amount and wavelength of light that a chemical absorbs to determine its structure, which we cross-reference for accuracy by subjecting the chemical to intense magnetic fields in various instruments and observing its behavior. If Arrhenius was wrong, then these other systems would also be wrong. This implies that our understanding of magnetism and electromagnetism is flawed.
No comments:
Post a Comment