Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is science always a good thing? Anti-science always a bad one? A walk into a century ago might shed some light.

arroba Email

The pop science media today strenuously market the idea that “science” is threatened by “anti-science.”

But “science” has a restricted meaning in the view of many journalists. It means, for example, the truth of human-caused global warming, the necessity of human embryonic stem cell research, and the view that human mind is indistinguishable from the chimpanzee mind. “Anti-science” means, by contrast, doubt about human influence on global warming compared with the Sun’s cycles, confidence that adult stem cells (especially the patient’s own cells) work well, and doubt that chimpanzees really think like people.

Something is obviously wrong with the pop picture. For one thing, real sciences don’t work that way. In real science, reasoned doubt is always legitimate. Even in mathematics. Yes, even in mathematics.


quote: "The pop science media today strenuously market the idea that “science” is threatened by “anti-science.” ------------------------- This is exactly what GMOs, in particular Monsanto say on their very own website about people who oppopse their technology. "Super Markets are Victims of the Anti-Science Lobby" http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/2000/may2000/10052000_cropgen.html "Blair Warns Against Anti-science Attitude" http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/2000/november2000/201100blair1.html The critics of Monsanto like those of Theory of Evolution are NOT Anti-Science. They are against Bad-Science. Eocene
Since most of the article deals with Eugenics, I must add that the practice pre-dates Darwin, and even after Eugenics movement of the early 20th century, still has wide support in select circumstances: 1. as a matter of public policy to prevent children being conceived by closely related adults (siblings, cousins, etc); 2. as a matter of choice by 90% of couples who choose to abort a fetus with Down syndrome; 3. as a matter of choice by many (most?) legal guardians who opt for contraceptive therapies for their developmentally disabled wards. I don't think pro- or anti- science rationales are the primary motivations, rather practical considerations about responsibilities and commitments that may last a lifetime. rhampton7

Leave a Reply