It's no surprise that a website like
Conservapedia provides a megaphone for
creationism and
climate change denial. What is remarkable is that this anti-science attitude extends all the way down to the seemingly apolitical laws of physics, namely Einstein's theory of
relativity. Putting aside Conservapedia's handling of the topic -- with its careful cherry-picking of facts, and quoting physicists out of context -- what on earth has relativity got to do with political ideology in the first place?
The conservative magazine
The American Spectator entered the fray, too, publishing
an article which questions relativity.
Conservapedia styles itself as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". (It has to be trustworthy ... there's Old Glory flying triumphantly right there in the logo.)
Unlike Wikipedia, "We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts" over at Conservapedia. I think that says more about the website's attitude towards facts than its authors intended.
Not too long ago, I read of a math textbook used in home schooling that does not discuss set theory on the grounds it is ungodly.
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteSeriously how much fun is it to shoot fish in a barrel? But to answer your questions:
Creationists believe that when it comes to the existence of the physical world, nothing exists other than by God. This extends to mathematics which works only because God wills it to. But the main reason to attack theories such as Relativity is that it points to the universe being more than 5,000 years old. I'm not sure about why set theory made the cut, but it did seem to me like it might have been invented by the Devil when I was trying to help my kids with their homework.
I agree that it would be best if religious beliefs did not (mis)inform one’s view of the physical world. But let’s not over generalize or feel too superior. The fact that a certain group might also embrace a particular set of principles doesn’t necessarily say anything about those principles. For instance if Americans who believe in Marxism vote mostly Democratic when the Communist Party is not on the ballot it says nothing (well very little anyway) about the Democratic Party.
As an aside: Rightly or wrongly and despite its increasing usage I find the term ‘climate change denial’ highly offensive. I would appreciate it if you would find another way expressing that.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, we should not over-generalize or feel superior. This isn't about a (mainstream) political party or ideology. I chose this topic partly because I am a physicist-in-training, so I can vouch for the fact that the case against Einstein's theory rests on cherry-picking evidence and exaggerating uncertainties, and is advocated by a tiny, ideologically-driven minority. The other reason I wrote about this is because I have discussed the evidence for / against relativity with a member of said ideologically-driven minority. Although aspects of it were fun, it was more like nailing jelly to a wall than shooting fish in a barrel.
My apologies for offending you with the term "climate change denial", Fred. That was not my intent. However, the term accurately describes Conservapedia's climate change page, which begins thus: "Global warming is the liberal hoax ..." Compare that to the regular Wikipedia, which defines climate change denial as "a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming ... especially for commercial or ideological reasons." Bingo.
I suspect your sensitivity to the term further highlights the disconnect between the public debate (think-tanks, ideologues) and the scientific consensus. I blogged about this before. Let me explain by going back to good ol' Einstien's theory of relativity: the occasional serious physicist who fundamentally challenges Einstein (usually on some peripheral issue, like the early universe) will acknowledge the fact that his position is that of a tiny minority, that Einstein's theory has admittedly explained a huge body of experiments, etc. Such detached objectivity and factual correctness must be distinguished from, e.g., the pages of Conservapedia, which ignores experiments which support Einstein's theory, quotes famous physicists out of context so they appear to oppose relativity, downplays the scientific consensus or dismisses it as some kind of conspiracy, etc.
Climate change is like that. Legitimate research must be distinguished from the phenomenon of climate change denial: ideologically-motivated arguments which lack scientific rigor, put forth by far more lobbyists and think-tanks and politicians than scientists, who keep rehashing their (disproven) arguments about sunspots, their (out of context) quotes from eminent scientists, etc. Scientists call this climate change denial / contrarianism, not out of their desire to offend, but out of their habit of accurately describing things without giving a thought to whom they might offend.
Here's a Nature article which refers to anti-climate change think-tanks more politely as "sceptics" (I disagree with that terminology, since all scientists are skeptics and what these organizations are doing is closer to PR than science):
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html
Your last paragraph is succinct and gets to the heart of this. I'll add some backstory; and mention that Freyguy was smart to call SR/GR (Special/General Relativity) *seemingly* apolitical. In fact, Einstein's theories were the greatest political controversy in the face of scientific truth- with the possible exception with those of Darwin. This article shows some of the reasons behind this- but whitewashes (so to speak) the influence of hatred against Jews that was so common in Europe at the time. It shows that Einstein should have won about 10 +/- 1 Nobel Prizes; and that the prize selection committee only gave him one because they were losing a huge amount of credibility for ignoring his contribution each year:
Deletehttps://everything-everywhere.com/how-many-nobel-prizes-should-albert-einstein-have-won/
We shouldn't expect much less from Germany's "Public Enemy #1" (source: time.com/Einstein-England ) Amusingly, Einstein's response at the published book called "100 authors against Einstein" was "if I had been wrong, one would have been sufficient." Really, the main reason Hitler (and also Conservapedia) hated on Einstein so much were his politics, which were almost identical to those of George Orwell, authored "Why I Write", saying in it that
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism... When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art’. I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention..."
(full text at OrwellFoundation.com/Orwell/why-i-write )
Modern conservatives, of course, HATE democrats, socialists, and democratic socialism - but LOVE quoting Orwell. :) Einstein himself touted socialism as a step toward a better world, but also warned of some of its shortcomings and possible flaws. I *highly* recommend taking the time to read his "Why socialism?" essay, authored in 1949 in the Monthly Review:
MonthlyReview.org/Why-socialism . In it, you will notice Einstein is very aware / respectful of "science skeptics" (which is a hilarious idea, as a retired scientist, I will mention that scientists are super skeptics, generally.)
"...For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
he continues:
"Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered."
We should have listened to Einstein.