264 Controversy
This is a comic strip for Kickstarter supporter Blake Ipson, dedicated to Jessica.
With the heightened political coverage, the ridiculous anti-science popping up in my newsfeed is reaching frustrating levels. Yes, I’m talking about you, Texas.
Do your part in the fight for science literacy and buy a copy of Sounds Sciencey for a friend!
Anyway, keep calm and science on!
↓ Transcript
JESSICA
Unfortunately, Students, I am mandated by the state to mention some controversy about the biology textbook. -Yes, Blake?
BLAKE
Isn't it true that there is no controversy among scientists?
JESSICA
Well, yes.
BLAKE
So what's controversial then?
JESSICA
Politicians that don't understand science.
Unfortunately, Students, I am mandated by the state to mention some controversy about the biology textbook. -Yes, Blake?
BLAKE
Isn't it true that there is no controversy among scientists?
JESSICA
Well, yes.
BLAKE
So what's controversial then?
JESSICA
Politicians that don't understand science.
0
0
2
0
There is apparently only one UK MP who is a fully trained scientist and a few others with some scientific knowledge or background. They are definitely scarce on the ground.
However, they are more than amply supported by David Tredinnick, who supports a whole range of alternative medicine ideas and who can be relied upon to bring a realistic view of the universe to parliament. As a member of the Health Select Committee and the Science and Technology Select Committee he is well in a position to forward such beliefs as “blood does not clot under a full moon” (Oct 2009) and in Feb 2015 Tredinnick wrote that astrology could be used to treat patients in the NHS and reduce over crowding.
And you think you’ve got problems in the USA? It’s a worldwide epidemic of stupidity, unfortunately sometimes evident in those in possibly significant positions of power and influence and we don’t seem to have an effective cure against it despite education’s best efforts.
ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_%28politician%29
I’m honestly jealous that the UK even has one…
No need to be jealous. Send me your address and you can have him for free. It won’t make any difference from what I can see, but maybe if you collect together all the politicians in the world with a science background you’ll get a usable handful.
As both a physician and a PhD computer scientist I am always amused and embarrassed that most of the scientists creationists trot out are actually computer science people.
There are some people with degrees who disagree (consider, for instance, Jonathan Sarfati). Are they not scientists? If you say they aren’t, I submit that that is confirmation bias. If they are scientists but their disagreement doesn’t indicate controversy, what would?
It seems to me that this (if you would use this without modification) is unfalsifiable. Perhaps (though I acknowledge that this is not fitting in a comic) it would be better to say that there is “little controversy” or that the controversy is “mainly politically motivated”. But to say that there is no controversy within the scientific community is dishonest.
To close one gap in my argument, you might also choose to claim that they perhaps are scientists but they are not actually doing science. But if that is the case, the burden of proof is on you to show that their methods (not their assumptions) do not conform to the scientific method.
Scientists*
*Operating within their field of expertise.
There is “controversy” in EVERY scientific field. However, you don’t see them mandating that for chemistry, geology, astronomy, or just about any other field do you? Furthermore, the amount of “controversy” WITHIN the field of biological science regarding evolution is more about the precise mechanisms by which it works. Only a couple of dozen could be said to deny that it works at all, and they’ve shown no plausible reasons why that haven’t been found to have more holes than a 10 lbs block of Swiss cheese, nor have they come up with a more plausible scientific alternative. As such their disputes can be safely ignored, and any supposed “controversy” is not worthy of mention. It is especially not worthy of special mention in public school classrooms where bringing up a supposed “controversy” merely lends far more credence to then cranks than they deserve.
Finally, it is not on anyone else to demonstrate that their methods do not conform to the scientific method, it’s on them to demonstrate that their methods DO conform to the scientific method. As of yet, the number of anti-evolution papers that have made it past peer review in reputable science journals could be counted on one hand. Thus it’s amply demonstrated that they aren’t doing science, they’re just attacking evolution for purely biased (and obviously religious) reasons.
Politicians WHO don’t understand scientists… 😉