People who want to believe in a literal Biblical interpretation of the origins of life rather than evolution really aren't a big deal. It doesn't impact my life - and it really doesn't impact theirs either. Even in terms of weird ideas about vaccination, the people who choose un-scientific beliefs are primarily hurting themselves.

On the other hand, our society is increasingly making a religion of science. Rather than skeptically viewing outrageous claims, we treat a white lab coat as if it were vestments. "Science" says something, and we act as if it were some sort of absolute truth rather than merely a theory with some degree of uncertainty attached.

All sorts of very sketchy information has become adopted as the conventional wisdom simply because people never stop to think that the 'authorities' are either overselling their confidence, biased or incorrect. Witness Al Gore claiming that New York City will be drowned under rising oceans in the near future. There is essentially no difference between his claim "climate change will drown New York" and the claim "God will punish us for our sins by drowning New Yorkers". Both are claims based in a fundamentally mythological view of the world, not a rational scientific one.

People who want to believe in a literal Biblical interpretation of the origins of life rather than evolution really aren't a big deal. It doesn't impact my life - and it really doesn't impact theirs either.

except when they want to push this into your schools, and they do

Even in terms of weird ideas about vaccination, the people who choose un-scientific beliefs are primarily hurting themselves

not true - they are increasing ANYONE's kids risk to catch serious deseases.

On the other hand <bla bla bla>

who are these people that "treat a white lab coat as if it were vestments"? pretty neat technique, invent your enemies, then attack them

Witness Al Gore claiming that New York City will be drowned under rising oceans in the near future

Well, if the world is warming up (for any reason), and there is at least some data that it does, then NYC and all coastal cities are at risk. so why exactly is this claim based on a fundamentally mythological view of the world?

"On the other hand, our society is increasingly making a religion of science. Rather than skeptically viewing outrageous claims, we treat a white lab coat as if it were vestments. "Science" says something, and we act as if it were some sort of absolute truth rather than merely a theory with some degree of uncertainty attached."

I agree. To be clear though this is not science at all that they worship, but a mysterious force and impressive paraphernalia referred to as "science".

"Witness Al Gore claiming that New York City will be drowned under rising oceans in the near future."

He never said near future. He said if Greenland or WAIS or half of each melt then here is what you get. This is true. And they will melt if emissions continue as they have, in a thousand years or so. The basic physics of why this will happen are actually pretty easy to understand.

Lack of intelligent skepticism is the real problem. All scientific conclusions are tentative -- they are all based on evidence to date and subject to revision when new observations can't be fitted into a theory. But unless you can follow the argument and test it against the supporting evidence, your belief or disbelief in the conclusions is simply driven by what you would prefer to be true. How many Americans do you suppose understand the scientific method well enough to do that?

One finds wish thinking on both sides of the popular debate on scientific issues. On global warming, for example, the deniers begin from the desire not to modify our current manner of living. Many of the popular advocates, on the other hand, don't understand the scientific issues either, but they have political or moral objections to consumer capitalism and are glad to use climate change -- socialism no longer being a viable option -- as a stick to beat it with.

ayalonValley:

Even in terms of weird ideas about vaccination, the people who choose un-scientific beliefs are primarily hurting themselves

not true - they are increasing ANYONE's kids risk to catch serious deseases.

They don't increase your kids risk to catch serious diseases because you kids are vaccinated. And herd immunity will work even despite a small percentage of dissenters.

Well, if the world is warming up (for any reason), and there is at least some data that it does, then NYC and all coastal cities are at risk. so why exactly is this claim based on a fundamentally mythological view of the world?

Actually, they're not. The sea level rise from warming is far less than the normal tidal variations. When Al Gore says that New York City is at risk of being flooded, he's stating something that - as far as our best science can tell - is absolutely false.

You've nicely proven my point. Rather than acknowledge that you don't understand the science, you treat people making "scientific-sounding" pronouncements as oracles without engaging any sort of rational skepticism. Even worse, you evangelicize your beliefs with the fervor of a crusader and the absolute certainty that only those unfamiliar with the exercise of reason can possess.

"The sea level rise from warming is far less than the normal tidal variations."

That's not a logical argument. Large natural variation says nothing about long term trends.

Yes the seas are rising.

I challenge you to give us a credible source where Vice President Gore claimed that New York City will be drowned under rising oceans in the near future.

Didn't your momma ever tell you that God will get you if you tell lies?

If (when) the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS) melts or collapses, there will be some who will blame the resulting inconveniences on God.

Why don't you google WAIS? Here's a sample: <link>

Mythology? Don't think so.

Long live the Empire!

You've nicely proven my point. Rather than acknowledge that you don't understand the science, you treat people making "scientific-sounding" pronouncements as oracles without engaging any sort of rational skepticism. Even worse, you evangelicize your beliefs with the fervor of a crusader and the absolute certainty that only those unfamiliar with the exercise of reason can possess.

that's funny. of course you understand the science perfectly, right? BTW can you show me my "fervor of a crusader"? i always wanted some.

They don't increase your kids risk to catch serious diseases because you kids are vaccinated. And herd immunity will work even despite a small percentage of dissenters

as more kids refuse vaccinations the herd immunity is under more risk of failing, at least this is current scientific thinking maybe they are all wrong and you are right.

Actually, they're not. The sea level rise from warming is far less than the normal tidal variations.

even when looking at long-term trends? have you looked at past data, comparing sea levels between ice ages and worm peaks? it's not even close.

anyway, i find it facinating that you reserve so much scorn and venom for people like Gore while being so understanding of vaccinations deniers, and creationists. for the record, yes i do think global warming as a man-made is over-hyped, but the real question here is, is it urgent to reduce burning of fossil fuel? i believe it is, because fossil fuels are non-renewable, because of polution, and because the risk of global warming is too high to ignore.

jack_cerf:

On global warming, for example, the deniers begin from the desire not to modify our current manner of living. Many of the popular advocates, on the other hand, don't understand the scientific issues either, but they have political or moral objections to consumer capitalism and are glad to use climate change -- socialism no longer being a viable option -- as a stick to beat it with.

agree. This is why i strongly believe we should not narrow the debate to Global Warming but to the broader issue of should we reduce Fossil Fuels consumption, to which i would day we must, because it's not renewable, because of polution, and because of the risks of Global Warming. the 3 reasons together should make a compeling case.

The Science on flu shots is not monolithic. There are a number of well-respected university and peer-reviewed studies published in the Lancet, the BMJ, NWJM, etc that question how effective flu shots are. There is some real data that shows they aren't effective, they provide no herd immunity due to variations and that deaths are not reduced by getting them.

So why should we all jump in and get a shot when the scientists don't all agree?

Xando wrote: "They don't increase your kids risk to catch serious diseases because you[r] kids are vaccinated. And herd immunity will work even despite a small percentage of dissenters."

You're wrong and ayalonValley was right in this case.

The frightening implications of this kind of anecdote were illustrated by a 2002 study published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases. Looking at 3,292 cases of measles in the Netherlands, the study found that the risk of contracting the disease was lower if you were completely unvaccinated and living in a highly vaccinated community than if you were completely vaccinated and living in a relatively unvaccinated community. Why? Because vaccines don’t always take. What does that mean? You can’t minimize your individual risk unless your herd, your friends and neighbors, also buy in.

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

If the anti-vaccine crowd keeps growing, even if they only persuade a minority, they still put other people at risk.

not talking about flu. the classic vaccination debate is on children deseases, mumps, measles, etc. to be honest i haven't formed a firm opinion on Flu shots.