Yes, science isn't going to end. However, the disregard for science in public policy making is a serious issue. We invest in science and then ignore the results. In fact, we have an executive branch that assaults scientific results - directly or by eliminating the documentation. Also, when a significant segment of America sees universities as being without value, that becomes an assault on education. It's harder to advance in education when people disrespect the very product of education - people who have proven by their work to know their subjects, studies demonstrating how our universe works, such as damage done by failing to vaccinate, damage done by ignoring climate change, damage done by polluting our waters, etc. America needs to improve in allowing science to be one of the sources of information when making public policy. And, we need to make education far more available, even to kids who don't have rich parents.
We were recently discussing the impeachment procedures and I asked my wife if she thought this was a 'teachable' moment? Historically it must be quite high on the list since there's only been a couple of presidential impeachments. Since she was a teacher in her early days, she thought this was a teachable moment. I asked her if she believes the teachers in Trump's base will consider this a teachable moment? We both wonder about the answer? My guess is many either won't use it as a teachable moment, completely ignoring it, or will teach it with a partisan slant. We can ask similar questions about how religion is taught, how science is taught, etc. So, in the aggregate of those being educated in the USA today, what they will learn, is based on the culture they live in, the partisan beliefs of teachers, the policies of education in certain locations, and the governance in place. While a few students will peel away from this scenario with a goal of independent thinking and rationale, most of them will not. Climate change is another example in which the collective we are incapable of adult conversation and debate where most often it boils down to name-calling and insults and lies with zero regard to data and history and logical outcome. I say good luck changing this destructive course...
Any person, or group, or organization, who are incapable of accepting challenges to their positions, who are incapable of recognizing truths from fiction, are going to feel threatened by others...
That points out a serious issue with our education. We're training people to ignore science and favor whatever they believe - in their party, in their religious beliefs, in their greed, or whatever. In my view, the religious assault on higher education and science is how that direction is made worse. This gets back to the difference in methodology, as with science, the issue is what is found when we carefully observe our universe and methodically and continually test ideas on results. Then results from science are allowed to be considered when making public policy - not as an absolute, but as an important consideration. And, "religious" methods are similar to belief in party (regardless of evidence), religious belief (that gets magnified if the perception is that some result in science doesn't appear to match a religious belief), etc, justifying an overriding need to win at all cost. How can a religious person who believes science or higher education are hotbeds of evil possibly not view victory as being a necessity? How could such an individual consider science as a contribution to a public policy decision? So, today we have a president who not only totally rejects climate science, he goes so far as to assault international agreement, to call for deleting results of science on this issue, to go to court to block those here who are working on solutions, to promote coal over clean energy, etc. One additional result is that today China has pretty much captured the clean energy market - with the most patents, the most exports, the most installations within their country, etc. Our "religious" methodology has set us WAY behind in one of the importat economic sectors of the future.
Some people 'agree' that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, some 'believe' millions of years old, while others 'believe' Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Whatever the ratio might be of the total population of these three groups probably indicates how many educators are teaching one of the three histories. I'll guess at least half of the population lies in the latter two groups. With these presumptions we can approximate that perhaps half of our students will be taught that Earth is 6,000 to millions of years old. I'll assume this same scenario applies to all areas of education in which scientific data and theory conflicts and/or challenges cultural/religious 'beliefs'. One option is to educate both science and religion, however, it's easy to educate science while impossible to educate thousands of religious 'beliefs'. And will Christian parents allow their kids to be educated in Islam or Mormon? So bottom line is we have a society who no matter those disciplines used to experiment facts and rational hypothesis, simply will prefer wherever their 'beliefs' guide them. This is fine at a personal level but detrimental to society when personal 'beliefs' are forced on others...
Yes, this is a serious problem. It's not surprising that religious parents and kids see their religion as more important. But, when our next generation breaks onto the scene without being able to identify what is science and what is not science (and why) America loses both economically and in our influence and respect.
So you are saying that religious people cannot be objective. Perhaps... And when it leads to electing a puke like trump. This is a direct result if ignorance and irrational beliefs. By your logic, religion has destroyed the country. And you may be right. Ironically, they were led astray by obvious evil and chose it anyway. Freaking incredible!
The problem is we progress Science and fund it so that we could make it beneficial for us for comfort, life saving means, basic necessities and other human requirements, but who will fund the quest to verify religion?
No not really, because for any research nowadays a financial requirement is always needed. Funding should be there to realize the undertaking.
I'm saying religion is not being 'objective' when it comes to the age of Earth. Objective definition; Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Regarding who voted for Trump...well 63 million Americans voted for him and I'm guessing most voted for him because they preferred him over other candidates. I'll also guess among those 63 million they don't agree that they are ignorant and/or irrational. This might be construed as a fundamental flaw in a democracy; a huge portion of voters will not be pleased with the election outcome. IMO in a democracy religious beliefs are personal and should not be forced on others. I pay taxes, I follow laws, I contribute to society in many ways, and I'm an Atheist. In what possible way do I wish to see God invoked in the governance of me? I never said religion has destroyed the country? I said religion when forced on others can be detrimental to society...
It goes a lot deeper than that. It involves one's entire world view when they believe in magical explanations. The man is an obvious thug and con man. You can rationalize it all you want but it comes down to either his supporters lacking the inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, or knowingly choosing evil. I would like to believe his election was due to ignorance but I'm not that optimistic anymore.
Look...I hate Trump and think he's a POS! However, enough Americans voted for him to elect him as president...so in some weird and contorted and reckless way the election of Trump is how the US voted in 2016. I don't like the outcome but I respect the process. I'm sure Trump's supporters think the blue side are also lacking the ability to distinguish fact from fantasy or choosing evil, or due to ignorance. Lastly, I was shocked when the country voted Bush Jr. into a second term! No matter all we know today about Trump, no matter the impeachment, I will not be shocked if Trump wins a second term. This is not 'rationalizing'...this is reality...
Pretty sure I agree with you. It's interesting that the biggest opposition to democracy in france was the poor rural people.
If you're thinking about their long and bloody revolution, I would disagree. There were factions of relatively elite which opposed what we would consider as democracy, too. For example, religious institutions had signifiant autonomy from the central government and large local influence. They were totally opposed to losing that to anything resembling democracy. There were other special interests that had significnat power they didn't want to give up. The number and strength of politically and economically strong special interests was a major reason for the length and bloodiness of the revolution.
Well, I mean before the infamous revolution. Before the franco prussian war. They tried to become a democracy many times, but the people who would have benefited most were the most instrumental in thwarting the effort.
Religion isnt threatened by science. It is involved with something outside of the domain of science. The immeasurable.
Religion should not use science to help their position and belief. Science cannot measure the immeasurable. The immeasurable is outside of the domain of science.
Well, I think the French revolution came before the Franco-Prussian war. Anyway, the French revoluton was significantly complex and included both internal and external interests. It started with the people revolting against those with power. The rest seems to be debated even today. In America today we see people who can't afford it voting against their own interests. And, we see people voting for their own interests when thosse interests have nothing to do with democracy or equal rights or even what is best for America. So, it wouldn't be a shock to see other countries do that, too.
IMO most people don't care if a nation is democratic, republic, socialist, etc. etc. when it comes to voting. I think most people vote based on 'what's in it for me'? It would be great if a majority of people would vote based on 'what's in the best interest of the USA?'...
