Two dangerous types…

One type is the politician, who tells us “this is what is best”.  The redeeming feature here is that politicians often contradict one another, so a healthy and educational discourse can ensue if we will just pay attention and sort facts out of the exchanges of verbal artillery.  Two opposing politicians each tell us the other is just flat wrong, and we get to sort it out for ourselves.

The far more dangerous fellow is the scientist, who tells us “this is utter inarguable fact” and “here is what must be done about it”.  This fellow then conflates his empirical fact (or his approximation thereof) with his conclusions and cannot sort these apart any more than he can sort out the salt he accidentally dropped in the sugar bowl.  Today, I listened to reports about how science has been telling us to prevent fires in our forests when at all possible…until now, when different scientists announce the conclusion that the resulting unchecked undergrowth is currently fueling wildfires of incredible dimension.  So, the news report said, in essence, “We thought we were right, but now that the whole thing has blown up in our faces, perhaps we were wrong all along.”  In the very same report, these same scientists insisted that today’s wildfires are the result of global warming.  How long will it take them to back away from their position this time? What foolishness will we undertake before the next “oops”? 

The scientific community is more dangerous than the political community because if you disagree with them, you are not thus merely wrong, but an ill-educated superstitious savage to boot. Non-conformity is considered proof that you are not intelligent enough to contribute to the discourse.  There is only one prevailing view allowed at a time, riding its popularity until it is brought crashing down by the next observation which proves things to be different.  What science tells us is the not-to-be-questioned truth.  Until it’s not. Science builds its cities upon the ashen ruins of the cities come before, but refuses to look at the history under its feet to instruct its further efforts.

Categories: Faith. And church. | 1 Comment

Post navigation

One thought on “Two dangerous types…

  1. Charles, I think that science has known for a long time that burnoffs have good effects. I don’t know which scientists said to “prevent fires in our forests when at all possible” and the context. If they meant accidental fires and therefore uncontrolled fires, then I don’t know how that could be wrong. The difficulty is knowing how to perform it adequately and competently and when is the right time. I recall visiting the area around Los Alamos, NM and observing an area that had been burned. I think it was around the Bandelier area. I was told by the locals that is was the result of a purposeful activity by the forestry department for the benefit of the land. That was probably around 1981 or so. In the late 1990’s such a burn got out of hand, and denuded a much larger area than desired. It eventually even took out some homes, if I recall correctly. I visited a few months later and saw one of the most unique bumper stickers I have ever seen. It said something like, in recognition the monetary aid that followed, “Los Alamos says Thank You”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: