Science B21

Page B21

Science in the News The Town Voice The Complex Made Simple

Science Is No Democracy

By Arlon Staywell RICHMOND — Current issues, especially as addressed here, involve a mix of scientific, political and religious facets. Sometimes a moderator can be helpful sorting things out, especially where a democratization of science has been attempted.
A Clear Example
The current issue whether homosexuality is a "choice" or rather determined genetically and biologically usually includes a mix of science, politics and religion.
Millions of dollars are spent on professional sports and large sections of news media cover the details about those sports. It can be shown that much of the interest is culturally determined by observing that different sports interest different cultures. The news coverage of criquet will not likely hold the attention of many Americans.
A most difficult thing to identify as a "choice" can be tastes in foods. Here too cultural differences can be found to illustrate that they are in fact mostly choices.
One disadvantage of the globalization of culture is that it might be more difficult for some people to recognize what are culturally determined traits when such differences as just noted blend into the global culture.
There might yet remain enough differences to convince people that something like "sexual orientation" is also mostly if not entirely determined by culture.
That would be the science. If a vote were taken today whether homosexuality is a choice significant numbers of people would likely be found who are certain it is by no means a choice. The internet is still as of this writing replete with much of that political view parading as science. Whatever scientific merit "Wikipedia" might deserve it still tends to portray popular views as scientific. Articles on "Homosexual Choice" and "Sexual Orientation" still might mention what appears "scientific" support for the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. That is despite the observed facts that choices in pastimes and even food are culturally determined. The cultural determination of various sexual preferences can also be obvious.
An important note here is that while most cultural differences, such as criquet or onions, are time tested to be safe for the individual and the community, not all choices are. There are harmful choices. Criminals make harmful choices.
An annoying tendency of those who are not convinced choices exist is to require "proof" that various bad decisions are choices. It is not recommended nor necessary to perform such proofs. Nevertheless there can be found examples of perhaps bad choices such as were televised on "Fear Factor."
So the science and the popular notion of science do not agree about homosexuality and choices.
Another Example
Another popular view often considered "scientific" is that there is no "evidence" of an intelligent designer.
The notion would appear to have support in the court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Judge John E. Jones, III likely hadn't seen a biology text in about thirty years at the time he made his decision. He grew up in times when the philosophy of the Miller-Urey experiment was news. Likewise others involved in the case had similar life experiences.
Modern biology texts are replete with far more detailed explanations and graphics of the various processes necessary for life. Bearing in mind that there are "chemical reactions" that are not "life" the necessary complexity for "life" overwhelms any possibility of random assembly even with allowances made for various past atmospheric conditions as in Miller-Urey.
A contrarily overwhelming number of people in many areas will protest there is no "evidence" of an intelligent designer.
That is despite the fact that the evidence for an intelligent designer is every bit as strong as the evidence you will fall to your death if you jump off a high cliff unaided. No one has ever seen the "proof" that you will not fall to your death. There is only the longstanding observation that so far everyone who jumped off a high cliff unaided has fallen to his death. The notion that life might be "created" tomorrow from sterile mud struck by lightning is as ridiculous as the notion that you might defy gravity tomorrow. The science is that there must be some sort of intelligent designer, the politically popular view is still behind the science.
Is this news?
The gulf between real science and popular notions of science is key to most political issues today. If you believe only victories are news then this is not. This is about the struggle before the victory.
Especially on the internet with "sources" like Wikipedia and "discussion groups" without a moderator to check the "facts" of the majority, unscientific notions and attitudes prevail.
They have already prevailed in numerous court decisions like Kitzmiller v. Dover. They will continue to prevail unless the false science dominating the news is exposed in the news for what it actually is.
While it might be a scientific fact that marriage laws are beneficial to society, it remains to be seen what benefit marriage laws so lax as compare an agreement between biological parents to an agreement between homosexuals might have. So far no society accepting homosexuality has survived long.
Although over half the states now challenge PPACA in court that does not necessarily mean over half the people in those states understand why. It only means a few lawyers and doctors in those states brought a case.
The notion that anything from religion must be flawed because it isn't "science" has to be overturned. Real science and disciplined religions are in agreement.
Religions typically include aid to the poor. But that is only part of a larger set of rules. Aid to the poor which does not include the larger set of rules only creates more poverty. Until that is understood the debt crisis will not be solved.
Determining facts
The facts of science are not determined by majority vote. It is not true that simply because an idea is upheld by some religion it can't be scientific. The notion that lack of organization, lack of discipline, atheism or undisciplined religions are somehow more "scientific" by those characteristics is false and a significant problem in most current issues today.

The Town Voice Home | Science Index B1 | B20 | B21 | B22