“Fight Against Stupidity And
Bureaucracy”
Only two things are
infinite:
the universe and human
stupidity;
and I'm not sure about
the universe.
Albert Einstein
At the
weekend I was reading a post from ‘A Frank Angle’
which I had linked on to via Alex Autin’s Things I Love blog.
Alex had been nominated for the “Very
Inspiring Blogger” award - many congratulations Alex, well deserved - and
this was one of the site she in turn recommended.
A Frank
Angle’s post was on the subject of evolution, which was interesting and very
well written. I don’t want to get into one of those “Intelligent Design versus Evolution” arguments, because this blog
really isn’t the proper place for such a debate and in my experience I rarely
if ever win over the poor deluded fools who don’t believe as I do! Why I’m
writing about this at all is just to set the scene for you.
The thing
that got to me when I was reading this post by A Frank Angle was in the
comments section, not the post itself. Now the comment concerned as a whole was
good enough and very applicable to the post so I am not in any way taking the
writer to task for that. But it did contain one of the dumbest clichés in
creation (little pun there folks!).
The writer talked
about people denying “confirmed science”.
This may
turn into a bit of a rant, but, excuse me just wtf exactly is “confirmed science”, apart from being a complete
contradiction in terms?
It is a
phrase often see used in the evolution argument, and elsewhere too, that
implies that currently accepted scientific views cannot be challenged, with the
further implication that one is an idiot if one dares to do so.
Quite the
reverse is the truth in fact. Scientists tell us things are the way they are - until
some other scientists tell us that this is not the way things are at all, in
fact they’re this other different way instead – and
so it goes on and on. And that’s actually a cack-handed way to define science.
It is continual observation and
discovery and hopefully therefore increased understanding of things. Nothing is
ever “confirmed” forever.
Science is
very valuable, I have nothing against it whatsoever. In fact I find lots of
scientific things both extremely interesting and fascinating. But science is no
different from any other sector as regards the people who inhabit its realm.
My realm is
the business world mainly. And you actually can take this as “confirmed” born out through countless
observations, that for everyone who is a good businessman or woman there are
many, many more of the dumbest so-and-so’s you could ever have the misfortune
to meet. And boring – don’t start me on that!
Other
spheres are likewise. There are brilliant doctors and there are good doctors
and there are doctors you wouldn’t want to be seen dead with – except you
probably would be! Same goes for veterinarians, or bricklayers, or fund
managers, or secretaries, etc., etc., etc.
Scientists
(and I know a couple of really bright sparks in that field) are no different. They
are people and people are fallible. They make mistakes. And they misinterpret
things based sometimes on stupidity, sometimes on jumping to the completely
wrong conclusion, sometimes by interpreting data in an erroneous way and
sometimes they have their own more personal and pecuniary motives. Yes, that
last bit means that some of them make “discoveries”
for their own attempt at fame or for the money, or both. It happens. They’re
just people, smarter people maybe, but people.
Take the global warming debate. I’m not going to go into that in depth here
either, but whether you subscribe to the theory that it is a man made
phenomenon, or that it the result of millions of cows farting too much, or that
it is just a long term natural cycle that predates records, some of the
scientists involved have very unscientifically (and dishonestly) “cooked the books” as regards the
evidence they have provided on the subject, and more particularly the evidence
that they have deliberately withheld.
An engineer and scientist by the unusual name of Vannevar Bush (nothing to
do with the Presidents of that name, although I think he may have been an
scientific advisor to FDR) gave the game away when he admitted that "The common idea that scientists reject
a theory as soon as it leads to a contradiction is just not so. When they get
something that works at all they plunge ahead with it and ignore its weak
spots... scientists are just as bad as the rest of the public in following fads
and being influenced by mass enthusiasm."
Like I said, they’re just people.
You know
how one day scientists tell you your breakfast cereal, with all its vitamins
and fiber and stuff, is just the best thing you could ever put inside your body,
and then the next day some other scientist decides that it’s really bad for
you?
Stop eating
chocolate it will kill you! No, eat
chocolate it’s good for your heart!
Cholesterol
is bad! No it’s not, just some of it is
bad, actually some of it is really good too!
If you
drink alcohol you will surely die! No,
no, have a drink if you want to, as long as you aren’t driving, it’s good for
you in moderation, particularly red wine.
There’s a
major flu epidemic on the way! It’ll be worse than the Spanish Flu pandemic of
1918!! It’s going to kill millions!!! Here stupid governments, spend billions
of dollars on this here serum thingummy-doo-dah that we just happen to have
prepared earlier and inoculate your people. Er…. what flu epidemic was that
then?
The trouble
lies in the ill thought out reverence people give to scientists which is founded
on ignorance - in every definition of the word. Ordinary folks are afraid to
take scientists on because we usually know little or nothing about the very narrow
field of study that these people have devoted their lives to.
We don’t
look at them as ‘people who know a lot
about a little’ which is really what they are. We look at them as ‘people who know everything about everything’
which is absolutely what they are not. And sadly, we just accept what they say
as fact when clearly it is not. And that is a very dangerous thing.
What is
even more dangerous is that many of the scientists themselves think that they
know everything about everything. When they are lucky enough to “discover” something they are seldom
content to leave it at that. Next comes the extrapolation based on the “discovery” which is mostly pure conjecture
on their part, but it is swallowed as fact by many gullible believers.
Actually I
have a theory (not scientific you’ll be relieved to know) that no scientist
should ever announce that they have discovered anything that is the be-all-and-end-all
of a subject. They’re just setting themselves up for an inevitable fall, and
their followers for a big disappointment.
Clever Scientist:
“Hey, I’ve discovered the quark. It’s the
smallest thing in the universe.”
Simple
Simon: “Really? That’s fantastic!”
Clever
Scientist: “Yes, I’m ever so clever,
aren’t I?”
Simple
Simon: “What’s it made of then?”
Clever Scientist:
“What’s it what???....... Oh, crap!”
Scientists
used to think the earth was flat. At the time that was “confirmed science”.
For a while,
well before microscopes and theories of cells and germs and stuff, scientists
believed in spontaneous generation. Aristotle said, in no uncertain terms, that
some animals grow spontaneously and not from other animals of their kind. But
while you’re laughing at that, many scientists right up to the 19th century
believed it was “confirmed science”.
Some even wrote recipe books for making animals, like you would make a scorpion
by using basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight. I know what should
have been placed between the two bricks instead, it wouldn’t have made a
scorpion but I’m fairly sure it would have stung quite a bit!
Another bit
of “confirmed science” was a thing
called Phlogiston, which was on the go around 1667 when Johann Joachim Becher
(a German physicist) suggested that it was the fifth element to go with the
four classical elements (Earth, Water, Air, Fire) which was contained within
objects that could burn. The “confirmed
science” of the day went something like, objects that burned in air were rich
in phlogiston and the fact that a fire burned out when oxygen was removed was
seen as proof that oxygen could only absorb a limited amount of the substance.
This theory even led to the belief that humans’ need to breathe had a sole function
which was to remove phlogiston from the body.
And, of
course, there was good old alchemy that had its origins in ancient Egypt and, combined
with metallurgy, ended up in belief in being able to turn ordinary metals into
gold, and even to conjure up genies, and perform all manner of bizarre
not-so-science-like activities.
To us now
all these bits of “confirmed science”
are absurd. But the likelihood is that sometime in the future a lot of the
current batch of “confirmed science”
will look equally absurd. The truth is, although we now know a lot more than we
did, say 100 years ago, we still know next to nothing about our existence, and our
own little planet, let alone what’s going on elsewhere. There’s a certain
arrogance born out of ignorance that makes anyone think that they have a handle
on it all, and an even more certain stupidity about those who believe them.
Take an
interest in science by all means, as I do. But please do not be so dumb as to “believe” in scientists. Keep you feet
planted firmly on the ground. Gravity will help you with that. It’s a really good
job Sir Isaac Newton “discovered” it
all those years ago otherwise we’d be floating about all over the place!
