Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] proof that humans have not evolved

Interesting you chose to use tobacco as your example. People knew tobacco was bad for them decades prior to settling of what you call a "controversy" about health effects of tobacco -- it was a controversy only in the legal sense, not among users. But it didn't stop users from smoking and it took government's scare tactic and onerous taxation to make a serious dent in use. Also interesting is that serious second-hand smoke "research" is non-existent and whatever fluff does exists is misrepresented by zealots to promote government's vision rather than reflect a true scientific position. I also disagree with you that controversy about AGW (not just GW) is due to the same vested interests. If at all, the vested interests in this case that are promoting action w/o scientific basis are the entrenched climate scientists and enviroquacks.

Be it as it may, my point was that more often than not the reasons for people's behaviors are not scientific but based on social and personal reasons. Plus coercion and propaganda. You example of tobacco is a perfect example of such.

What I find the most fascinating is that when you write about physics, I am often in awe and in full agreement with what you say. But when it comes to interpreting social phenomena I find your arguments weak, myopic, and paternalistic. It is not government's (or your) role to tell other people to behave in a way you consider "rational" and "science-based" (remember Justice Jackson's point?) It is not your role to decide that people are "tricked" into voting in a way you consider against their interests -- you simply seem to presume you know better than they what their interests "should" be. It is not your role to condemn people that spend their own money on homeopathic medicine or magnetic trinkets. It is not your role to label people that choose to believe in god (of one kind or another) that they are wrong. Bill Buckley quip about the advantage of being governed by the first 2000 people in Boston telephone directory than the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard university comes to mind.


On 6/28/2012 7:38 AM, John Denker wrote:
On 06/27/2012 08:53 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:
This lack of scientific and mathematical knowledge has
little impact on their behavior, or on their ability to function.
I disagree.

Let's include another example: Smoking tobacco.

The only reason there is significant controversy about climate change
is the same reason that there was for many years huge controversy about
the health effects of tobacco: Vested interests paid to spread lies
about the scientific data. Not only are they using the same methods;
in some cases they are using the exact same liars, e.g. the Heartland
Institute.

There is overwhelming evidence that credulous ignorance *does* affect
people's lives. Smoking, for example, is addictive, expensive, and bad
for your health.

I draw an important distinction between error and lying. Some of
the people who are using Nessie as an argument against evolution are
ignorant and foolish ... but others are not. They're just lying.
That's what offends me most about the Nessie story, the idea of
teaching children that it is OK to lie, cheat, and steal in order
to promote partisan policies and religious dogma.

Here's another way in which insufficient reasoning ability affects
people's behavior, and their "ability to function": It leaves them
at the mercy of every mountebank and quack. To see exactly what I
mean, stroll down the aisles of any pharmacy chain-store and look at
all the products that cannot possibly work as advertised: Magnetic
therapy and/or copper bracelet therapy for arthritis, et cetera.
Americans spend several billion dollars per year on homeopathic
medicines. Don't tell me this has no effect. It has a direct effect
on the economy ... not to mention morbidity and mortality.

Last but not least, lack of reasoning and insufficient skepticism allows
people to be tricked into *voting* against their own interests. For
example, they vote for selfish liars who then deregulate the banking
industry, leading to near-collapse of the global economy. Don't tell
that when people lose their jobs and lose their homes, it "has little
impact on their behavior, or on their ability to function."
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l