This is why Doonesbury is the first thing I turn to in the Sunday paper, and why Doonesbury is part of My Yahoo page. Trudeau has a way of nailing a subject.
In case you missed it:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070114/cx_db_uc/db20070114
2007-01-14 05:21:39 · 3 answers · asked by secretsauce 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Paul H: Agreed. But an even more important target is the "teach the controversy" strategy. You take a subject in which there is near unanimity in the science community. You say there is a "controversy". If they respond, you say "see, it's controversial!" If they don't respond, you say "it's a conspiracy, therefore it's controversial!" But the overall goal is to get students to throw up their hands and say "this is too confusing!" The result ... a nation of scientific illiterates who are now much more pliable to accept statements with no evidence as long as it complies with preconceptions (like "there are WMDs in Iraq" or "Saddam participated in 9/11" or "global warming does not exist" ... i.e. this isn't just quaint disagreement ... this get's people killed.)
2007-01-14 05:56:12 · update #1
chocolahoma: Your examples are not equiv. It was never true that "scientists agreed" the earth was entering an Ice Age, or a plane couldn't break the sound barrier, or space travel was impossible. In these cases, there was general *disagreement* among scientists. (And while your point is more true for geocentrism, at that time "science" itself was in its infancy and *directly* influenced by church doctrine ... which only bolsters the reasons for keeping them separate).
Yes, many issues in science *start* as a debate, but eventually converge on a growing and eventually overwhelming consensus ... as is evolution and all examples mentioned by Trudeau.
It is good and appropriate to question the consensus. But you wage this debate in universities and scientific journals in front of real scientists who know the issues and how to evaluate evidence. You DON'T wage this debate school boards or in front of 6th-Grade students ... unless your goal is not to educate, but to confuse.
2007-01-14 06:28:37 · update #2
(Sorry typo.) You DON'T wage this debate *in* school boards or in front of 6th-Grade students ... unless your goal is not to educate, but to confuse.
... And that is *precisely* Trudeau's point.
2007-01-14 06:49:16 · update #3
I love it!!! Now I understand... you shouldn't confuse people with the facts if they have already made up their minds! LOL!!! GREAT!!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!
2007-01-14 05:29:02 · answer #1 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lame.
Scientists are no more infallible than anyone else.
25 years ago "scientists agreed" that the Earth was entering a new Ice Age.
70 years ago "scientists agreed" that no plane could ever break the speed of sound.
100 years ago,"scientists agreed" that space travel would be impossible.
Before that "scientists agreed" that the earth was the center of the solar system.
Scientists are no less likely to form an opinion and "filter" their results to match those opinions than anybody else. We should follow No One's assertions without inspecting and judging the evidence for ourselves.
Trudeau's drawings here seem to suggest that he thinks politically correct opinions are always "True" and conflicting opinions are not only wrong, but dangerous. Thats the same kind of bigotry he claims to be against.
2007-01-14 05:37:42 · answer #2 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, I'd say all we have to do is look to the white house as well as fundie science to understand it.
2007-01-14 05:31:21 · answer #3 · answered by ceprn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋