What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[Sunstone]

Let me say at once I do not mean here people who reject just one particular scientific theory or set of facts. The motives of the man or woman who objects only to evolutionary theory or to vaccines can often enough be easily guessed at.

But I'm curious about what I take as both a relatively recent phenomena and a somewhat more difficult one to figure out the causes of. That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".

About the phenomena being recent. I readily grant there have always been people who rejected the sciences, but I think that up until relatively recent times their number and influence was less significant than it is today. For instance, a half century ago, the notion they might influence government policies or how well the sciences were funded and taught in the public schools was easily dismissed. Beyond that, the sciences were on an order of magnitude more respected than they are today. I think that is a fact.

So what causes or motivates the anti-scientists?

I would point first and foremost to the long history in America of deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. But surely, there's more to it than that. That anti-intellectualism is so much stronger today. Why?

Many people point to the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s that seem so closely associated with the rise of the Baby Boomers. Among other things, they dramatically boosted the popularity of the notion that "truth is relative", sometimes expressed as, "truth is personal" As I understand it, that notion was once more or less confined to fringe intellectuals, but the Baby Boomers mainstreamed it, made it -- if not actually respectable -- then fashionable.

A third often mentioned cause is religious based antagonism to the sciences. But that strikes me as superficial. When you look more closely, you first discover it's not all Christian denominations at fault. The old mainstream denominations have mostly remained pro-science. The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.

But I would not stop there. No matter how deeply ingrained is the reflex to "blame the Christians", I think the truth is deeper than "the Christians". Again, looking closely, it becomes undeniable that those Christian groups most opposed to the sciences originate in the culture of the South, which has been the longest and most virulently anti-intellectual section of the country.

And if you really wanted to understand it, you could trace Southern anti-intellectualism back to the South's earliest English settlers, who predominantly came from the Cavalier class of England, a class that favored only educating elites, and then only minimally. So, the notion "it's a Christian thing" strikes me as superficial and poorly informed. It would be more accurate to say Southern Christianity only gave Southern anti-intellectualism its main focus: Evolution.

One last point about the South: Even if what I said is true, the question remains, "Why did Southern anti-intellectualism pick only recently to become so virulent? Any answer to that should mention air conditioning. After WWII, air conditioning made the South more attractive to migrants from other parts of the country such that today four in ten Americans live there. Such a large chunk of people will inevitably have an influence.

However! Least you think it's all nicely decided now, consider this: Is Southern Culture broadly anti-scientific, or only narrowly anti-evolution? I myself think the former, but I believe the latter is still arguable.

Is that enough to explain it? American anti-intellectualism (especially Southern anti-intellectualism) combined with the mainstreaming of thoughtless trash like "truth is relative" by the Baby Boomers?

What do you think?

And beyond that, is there any good chance anti-science will wane in the future? Last puzzle of the day: What caused the Baby Boomers to embrace such a hollow, gutless notion as, "Truth is relative"?

 

[Kenny]

Do you have supportive documentation?

 

[`mud]

Relative to what ?

 

[`mud]

I think you've been listening to Trump again !

 

[Sunstone]

Do you have supportive documentation?

Specifically for what? None of the ideas here are my own except for some impressions I mentioned of how things were in my youth fifty years ago. Beyond that, everything I've mentioned comes from sources I've read and thought reliable.

Any genuinely interested person can most likely find out even more than I've mentioned with a few simple internet searches. That's so easy to do, I've lost the conviction I once had back in pre-internet days of feeling morally obligated to do the work for people. As if that's not enough, I don't much care these days whether anyone who is not close to me believes me or not -- about most anything. I just like to write.

On the other hand, if you were to find out I was wrong about something, I'd like to hear about it. I can always use honest correction. But don't feel obligated to tell me anything.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In a class about the history of technology I noticed that the aristocracy tends to see technologists as a threat and also general education. In economics classes I noticed that established industries opposed the introduction of system destabilizing technologies.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Let me say at once I do not mean here people who reject just one particular scientific theory or set of facts. The motives of the man or woman who objects only to evolutionary theory or to vaccines can often enough be easily guessed at.

But I'm curious about what I take as both a relatively recent phenomena and a somewhat more difficult one to figure out the causes of. That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".

About the phenomena being recent. I readily grant there have always been people who rejected the sciences, but I think that up until relatively recent times their number and influence was less significant than it is today. For instance, a half century ago, the notion they might influence government policies or how well the sciences were funded and taught in the public schools was easily dismissed. Beyond that, the sciences were on an order of magnitude more respected than they are today. I think that is a fact.

So what causes or motivates the anti-scientists?

I would point first and foremost to the long history in America of deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. But surely, there's more to it than that. That anti-intellectualism is so much stronger today. Why?

Many people point to the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s that seem so closely associated with the rise of the Baby Boomers. Among other things, they dramatically boosted the popularity of the notion that "truth is relative", sometimes expressed as, "truth is personal" As I understand it, that notion was once more or less confined to fringe intellectuals, but the Baby Boomers mainstreamed it, made it -- if not actually respectable -- then fashionable.

A third often mentioned cause is religious based antagonism to the sciences. But that strikes me as superficial. When you look more closely, you first discover it's not all Christian denominations at fault. The old mainstream denominations have mostly remained pro-science. The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.

But I would not stop there. No matter how deeply ingrained is the reflex to "blame the Christians", I think the truth is deeper than "the Christians". Again, looking closely, it becomes undeniable that those Christian groups most opposed to the sciences originate in the culture of the South, which has been the longest and most virulently anti-intellectual section of the country.

And if you really wanted to understand it, you could trace Southern anti-intellectualism back to the South's earliest English settlers, who predominantly came from the Cavalier class of England, a class that favored only educating elites, and then only minimally. So, the notion "it's a Christian thing" strikes me as superficial and poorly informed. It would be more accurate to say Southern Christianity only gave Southern anti-intellectualism its main focus: Evolution.

One last point about the South: Even if what I said is true, the question remains, "Why did Southern anti-intellectualism pick only recently to become so virulent? Any answer to that should mention air conditioning. After WWII, air conditioning made the South more attractive to migrants from other parts of the country such that today four in ten Americans live there. Such a large chunk of people will inevitably have an influence.

However! Least you think it's all nicely decided now, consider this: Is Southern Culture broadly anti-scientific, or only narrowly anti-evolution? I myself think the former, but I believe the latter is still arguable.

Is that enough to explain it? American anti-intellectualism (especially Southern anti-intellectualism) combined with the mainstreaming of thoughtless trash like "truth is relative" by the Baby Boomers?

What do you think?

And beyond that, is there any good chance anti-science will wane in the future? Last puzzle of the day: What caused the Baby Boomers to embrace such a hollow, gutless notion as, "Truth is relative"?

There are many good universities in the South, so I wouldn't stereotype "Southern Culture" as a whole as being anti-science. Of course, a greater percentage of people in the south reject scientific facts than those outside the south. I don't know the cause of this, but I would guess there is some historical reason.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you think?

In the US, one political party has made anti-intellectualism and anti-science a core tenet of their ideology. Since I became of age to pay attention to politics, this party has been on the wrong side of the AIDS epidemic, acid rain, evolution, climate change, environmental contaminants, and other issues. And just in the past 5 years or so I'm seeing the same folks taking a strong turn against higher education (e.g., talk radio admonitions of "don't send your kids to college; they'll come back liberals, environmental activists, and/or atheists").

This mindset has become so entrenched that's it's become an essential component of their identity.

 

[Kenny]

Specifically for what? None of the ideas here are my own except for some impressions I mentioned of how things were in my youth fifty years ago. Beyond that, everything I've mentioned comes from sources I've read and thought reliable.

Any genuinely interested person can most likely find out even more than I've mentioned with a few simple internet searches. That's so easy to do, I've lost the conviction I once had back in pre-internet days of feeling morally obligated to do the work for people. As if that's not enough, I don't much care these days whether anyone who is not close to me believes me or not -- about most anything. I just like to write.

On the other hand, if you were to find out I was wrong about something, I'd like to hear about it. I can always use honest correction. But don't feel obligated to tell me anything.

I'm sorry if I came across wrong...

That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".

This statement sent me for a loop. Quite frankly, I don't see that and thus the question of where you are getting your source from.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm sorry if I came across wrong

Ken, you have no need to apologize to me, but I certainly do need to apologize to you. When I responded to your question, I was sleep-deprived and more than usually irritable. I hope you'll forgive me for that. In the future, I'll try to remember to get some sleep first least I do such wholly uncalled for things again.

This statement sent me for a loop. Quite frankly, I don't see that and thus the question of where you are getting your source from.

]

Good question! I'm basing that mostly on numerous usually non-scholarly or non-scientific sources, often brief comments I've seen here or there devaluing scientists and the sciences, but sometimes virtual essays on the matter. They usually take the form -- not of overt attacks such as "Physics sucks" -- but of oblique attacks on methods and targeted at the reliability of their results (To an extent, though, I'm recalling a few polls I've seen on the public's attitude towards scientists and the sciences).

"Fossils tell us nothing." "There are too many variables involved for climate scientists to reasonably conclude much of anything." "Scientists are just as biased as everyone else so their conclusions are no better than anyone's." That one has some truth to it -- scientists are just as biased as everyone else -- but the criticism ignores that the sciences are built on systematic ways of correcting for, as much as possible, those biases.

Indeed, some of the criticisms have truth to them, but they are usually not fully true, and they thus tend to exaggerate how unreliable the sciences generally are.

Again, there is a whole category of closely related criticisms that are true or mostly true, but that are so often subtly presented in ways that can distort people's impressions of the sciences -- beyond attacking the reliability of the sciences. "The methods of physics can by their very own logic tell us nothing about supernatural things." That's perfectly true, but I so often see such points combined with implicit or even explicit statements to the effect that most or all physicists are unaware of that limitation, and instead blindly think the supernatural cannot exist at all. I believe stuff like that is largely motivated by hostility and fuels hostility.

Beyond that, you get into what I consider really loopy stuff, such as "Any scientist who seriously questioned the prevailing opinions in his or her field would find their funding cut off, so scientists never really challenge those opinions."

Last, I lump in with anti-scientism the numerous scientifically unsound, but popular, notions of the day, such as lizard people from outer space are secretly running things, chemtrails are the visible signs of our government's effort to control us, vaccines produce autism, and so forth. I consider them evidence of anti-science because they invariably reject any science that disproves them. But I might be on thin ice there. It's possible they should more properly be considered the product of apathy towards scientific evidence, rather than be thought more actively antagonistic to it.

 

[exchemist]

Ken, you have no need to apologize to me, but I certainly do need to apologize to you. When I responded to your question, I was sleep-deprived and more than usually irritable. I hope you'll forgive me for that. In the future, I'll try to remember to get some sleep first least I do such wholly uncalled for things again.

]

Good question! I'm basing that mostly on numerous usually non-scholarly or non-scientific sources, often brief comments I've seen here or there devaluing scientists and the sciences, but sometimes virtual essays on the matter. They usually take the form -- not of overt attacks such as "Physics sucks" -- but of oblique attacks on methods and targeted at the reliability of their results (To an extent, though, I'm recalling a few polls I've seen on the public's attitude towards scientists and the sciences).

"Fossils tell us nothing." "There are too many variables involved for climate scientists to reasonably conclude much of anything." "Scientists are just as biased as everyone else so their conclusions are no better than anyone's." That one has some truth to it -- scientists are just as biased as everyone else -- but the criticism ignores that the sciences are built on systematic ways of correcting for, as much as possible, those biases.

Indeed, some of the criticisms have truth to them, but they are usually not fully true, and they thus tend to exaggerate how unreliable the sciences generally are.

Again, there is a whole category of closely related criticisms that are true or mostly true, but that are so often subtly presented in ways that can distort people's impressions of the sciences -- beyond attacking the reliability of the sciences. "The methods of physics can by their very own logic tell us nothing about supernatural things." That's perfectly true, but I so often see such points combined with implicit or even explicit statements to the effect that most or all physicists are unaware of that limitation, and instead blindly think the supernatural cannot exist at all. I believe stuff like that is largely motivated by hostility and fuels hostility.

Beyond that, you get into what I consider really loopy stuff, such as "Any scientist who seriously questioned the prevailing opinions in his or her field would find their funding cut off, so scientists never really challenge those opinions."

Last, I lump in with anti-scientism the numerous scientifically unsound, but popular, notions of the day, such as lizard people from outer space are secretly running things, chemtrails are the visible signs of our government's effort to control us, vaccines produce autism, and so forth. I consider them evidence of anti-science because they invariably reject any science that disproves them. But I might be on thin ice there. It's possible they should more properly be considered the product of apathy towards scientific evidence, rather than be thought more actively antagonistic to it.

I think there an anti-science backlash started in the 1970s actually.

In the fifties and sixties everyone looked forward to what the marvels of science could do for our war-weary world. Jet travel became accessible, nuclear power was touted as clean and so cheap it would not need metering, antibiotics revolutionised medicine, etc.

In the seventies we got the first glimmering so of the downsides, pollution, the odd nuclear accident, people got worried about overpopulation etc. These things go in cycles. The first anti-science film I recall clearly was Spielberg's ghastly "Close Encounters (1977)". This was the first anti-rational sci-fi story I came across and I still recall how appalled I was as I left the cinema.

Since then I think there has been an undercurrent of anti-science. I am not sure it has really got any worse. However it is only since retirement that I have found myself subscribing to discussion forums and as we know that medium is stiff with cranks and nitwits of all hues. So I think there is a danger of getting the anti-science element out of proportion.

One last thing that may be real: since I was at university in the 70s, science research has grown enormously. I wonder if there is more of a science "establishment" today than there used to be and this provides a target that renegades like to attack.

 

[Audie]

In a class about the history of technology I noticed that the aristocracy tends to see technologists as a threat and also general education. In economics classes I noticed that established industries opposed the introduction of system destabilizing technologies.

Did it mention the wild popularity and public excitement
re science and technology that was Franc of the late
18th century?

 

[Audie]

Let me say at once I do not mean here people who reject just one particular scientific theory or set of facts. The motives of the man or woman who objects only to evolutionary theory or to vaccines can often enough be easily guessed at.

But I'm curious about what I take as both a relatively recent phenomena and a somewhat more difficult one to figure out the causes of. That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".

About the phenomena being recent. I readily grant there have always been people who rejected the sciences, but I think that up until relatively recent times their number and influence was less significant than it is today. For instance, a half century ago, the notion they might influence government policies or how well the sciences were funded and taught in the public schools was easily dismissed. Beyond that, the sciences were on an order of magnitude more respected than they are today. I think that is a fact.

So what causes or motivates the anti-scientists?

I would point first and foremost to the long history in America of deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. But surely, there's more to it than that. That anti-intellectualism is so much stronger today. Why?

Many people point to the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s that seem so closely associated with the rise of the Baby Boomers. Among other things, they dramatically boosted the popularity of the notion that "truth is relative", sometimes expressed as, "truth is personal" As I understand it, that notion was once more or less confined to fringe intellectuals, but the Baby Boomers mainstreamed it, made it -- if not actually respectable -- then fashionable.

A third often mentioned cause is religious based antagonism to the sciences. But that strikes me as superficial. When you look more closely, you first discover it's not all Christian denominations at fault. The old mainstream denominations have mostly remained pro-science. The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.

But I would not stop there. No matter how deeply ingrained is the reflex to "blame the Christians", I think the truth is deeper than "the Christians". Again, looking closely, it becomes undeniable that those Christian groups most opposed to the sciences originate in the culture of the South, which has been the longest and most virulently anti-intellectual section of the country.

And if you really wanted to understand it, you could trace Southern anti-intellectualism back to the South's earliest English settlers, who predominantly came from the Cavalier class of England, a class that favored only educating elites, and then only minimally. So, the notion "it's a Christian thing" strikes me as superficial and poorly informed. It would be more accurate to say Southern Christianity only gave Southern anti-intellectualism its main focus: Evolution.

One last point about the South: Even if what I said is true, the question remains, "Why did Southern anti-intellectualism pick only recently to become so virulent? Any answer to that should mention air conditioning. After WWII, air conditioning made the South more attractive to migrants from other parts of the country such that today four in ten Americans live there. Such a large chunk of people will inevitably have an influence.

However! Least you think it's all nicely decided now, consider this: Is Southern Culture broadly anti-scientific, or only narrowly anti-evolution? I myself think the former, but I believe the latter is still arguable.

Is that enough to explain it? American anti-intellectualism (especially Southern anti-intellectualism) combined with the mainstreaming of thoughtless trash like "truth is relative" by the Baby Boomers?

What do you think?

And beyond that, is there any good chance anti-science will wane in the future? Last puzzle of the day: What caused the Baby Boomers to embrace such a hollow, gutless notion as, "Truth is relative"?

It may be that some of it is about a kind of cultural
conservatism, wanting things to stay as they are.

The feeling that things are "spinning seemingly
out of control" (as they like to say in the WSJ) is of course upsetting.

I get a certain amount of it directed at me, being Chinese.
Like this is America, dammit! WE are the invasive
species here, not you!

Science in its many forms poses endless challenges
to conservative thought and established ways of life.

Here on this forum we see people who are so determiend
that ToE cannot be true. And in order for it not th be
true, they have to attack the validity of every branch
of science there is.

And it leads straight line to "what sort of people would
be doing all this biased science?" What motivates
them? In extreme cases they go to that them
researchers are dupes of Satan. Even the most
modest have to accept the position that science is
utterly unreliable.

I guess I'd be against it too if I saw things that way.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did it mention the wild popularity and public excitement
re science and technology that was Franc of the late
18th century?

No, and it was just two courses covering all of History. I keep in mind that France had recently had its Revolution, and the entrenched interests were weakened. More recently France has been through two world wars and has been rebuilding, but its economy is increasingly structured as always happens in every country. Structure opposes change and gradually aquires monopolies of all kinds: market, religious & political until there are few resources left and little competition. I admit that those countries with parliaments have been slightly more successful in maintaning multiple political parties compared to large countries, but I think that also indicates that structure stagnates. I doubt its the parliamentary system keeping their politics diverse so much as the smaller sizes of their populations and think smaller governments are better for safeguarding political flexibility and thought.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There are many good universities in the South, so I wouldn't stereotype "Southern Culture" as a whole as being anti-science. Of course, a greater percentage of people in the south reject scientific facts than those outside the south. I don't know the cause of this, but I would guess there is some historical reason.

This book is still on my "to read" list:

"Anti-Intellectualism and American Life" by Richard Hofstadter
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

Hofstadter published that book in the early 1960's and it won the Pulitzer Prize. It is interesting that even in the 1960's people were quite aware of the peculiar strain of anti-intellectualism that ran through America.

"The American mind was shaped in the mold of early modern Protestantism. Religion was the first arena for American intellectual life, and thus the first arena for an anti-intellectual impulse. Anything that seriously diminished the role of rationality and learning in early American religion would later diminish its role in secular culture. The feeling that ideas should above all be made to work, the disdain for doctrine and for refinement in ideas, the subordination of men of ideas to men of emotional power or manipulative skill are hardly innovations of the twentieth century; they are inheritances from American Protestantism."--Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism and American Life"

 

[Audie]

No, and it was just two courses covering all of History. I keep in mind that France had recently had its Revolution, and the entrenched interests were weakened. More recently France has been through two world wars and has been rebuilding, but its economy is increasingly structured as always happens in every country. Structure opposes change and gradually aquires monopolies of all kinds: market, religious & political until there are few resources left and little competition. I admit that those countries with parliaments have been slightly more successful in maintaning multiple political parties compared to large countries, but I think that also indicates that structure stagnates. I doubt its the parliamentary system keeping their politics diverse so much as the smaller sizes of their populations and think smaller governments are better for safeguarding political flexibility and thought.

Actually I am referring to pre-revolution France.

 

[Scott C.]

Let me say at once I do not mean here people who reject just one particular scientific theory or set of facts. The motives of the man or woman who objects only to evolutionary theory or to vaccines can often enough be easily guessed at.

But I'm curious about what I take as both a relatively recent phenomena and a somewhat more difficult one to figure out the causes of. That's what I call in this thread "Anti-science", the rejection not just of one or two scientific theories and sets of facts, but more broadly "anything science".

About the phenomena being recent. I readily grant there have always been people who rejected the sciences, but I think that up until relatively recent times their number and influence was less significant than it is today. For instance, a half century ago, the notion they might influence government policies or how well the sciences were funded and taught in the public schools was easily dismissed. Beyond that, the sciences were on an order of magnitude more respected than they are today. I think that is a fact.

So what causes or motivates the anti-scientists?

I would point first and foremost to the long history in America of deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. But surely, there's more to it than that. That anti-intellectualism is so much stronger today. Why?

Many people point to the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s that seem so closely associated with the rise of the Baby Boomers. Among other things, they dramatically boosted the popularity of the notion that "truth is relative", sometimes expressed as, "truth is personal" As I understand it, that notion was once more or less confined to fringe intellectuals, but the Baby Boomers mainstreamed it, made it -- if not actually respectable -- then fashionable.

A third often mentioned cause is religious based antagonism to the sciences. But that strikes me as superficial. When you look more closely, you first discover it's not all Christian denominations at fault. The old mainstream denominations have mostly remained pro-science. The antagonism is coming overwhelmingly from only factions of Christianity, such as the Southern Baptists, and the non-denominational churches. Groups that usually identify themselves as Evangelicals.

But I would not stop there. No matter how deeply ingrained is the reflex to "blame the Christians", I think the truth is deeper than "the Christians". Again, looking closely, it becomes undeniable that those Christian groups most opposed to the sciences originate in the culture of the South, which has been the longest and most virulently anti-intellectual section of the country.

And if you really wanted to understand it, you could trace Southern anti-intellectualism back to the South's earliest English settlers, who predominantly came from the Cavalier class of England, a class that favored only educating elites, and then only minimally. So, the notion "it's a Christian thing" strikes me as superficial and poorly informed. It would be more accurate to say Southern Christianity only gave Southern anti-intellectualism its main focus: Evolution.

One last point about the South: Even if what I said is true, the question remains, "Why did Southern anti-intellectualism pick only recently to become so virulent? Any answer to that should mention air conditioning. After WWII, air conditioning made the South more attractive to migrants from other parts of the country such that today four in ten Americans live there. Such a large chunk of people will inevitably have an influence.

However! Least you think it's all nicely decided now, consider this: Is Southern Culture broadly anti-scientific, or only narrowly anti-evolution? I myself think the former, but I believe the latter is still arguable.

Is that enough to explain it? American anti-intellectualism (especially Southern anti-intellectualism) combined with the mainstreaming of thoughtless trash like "truth is relative" by the Baby Boomers?

What do you think?

And beyond that, is there any good chance anti-science will wane in the future? Last puzzle of the day: What caused the Baby Boomers to embrace such a hollow, gutless notion as, "Truth is relative"?

Is there evidence of an increase in anti-science attitudes? It seems to me that there's an increase of distrust in organizations and authority and the motives of those who provide results to benefit the rest of us. I think of conspiracy theorists, distrust of government, religion, and business. "9/11 was an inside job". "We never went to the moon". "Pharmaceuticals are evil". "Vaccinations are evil". "Doctors don't know what they are talking about, try snake oil instead". "Everyone with money, power, knowledge, or authority is trying to decieve and take advantage of the foolish". Perhaps a distrust of science has the same root cause as this growing distrust generally.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, you have no need to apologize to me, but I certainly do need to apologize to you. When I responded to your question, I was sleep-deprived and more than usually irritable. I hope you'll forgive me for that. In the future, I'll try to remember to get some sleep first least I do such wholly uncalled for things again.

Water under the bridge. Do hope that it isn't a physical situation.

Good question! I'm basing that mostly on numerous usually non-scholarly or non-scientific sources, often brief comments I've seen here or there devaluing scientists and the sciences, but sometimes virtual essays on the matter. .

Just a short comment... it boggles my mind that there are such people. But then again, it boggles my mind that there are those who think there is no God.

I guess we are all "boggled" (new word?) in some form or another.

Have a great day and hopefully a restful night.

 

[Audie]

Water under the bridge. Do hope that it isn't a physical situation.



Just a short comment... it boggles my mind that there are such people. But then again, it boggles my mind that there are those who think there is no God.

I guess we are all "boggled" (new word?) in some form or another.

Have a great day and hopefully a restful night.

"Boggleized" It is like "scandalized".

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I have no problem with science — my own background is scientific — but I have considerable problems with scientism. So long as there have been scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, etc who set themselves up as prophets of atheism and dishonestly (or at best ignorantly) claim that their scientific background confers some sort of authority on them, they are bound to bring unjustified discredit on science.