skeptic-tank science

When debating almost any social issue, there will be supporting scientific findings and theory (e.g., evolution, global warming, effects of mercury on the environment and fetuses). During such debates, my esteemed opponents often cite the fact that there is not a "scientific consensus" on these issues. There are so-called scientists who doubt the veracity of man's evolution from the ape or that carbon emissions are harming the ozone layer and the delicate balance of physical systems we call earth, despite what appears to be in these cases overwhelming scientific evidence.

Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with being skeptical - in fact that trait is essential for maintaining a rigorous scientific method able to get at the most plausible explanation of the world around us; the statistically most probable unadorned physical truth given the results of repeated and repeated again objective scientific observation and experimentation. Does that mean that bias does not enter into science? Hell no - just the fact that we're observing something with a purpose or hypothesis in mind changes what is being observed in often unknown ways. It is also basic human nature to apply our own beliefs towards our work ethic. But probable, plausible and physical are the key terms here I think.

Science at its most basic is defined as: "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding...knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena" [from: Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary]. In other words it is the goal of science to understand the physical processes that make us and the universe around us work. This includes the mental processes that form the structure for our thoughts. It does not generally include ideas based purely on myth, philosophy or religious belief, such as the existence of the soul, life after death, moral systems, etc. (except, I suppose, how physical systems might effect those beliefs).

And hence, that is why I do not think any incarnation of "intelligent design" should be included in the "science" curriculum. Does that mean it should be excluded from education altogether? Not at all. It should be discussed in detail in religion and social studies and perhaps modern history. But intelligent design, at its core is an idea based on a religious belief (that there is an unknowable intelligent agent behind the order-chaos of our 'verse).

But back to the original purpose of this entry: uncovering the seedy side backgrounds and corporate/political/religious associations of the tiny minority of scientists who are the nay-sayers in crucial social debates that have an overwhelming scientific basis and agreement among the vast majority of experts, like evolution, global warming, environmental health, logging and forest stewardship, contraception and reproductive rights and many more. In short - many (not all) of these skeptics have dubious scientific credentials and or close relationships with conservative religious and corporate organizations that are opposed to these scientific findings. There is also usually a compelling financial component; these people are paid well for their services in the art of what I call "bizarro-world scientific method." Here's one recent example in all it's sleaziness:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/11/dr_ross.html

Finally, if you want to see detailed outlines of specifically how the Bush administration and his conservative-minded scientific hacks have distorted science in the name of capitalism, religion, and or politics, check this out from the prestigious Union of Concerned Scientists:
Specific Examples of the Abuse of Science:
http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1398

Now go enlighten yourself and then your neighbors and colleagues about this stuff!

Hopefully in truth and peace,

Dana