homepage logo

Science vs Opinion vs Faith — vs Politics & Money

By Staff | Sep 12, 2017

To the editor:

We live in a highly technical age based on the practice and on the careful and generally responsible and fair implementation of the Physical Sciences. The honest, sane and diligent layman – one who fully understands and respects the idea that the concept of demonstrable, verifiable cause and effect – overrides the word or even the faith of oracles and of plausible, slick former soap salesmen and the like, indeed notwithstanding their business, social or religious reputations and persuasive skills or of their radiated, brightly colored and glowing glamour.

When problems arise, they can usually be found lurking at the feet of that familiar agent of Confusion, Folly, Greed and Trouble, of Sickness and of Death, the BANE of humanity, the Politics grown and fueled in the dark of night by The Almighty Dollar ! ! !

I herewith suggest that the responsible layman has only a few worthwhile choices for taking action in this area, to wit :

1. Accept the sciences: Enjoy the physical, social and economic benefits which appear to accrue to all of society via the acceptance and diligent, honest and open implementation of the sciences by that society. It is only being responsible to be skeptical upon something new come to light – but such shall be expressed only by presenting verifiable scientific evidence upon which that skepticism is founded;

2. Contest the sciences: Turn to the processes of the civil law, not to the forces of propaganda – Namely to seek relief if, in his honest but untutored opinion, he is now being or will in the future somehow become physically, socially or economically unfairly damaged by the ongoing adherence of his society to one or more given aspects of science. However the entire burden of proof lies upon him, for society, by its acceptance of the Science in question, has spoken;

3. Reject the sciences: This one is easy: Simply Shut up and immediately get out of and cut all ties with the society in question!! This idea is well and properly summed up in an ancient but irrefutable axiom : “One can not have his cake and eat it too!”

When a layman citizen voices skepticism or outright rejection of the sciences, he is merely exercising (slightly overreaching) his Constitutional rights to free speech. When an elected or aspiring politician offers his opinion AND simultaneously claims that it is of course naturally superior to and indeed overrides those of the scientific community, he is, in my opinion, committing a serious crime against his society.

To avoid this, he must find his remedy in the courts, in an orderly fashion, NOT in the chaos of newspapers, NOT in that of CNN or FOX or the like – and absolutely NOT in hare-brained Tweets ! ! !

Allen N. Wollscheidt

Cape Coral