We like to believe, as Americans, that this country is a meritocracy. The idea---Horatio Alger, Thomas Edison, McGuyver, all emblematic of this notion---that the best qualified rise to the top, that those who can display and apply ability, skill, and intelligence are the ones who are selected---either by themselves or…
Conflict: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action. Pornography: (3): the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction. What else could it be, other than conflict pornography, when a major media source unnecessarily frames a story in such…
This article at MSNBC explains the history of the term "nervous breakdown." It's rarely used now, except in pop culture. The term — a vague catch-all phrase that could mean anything from a psychotic episode to having a bad day — is not a medical term, doctors say, but it…
You read that right! No reader of Dangerous Intersection, radical materialist or hard-bitten skeptic believes in science. To say otherwise is to give a false impression of what science actually is. Science is not something in which a person believes or does not believe. Science is not a belief system; it has no holy screeds or sacred tenets. It is merely a tool, a method of gleaning knowledge, and the language used in reference to it should reflect this.
What on earth am I ranting about? Well, it goes back a few years to the Discovery Institute, and spans all the way to the present with Ben Stein’s film Expelled. The intelligent design/evolution debate has become quite the pop topic, and hence, the endless battle of science vs. religion has come into everyday discussion as well. Everyday people in normal daily settings run through these issues, turning any public place into a potential battleground.
I’ve heard a lot of the less experienced science advocates say things about science that frankly aren’t accurate. While these people mean very well, they fail to frame their debates properly, and the content of the discussion suffers for it. Since science vs. religion has become as much a layman’s debate as an expert’s one, I think the time has come for those of us on the science side of things to agree on the language we should use.
I have no expertise in science, religion or philosophy, I have no refined understanding of the …
I don't want no god on my lawn Just a flower I can help along 'Cause the soul of no body knows how a flower grows... Oh how a flower grows . . .
“Longer Boats,” by Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam).
Why are so many religious people uncomfortable with so many scientists? I can think of several reasons. According to many Believers, scientists are arrogant know-it-alls. Believers see scientists as emotionally sterile lab-dwellers who flaunt their white coats and their fancy lab equipment. Scientists exacerbate the situation by speaking and writing using esoteric language that makes science-phobes feel ignorant. By using such difficult concepts and language, scientists have raised the bar, which excludes many folks from joining scientific discussions. It’s not like the “good old days,” where people were generally informed enough to join many conversations regarding science (or social science). Things are different now.