I wish science would stop coming up with scientific excuses for people who hate science. It does appear, however, that there are two distinct personality types---conservative and liberal. I figure there must also be variations and gradations between the two such as moderates, independents or undecideds.

There is a mindset. For instance, once conservatives began to hate Al Gore it didn’t matter whether what he said was true or not---they just wouldn’t believe any of it. Well, I hate Al Gore myself---but I realize what he says on climate change is, indeed, generally based on real science. The reason I lost respect---no, hate---Al Gore is because he didn’t put up a fight and allowed the Supreme Court to halt an election process, to install the other guy as President and got us stuck us with a magical-thinking Antiscientist. Gore said he didn’t want to put the nation through a terrible, divisive battle---but just look at us now!

Nevertheless, Gore is pretty much right on climate-wise and I must not be a conservative because I can analyze his statements logically even though I have lost respect for his abandoning America to the other guy and those forces who cannot abide logic and science.

There is another tie-in here. I’ve been saying for years that the antiscience public relations arm of the religious creationist, antievolutinists had set the public-opinion stage for the commercial, energy-company antiscience of climate change deniers---especially those who want us to keep thinking that all the crap Humans dump into the air and land and oceans just couldn’t have anything to do with warming the Planet.

Then, last year, Al Gore said on Charlie Rose that the Christian Coalition was getting on board with climate change---because it’s all about stewardship of “God’s creation” and all that stuff. I always wondered about that.

Well, now it turns out that the religious, antiscientific forces of antievolution have joined together with the energy company-funded forces of anti-climate change in a political and legal coalition against science. That makes sense because of the political advantage---though it doesn’t do squat to change the science. It only makes the public even more ignorant about science than they already were. What does science have to say about this?

According to an article by George Monbiot (The Unpersuadables: When Facts Are Not Enough - Published on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 by The Guardian/UK ) “There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research…As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway.”

Monbiot cites a 2008 Washington Post summary of “recent psychological research on misinformation…[which] shows that in some cases debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government's claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”

In other words, this shows that logically and factually demonstrating that a story is false, actually increases the number of people (conservatives) who believe in the fake story!?!

For the record, no one has ever found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…but why do I waste my time pointing this out? It will only make some people believe even harder that there were, are, indeed, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Anyway, Monbiot cites a January article in the science journal Nature for a possible explanation. “…people tend to ‘take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd.‘ Those who see themselves as individualists [sic] and those who respect authority, for instance, ‘tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire.’ Those with more egalitarian values are ‘more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted.’ “

“Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. ‘As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information.’ The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer report, rather than the information it contained. ‘” [How generous!]

“Such divisions in basic personalities, researchers have found, are a better explanation for contradictory reactions to the same information than other factors.”

I, of course, have my own opinions. To reject science one must reject reason, logic, evidence and the concept of facts---I mean, that‘s what science is all about because that is how the scientific process works. And science is a process---not a fixed set of absolute truths one can just believe in and forget about how they were derived.

I believe that people hate science, logic and reason because they have no control over the outcome of the process. And because people hate to be told and then have it factually proven they are wrong about just about anything.

To me it’s no wonder people get angry at those who point out the reasonable reality, the inevitable logic of a system of proof, the evidence that proves they are wrong. People hate to be told they are wrong---especially people who actually refer to themselves as “the right.”

I think I know why some people don’t like science. Because they can’t change the process of logic to make it fit their illogical, magical beliefs. They can’t wish it away. They can’t legislate it away. They can’t pray it away. The forces of antiscience can hire lawyers to litigate to change scientific findings. They can lobby politicians to alter facts and evidence. They can go to a clergyman and get reassurance about the divine version of reality. They can flood the media with "alternative science." But in the end, since science is a process---a systematic, relentless methodology for getting rid of false evidence and false conclusions---there is not one single thing anyone can do to change scientific outcomes or findings and still call it “science.” Except to come up with better evidence---and that’s hard work, requires tremendous intellectual exertion and the courage to see reality face on. I believe the rejection of science includes an element of extreme intellectual laziness, emotional inflexibility and deep, spiritual fearfulness.

In any case, to attack and vilify science is to reject reason, to deny logic and to deliberately fail to recognize or acknowledge facts and evidence---a recipe for societal, political and Planetary disaster.

Moral systems should overcome our emotions and tell us Humans how to properly use and how to deal with the knowledge and technology provided by science---but not to arbitrarily alter the findings. Instead, we use our emotions to deny those facts we just don’t like, don’t understand or fear outright.

Science is the closest thing we have to material truth. Our system of morality should guide us in the wise use of the incredible and constantly-growing body of knowledge and technology provided by science. Instead, we use technology to amass wealth, to grow fat, to force our illogical, magical beliefs on others---and to reinforce our own ignorance.

Here’s another excuse for the antiscientists: Monbiot points out that science is often so complex as to be incomprehensible to most people---the public even holds the image of the “mad scientist.” That’s all true but think (pardon me!) about this: Not a minute of our lives goes by without being influenced by science---and yet the people are ungrateful and belligerent toward science and scientists.

The trouble with science is that it is definitely not magic. But to the ignorant, the uncomprehending, the intellectually slothful, the emotionally-stunted, the ideologically-fixed and the spiritually-insecure---science looks like magic and boy, do they fear this appearance, this illusion, of magic because magic is the way they really think! Magic is the only thing we respect or fear anymore.

It gets worse. We use and depend every single hour of our days on the technological fruits of science. But when scientists dare tell us to go easy on using the technology, to use some restraint, to not be so greedy, to use it more wisely---we suddenly turn mean and nasty. We act, or are genuinely, stupid about science. Then we turn on science when things don‘t work out the way we planned.

We depend on scientists in just about every facet of our lives---and yet we berate and disbelieve them; insult them and call them evil when we screw it up. No wonder we Humans are such nasty, small-minded, two-timing, two-bit varmints!

What I find truly ironic in this age of rampant superstition, irrational fears, technologically-aided violence and absolute denial of reality---this age of magick---is that science, or rather the technology provided by science, is what gives the superficial appearance, the veneer, the facade of enlightened, intellectual, logical attainment to the ignorant but modern-looking activities of us Humans. I mean, how ignorant, how unenlightened could we be if we can blow up primitive villagers from thousands of miles away with just the touch of a button and then watch them disintegrate on the screen? How ignorant could we be if we are so advanced?

Rudy Wittshirk

“I somehow feel, in spite of everything, that people are good at heart.” - Anne Frank