?

Log in

curiosity

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
reject reality

The Science Inquisition

It worries me when advocates of Science start threatening anyone who isn't up with the latest dogma. Instead of hellfire they threaten that anyone who disagrees with the current dogma should be denied cars, computers, and medical care. This New Inquisition sounds just like the old one. In this Cobert interview it is clear that Michael Specter isn't even after the Unbelievers (Christians), he is after the heretics, the people who do believe in Science but aren't doctrinally pure.

Comments

Um, that is not in the slightest bit clear to me.

I can barely see how it might be inferred, but it is a really wild leap and stretch.

Not getting vaccinated against, say, scarlet fever means that you run a not infinitesimal risk of catching scarlet fever. If you catch it, even with the best of medical care, you run a significant risk of death, or a shortened life span.

Stating that fact is not threatening anyone. Neither is pointing out that if a person refuses vaccines out of some dispute about the statistics that support their use, that same person would be inconsistent to accept the best of medical care after contracting it, and therefore would face a higher chance of dying, is also not threatening anyone.

And that is what he was (to me) clearly referring to.

Edited at 2010-06-26 12:11 am (UTC)
"Do you want to die when you are 37" is a threat. And it is clearly intended as such.
No, it is not. Not clear. Not even a reasonable inference.

If we didn't have all the advancements that science has brought us, most people would die long before reaching the age of 37. That is a simple statement of fact, somewhat elided for dramatic effect.

I'm sorry. There is no way to reasonably infer that as a threat. None.
I understand that it is not clear to you. That is part of the problem and I'm sorry that there is no way for me to solve that for you.
By the way, coming from someone who once accused me of sophistry for making a quite reasonable logic distinction between two vaguely related ideas, this whole irrational statement is very hard to swallow.
What argument was that? I don't doubt that it occurred I have just forgotten it.