Thanks to an NPR (1) discussion this weekend I started to brood over the idea of being open-minded. When you are on a jury, you shouldn’t be open-minded about the accused: he or she IS INNOCENT until proven guilty. An open mind about the accused subverts the system. What would you think if someone seriously told you they were open-minded about the possibility of sunrise? Would the word “nutter” or “moron” spring to mind? The sun rising is settled. It rises. Likewise many other things in the world. The science of climate change has been settled for years. The climate is changing rapidly. The activity of humans is the proximal cause. So why doesn’t the word “nutter” or “moron” spring to mind when you hear someone say they have an open mind about climate change?
Simple: for years industrial interests have paid people to be deniers and paid people to publish rubbish denying the settled facts. And they have sufficiently muddied the discussions to the point where many are still thinking there is some level of doubt. Pure greed producing pure propaganda. The really sad thing here is that their grandchildren will suffer along with the rest for their greed.
It is OK to be open- minded about some things where the evidence is either not in or can be reasonably disputed. Keep an open mind about the cause of a plane crash until the investigation is concluded, or who killed your next door neighbor until the perp had been found and correctly convicted. Keep an open mind about which candidate might be the right one for you. But for heaven’s sake, close it when the evidence shows the issue is settled. Galileo was right; Darwin was right; Carl Sagan was right; Pasteur was right; embryonic stem cells have great potential to help humans get well. No place for open minds in any of these.
Science doesn’t have all the answers to every question. Some questions cannot even be addressed by science. But where evidence can be amassed and analyzed, where hypotheses can be tested and falsified, where conclusions stand the test of public scrutiny and debate, consider having a closed mind. Save your energy to deny the existence of a supreme being, not the cause of the common cold.
Image: http://www.inhisgrace.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/open_mind.jpg
1. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145732719/op-ed-the-verdict-is-in-on-climate-change
Simple: for years industrial interests have paid people to be deniers and paid people to publish rubbish denying the settled facts. And they have sufficiently muddied the discussions to the point where many are still thinking there is some level of doubt. Pure greed producing pure propaganda. The really sad thing here is that their grandchildren will suffer along with the rest for their greed.
It is OK to be open- minded about some things where the evidence is either not in or can be reasonably disputed. Keep an open mind about the cause of a plane crash until the investigation is concluded, or who killed your next door neighbor until the perp had been found and correctly convicted. Keep an open mind about which candidate might be the right one for you. But for heaven’s sake, close it when the evidence shows the issue is settled. Galileo was right; Darwin was right; Carl Sagan was right; Pasteur was right; embryonic stem cells have great potential to help humans get well. No place for open minds in any of these.
Science doesn’t have all the answers to every question. Some questions cannot even be addressed by science. But where evidence can be amassed and analyzed, where hypotheses can be tested and falsified, where conclusions stand the test of public scrutiny and debate, consider having a closed mind. Save your energy to deny the existence of a supreme being, not the cause of the common cold.
Image: http://www.inhisgrace.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/open_mind.jpg
1. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145732719/op-ed-the-verdict-is-in-on-climate-change
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment