The New York Times claims that this insane “presidential vaccine controversy” we’re all taking about raises important questions about “how to approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.”In other words, Science! is accepted by liberals by whatever popular science makes them feel good and gives them good fodder for telling conservatives off. Global warming is real and provable and if you doubt the conclusions that we liberals have reached, then you don't believe in Science! Even if the evidence contradicts science, we have a good explanation for that: You think too much.
Well, here’s another question: How do we deal with the false perception that liberals are more inclined to trust science than conservatives? Or, how do we approach the media’s fondness for focusing on the unscientific views of some conservatives but ignoring the irrational—and oftentimes, more consequential—beliefs of their fellow liberals?
It’s no big deal for us to ask Republican evolution skeptics to raise their hands or force a bogus Senate vote to try and shame Republicans, yet no reporter would ever think to ask a pro-choice politician if they believe life begins at conception. Sometimes denialism matters and sometimes it doesn't.
Though outing a GOP candidate as a skeptic of science may confirm the secular liberal’s own sense of intellectual superiority, it usually has nothing to do with policy. Then again, if you walk around believing that pesticides are killing your children or that fracking will ignite your drinking water or if you hyperventilate about the threat of the ocean consuming your city, you have a viewpoint that not only conflicts with science but undermines progress. So how do we approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by liberals?
Raghu Murtugudden, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Forecasting System at the University of Maryland Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC), and a professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, believes that the ability of humans to think is a disadvantage, when responding to climate change.
According to Professor Murtugudden (comparing our response to climate change to finding cheese in a maze);
“… mice can sense the coming change. Before it’s too late, they run through the maze and find new cheese. The men, however, fail to notice the subtle collapse in the cheese supply until it’s nearly too late. Haw, the more proactive of the little men, realizes that the cheese has all but disappeared and sets out in the maze to find new cheese. He learns a number of lessons along the way and does manage to both find new cheese and enjoy it as much as the old. Hem, however, remains unconvinced that the cheese will disappear. He also concludes that even if the cheese were to disappear, he wouldn't like the new cheese anyway.
The moral of the story is that even creatures like mice — with their simple brains — are biologically tuned to notice and rapidly respond to change, whereas humans — the most evolved life form — are bogged down by their unique ability to rationalize and reason. Some members of the species even resort to wholesale denial that change is well underway, even when said change is caused by their own actions.This may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Never mind the animals that get themselves killed constantly year after year. Beached whales can't figure out where the fuck the land is. Deer sure as hell can't understand the coming danger, I got two of them in my radiator as proof of that. Never mind all that.
We as humans have the most finely developed sense of danger ever evolved. If anything, it's our animal responses (fear) that finds danger and issues where none exist. We go searching for phantom problems on the off chance something bad may happen. My wife is in a constant state of worry about what bad thing might happen. Our reason and logic isn't the problem, it's our emotions and instincts that are causing the problems. On an individual basis those things stop us from taking risks. En masse emotions create bullshit like "Climate Science."
Or perhaps I should say "Climate SCIENCE!" as actual climate science is a good thing. Liberal Climate Science! is a very bad thing.
Post a Comment