Religion and politics is based on belief. Science, unlike religion, does not depend on belief but on healthy skepticism.
In the current global warming debate, Inquisition like behavior occurs to stifle the scientific process and bury views that do not agree with an "authority sanctioned" view point, with the Church replaced by the IPCC. Remember what happened to Galileo and Bruno? This has happened in the past and people were called heretics and in another age, witches. Today they may be called incorrectly "religious conservatives." The scientist being attacked could very well be an evironmentalist and liberal. It is unfair to label someone as something they are not just because they are trying to do honest research.
Science is based on the scientific method and not on consenses. For any hypothesis, there is going to be an antithesis. We went through the Enlightenment to free ourselves from the Church, we don't need a new Church of IPCC to replace it.
2007-05-25
13:55:02
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Physics
I'm hoping for less emotional responses and character insults and more rational, dispassionate debate as to whether science should allow skepticism and dispassionate debate or fall into character insults and accusations like we had in the dark ages.
2007-05-25
16:20:54 ·
update #1
dtwladyhawk, doesn't matter what you think of me. Are you willing to look at research such as this:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/
with an open mind or willing to listen to the scientists speak in this movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global
with an open mind or are you allowing the media and political climate to cencor your mind to information that might not agree with "accepted" truth.
If you see the above movie from begining to end, I'd be kinda impressed.
2007-05-25
16:29:01 ·
update #2