Saturday, September 01, 2007
It's all about voting against liberals
Beth ends as agrily as she starts,
Okay, something else that bugs me. When scientists come up with a theory, it's like gospel truth for some people, but if other scientists who come up with opposing theories they are wrong. Why can't people accept that the opposing view could be the accurate one?
I've not a definate grasp on who exactly Beth means by "some people", but am confident she means "liberals".
Scientists don't ever "come up with a theory", they come up with hypotheses. Theories are hypotheses which have stood up to repeated scrutiny and best fit the observations.
Right-wingers such as Beth base their outrage, as we have seen, on imaginary people who hold imaginary opinions, although there may indeed be at least some people holding at once all the opinions they find foul. But in order to view themselves as the silent majority as they do, the imaginary segment becomes in their minds a monolithic force in which all of their grievances are encapsulated as one.
Here, I can imagine that Beth is thinking of scientists who believe Man's activities influence the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that evolution can produce divergent species no longer able to produce fertile offspring. But that is just a guess. But I really can't argue with her as the only certain assertion she makes is that she's pissed off.
Being pissed off that scientists can confidently say Man attributes to climate change is maybe something Beth could understand if she tried a bit, but it sadly seems that everything Beth sees as wrong with the world can be remedied by voting Republican. She knows that Republicans are angry with liberals, and and that's enough for her. Even if the next Democratic presidential candidate didn't fake a Purple Heart, she still has resons to vote for the opposition.
Labels: conservatism, right wingers, science
Comments:
wls - thanks for checking! I'm almost done reading a compendium, "Best Science Writing of 2006" - about half of the articles get terminology right and correctly present ideas, the other half have what ranges from a bit of sloppiness to outright nonsense. The worst article questioned whether being fat was bad for you. It stunk. The most egregious fallacy presented was a criticism of a paper that found being obese correlated with many serious health problems: the criticism was that the study ignored the health effects of being underweight.
Post a Comment



