Should we get rid of “scientist,” replace term with “some guy”?
|April 18, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Science|
Or “some gal”?
So says Frank J. Fleming, who challenges us to prove he is not a scientist (so far as the News desk can see, he is a political humorist).
He argues, there are no such things as “scientists” thusly:
Again, I’ll bet you’re protesting. “Scientists aren’t just anyone! They’re people who have used science to give us great things, like lasers and computers and seedless watermelons!” Yes, some people have used science to do some remarkable accomplishments… but how many of the people who go by the name “scientist” have actually done anything practical? How many are nearing the cure for cancer, versus how many are those idiots who tell us for years that some food causes cancer and then suddenly say the food prevents cancer? How many scientists help society, and how many are just throwing out noise and filling up AP copy?
You don’t know. This is something you should know — especially if you want to put meaning behind the word “scientist” — but you don’t. Not only that, but think of the most famous living scientists. Like Stephen Hawking. I mean, everyone has heard of him. He has to be an outstanding scientist doing useful things, right? Well, do you have evidence of that? What has Stephen Hawking’s science led to? Maybe one day it will help us make a warp drive or something, but if I said, “Stephen Hawking is a complete and utter fraud. Everything he says is nonsense,” would you have any way to prove me right or wrong? Hawking’s stuff is all far out theory built upon more far out theory. What are you going to do? Blow up a black hole and demonstrate that he’s wrong?
Many people today want science to be a religion. They are readily drawn to far-out theory that would be termed religion in any other society.
See also: Liberals “more resemble the uneducated conservatives” in gullibility about science – analyst. In that case, science may be “spilt religion” for the persons studied. They are not evaluating “sciencey” claims for their relevance to science but for the extent to which the claims increase a comfort level with the world as they understand it.
Follow UD News at Twitter!