Re: [Phys-L] John Lienhard on Absolutism, Evolution and Education, Engines of our Ingenuity No.2132

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

Of course there is a whole spectrum.  And the word conservative has many
meanings, shades of meaning and uses.  Ultimately the label is self
administered.  But at present there is a whole group of people who tend to
be on one side of the aisle who call themselves conservative and are
anti-scientific.  They are in control of the science committee in the House
of Representatives, and are in control of a number of state legislatures.
They equate certain science ideas with liberalism, and many engage in
vitriolic accusations of conspiracy.  They claim scientific controversy
where there is none.  Most people on this list are not among them.  There
are certainly absolutists on both sides of the spectrum.  But at present we
have a big problem that science has become a political football, unlike what
we used to have.  This must not be ignored.  OK, there are liberals who
don't believe in evolution, but they are not very evident.  A historical
prominent liberal anti-evoltionist was William Jennings Bryant, and he is
the last one I know of.  Maybe others can come up with more recent examples.

What I want to see is that people who support science and who are
politically allied with the anti-science group stand up and say that the
anti-science people are not correct.  But that does not seem to be
happening.  We are currently seeing a possible melt down of support for
science in the US, which may end up being our downfall.  Don't shoot the
messenger.  Shoot the anti-science crowd, metaphorically of course.

One meaning of conservative is "Favoring traditional views and values;
tending to oppose change."  Historically we had the idea that the US was
favored by God to be great, and that idea is still around.  Of course this
is a form of absolutism, but it can also be called conservatism.  Anyone
aware of history should recognize that this is a fallacy as all empires have
dissolved.  So I said that a conservative idea is one where the current US
eminence is evidence of something.  Yes, but what is it showing, and will it
continue?  We have the same thing in education.  Conservatives favor doing
things the way they have always been done, but reformers and now looking at
actual research and questioning the traditional wisdom.  This is happening
in medicine where some MDs still won't wash their hands between every
patient.  Actually the rule is wash between every 4 patients and use hand
sanitizer the other times.  Eventually medicine will come around and the
excessive infections in hospitals may go away.

The conservative philosophy has a lot to be said for it, in that rocking the
boat can cause problems.  Both philosophies can have problems.  Radical
change can cause more problems, but staying exactly the same and opposing
all change ignores problems that mount and eventually cause major
difficulties.  The key is to avoid absolutism.  The scientific approach is
cautious and does not rely on continuing holding onto an idea because it is
traditional.  Science should be middle of the road, but sometimes radical
change does happen.  So science by its very nature can not be purely
conservative.  Einstein was in many ways a conservative when he said that
"God does not play dice with the universe." He was being absolutist.  Of
course he was using God as a metaphor, but he really believed in the
traditional deterministic universe.  This is a tendency in all of us.  We
can be very scientific when it comes to our own field, but absolutist in
other realms.  There are many other examples of scientists who
conservatively held onto their original ideas and refused to change.

But my question still is "Where are the prominent conservatives who are
opposing the anti-science rhetoric which is now common in the US?".  Who are
they?  Maybe they are too afraid of losing elections to speak up.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX 

> If you are going to continue this endless bloviation about 
> conservatives and conservatism, I suggest you educate 
> yourself about the terms really mean. There is a whole 
> spectrum of ideas and opinions that are included in the 
> conservative viewpoint - not just the straw man 
> religious-right that you seem narrowly fixated on. I am a 
> Libertarian, but I have many conservative friends who are 
> neither Republican, nor religious, nor in favor of small government.
>
> Bob at PC
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:30 AM
> To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
> Subject: Re: [Phys-L] John Lienhard on Absolutism, Evolution 
> and Education,     Engines of our Ingenuity No.2132
>
> A possible solution to the problem of "empire dissolution" is 
> to have a well educated populace with even better educated 
> intelligent leaders.  The platitude "The meek will inherit 
> the earth" can mean that we have to understand the problems 
> and respond to them without letting our inflated egos get in 
> the way.  The conservative point of view that we have done 
> alright means we will continue to do so is very 
> antiscientific.  Past history is only a guide to what might 
> happen in the future.  (Remember that conservative can mean 
> just adhering to traditional norms, and thinking that the 
> past will continue forever.  One can be a liberal 
> traditionalist, or a conservative radical.)
>
> The idea that we are the most powerful nation ergo we will 
> continue to do so is a very absolutist idea, and historically 
> has not held up.  If the current anti-science trend on one 
> side of the aisle continues, science and invention in our 
> country is likely to stagnate. Notice that this idea that 
> education has worked well in the past, so it is OK is also an 
> absolutist idea.  But the opposite side of the coin, saying 
> that education is not longer working well is also not 
> accurate.  In reality education may be working as well as it 
> did in the past, but that is not adequate.  It needs to be 
> modified ala PER and other research based innovations.