Alan: your view of 'science' would be FINE if it were CONSISTENT! It blatantly ISN'T!
Just like dear old Road Rat, you want to accept the views of 'science' when you LIKE what they are saying (prevention of Polio, creation of the electricity based culture, mobile phones, weather forecasts, etc. ad infinitum) but you THEN want to go all 'You can't trust THEM' when it's think you DON'T want to hear (e.g,. Global warming!)
Being honst, if your view WAS consistent, you'd be Amish! At least THEY have the courtesy of being CONSISTENT!
Without that consistency, you are simply CHERRY PICKING the parts of science that you LIKE! That is NOT acceptable! Science is a TOUGH mistress: you accept ALL of her, warts and all.... or you find you are just another ....... errrrrrr..... kerb-side 'punter' (to use a eupemism!)
Object as MUCH as you LIKE about THE science but DON'T do it in this inconsistent and, frankly, childish manner. When you object, simply explain what is WRONG with the science of the SUBJECT. Do NOT, at one moment EMBRACE the results of science (e.g., the Apple........[sic] )and then HOWL that 'NONE of them can be trusted'! It undermines your (occasionally!) valid views!
'The General Public are NOT stupid.....'????? I see, theat measn you might be able to explain a few things to me:-
1) Tony Blair being elected TWICE when EVERYBODY knew he was LYING about Iraq? 2) Big Bother 3) Simon Cowelll 4) 'Heat' magazine 5) Ant and Dec 6) People with VAST credit card debt levels? 7) Peter Andre 8) Jane Goody 9) JORDAN (the woman, not the country)!!! 10) M*O*R*R*I*S*S*E*Y?????????
When you manage those first 10, I'll cover the NEXT 100,000 points!
Ian
|
|