Things Science Got Wrong in my Lifetime Faith Sisk December 3, 2014 There is a reason I am skeptical of all the “breaking news” stories involving science to support issues. I’ve had a lifetime to see how this pans out. While I greatly admire scientists and their application of strict standards, thorough research, publishing results for review and just plain curiosity, the results of science are not always correct. Here are a few examples, where science has changed the answers. Unfortunately, the older theories are often adhered to, in education and political rhetoric, tighter than any religious dogma and taught to students as fact. Science is not well explained to the average person; it is dumbed down or too full of catch phrases to be useful. Both researchers and the media are to blame on that score. So here are a few goodies from the past… Brain size is the measure of intelligence; thus, men are smarter than women. Whites are smarter than blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/07/you-can-increase-your-intelligence-5-ways-to-maximize-your-cognitive-potential/ https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/brain_development/brain_development.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity In the 1800’s science was becoming King…belief and religion were being discarded as a basic understanding of how life works. With Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, which itself went through several changes to later be referred to as the Theory of Evolution… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism ”Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Robert Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1]Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been used by creationists to refer to the origin of life, and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's, and his predecessors, work in place of other theories including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.” The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[4] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts such as Spencerism. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During this period, which has been called "the eclipse of Darwinism", scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form. “ To sum it up, Darwin was encouraged to find a natural explanation of mankind by his backers, and one that kept European males at the top of the heap.It was not scientific at all to decide what the answers would be and then fill in the blanks. The Mendelian theory of inheritance was re-discovered, enough fossils were coming out of the earth that evolution, and genetic inheritance as the only factor in human intelligence was assured. It took a lot of theorizing to come up with the theory of evolution. Natural selection. Population mathematics. And physical study of various animals including humans. One famous study looked at brain size and intelligence. Skulls were measured. White males came out on top, Black men and all women on the bottom. European mastery was assured. Man over women…correct. Mankind as the highest achievement of evolution…..still masters of the world, without having to look to God. I was taught this theory as fact in the 1970’s. I recently learned that the photos we were shown were biased by including very small women and some islanders who came close to microcephaly. While the bias assumed in the early theories should be obvious, they were quickly put to work and used as an excuse for all sorts of social engineering, including IQ testing for new immigrants to the US (1920’s) involuntary sterilizations of “undesirables” and Margaret Sanger’s work in creating Planned Parenthood, a eugenics movement… but science was marching on. Strangely, some women were smart enough to be scientists. The Nazis used these theories (in part) as excuses to murder Jews Gypsies Poles homosexuals and, towards the end, children who did not measure up to what the future citizens of the Third Reich should be. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005144 Science is neither moral nor immoral. Yet it can be used for political purposes and greatly harm individuals, even whole societies. The real answers are far more interesting. The neonatal brain is making connections….and some of the most important connections are to the primary caretaker. Or mom as those of us who are un-PC like to call her. Given good nurturing, good food, and stimulation ( play, tasks etc.) the brain makes an astonishing number of connections, goes through several sensitive periods, and finally results in what we would call a mature brain ( capable of independent thought, caring for self and having relationships with others) in the twenties. Child abuse and neglect, malnutrition (lack of iron is one crucial factor), and exposure to lead all play a role in lower IQ’s (and standardized tests have their own biases as well.) The brain continues to change from birth to death.” Fluid” memory does decrease with age but retained memory can be even better. Autistic children, people after strokes, even the elderly have shown that therapies to increase memory and function work! Even our horrifically abused children, with brains wired for survival mode, panic and fear and aggression with all the negative consequences of that brain bias, can respond to nurturing and therapies to try to coax the brain out of those paths. One such modality is meditation! (I would include prayer in that description.) Time and love can make the best of all of us. We are not “fated” to a particular role in society. Moreover, white men are not superior to everyone else because of evolution or brain size. Dinosaurs were cold blooded and spent all day in the sun to warm up enough to do anything. I was taught this as fact as a child. This idea has been under scrutiny for 3 decades; the most famous voice in the new theory has to have been Carl Sagan (November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996.) While our sci-fi novels and movies accepted dino warmth and more advanced behaviors immediately, the idea is still being explored. There were careers derailed by this theory; paleontologists still fight over every find being investigated and subsequent theories. Note this article from 2012. http://www.livescience.com/21215-dinosaur-bones-warm-blooded.html Seems we didn’t know as much about bones as we thought. Seems the debate about warm or cold blooded may be finally leaning to..warm blooded. The slow acceptance of a new theory with little proof to begin with, but a lot to study, is actually laudable. It is how science is supposed to work. Which leads me to……dinosaurs and dating techniques. No one thought to carbon date dinosaur bones. (It does not extend back far enough in time.) They are dated by the earth and rock they were found in. Recently however, samples have been submitted for carbon dating. To their shock, the scientists found that the samples dated to ages of less than 50,000 years. http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html Need I say that the entire discussion of this from other scientists have been…”your tests are incorrect.” I have yet to see anyone trying to date more samples in a different lab to prove or disprove the results. It is not “what’s accepted.” Therefore, it is wrong. This is a total antithesis of the scientific method (another little thing we were taught in school.) Moreover, a number of specimens have actual tissue on the bones. The structure of one, a T-Rex, proved it was a “she” and she had cells proving she was pregnant! The structures were remarkably similar to present day birds. So either tissues can survive millions of years (one current theory being floated is that the presence of iron in the soil allowed the preservation), geological dating is wrong, or carbon dating is wrong. These anomalies need to be investigated, not ignored. Everything we know about these animals is about to change again. However, no student in school will ever hear of these challenges to accepted theory. The old theories will be taught..as fact. Makes me sad. This whole area of scientific research is exciting! Coconut oil is bad for you Coconut oil is amazing..it is being researched for Alzheimer’s patients, and elderly dogs, for improving brain function. It is a marvelous cooking fat, very different in structure from most fats. It is even useful as an emollient for the skin. Which leads to a discussion of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. founded in 1971. http://www.cspinet.org/ This group, despite its claims, is not about science but about consumer advocacy…of what they have determined is good or bad for you. Calories, sugar, fats and meats bad… plant based foods good. It is vegetarianism/veganism disguised as unbiased science. They have launched media campaigns against Macdonald’s and coconut oil in movie theater popcorn. They STILL say coconut oil isn’t all that wonderful. That the saturated fat is just too much. Calories and fat are not the whole story of course…popcorn is a snack. An occasional indulgence. Even meat with its saturated fat does have health benefits for humans. I could point you to the Weston A. Price Foundation which discusses whole foods and food practices around the world. No one has ever proven that removing one element from the diet is good for you, long term. CSPI is never going to admit their campaign was well, wrong. Pseudo science at its best. Just because someone throws around scientific terms does not mean anything if the group is only coming up with data to support their own beliefs. The world will not become healthy, peaceful and serene by restricting calories and banning all animal based foods. We will have a lot of under nourished people…and eventually death. For every person. Even vegans die. I fail to see the long term health advantage. Further, not all land is suitable to growing grains and vegetables. Adding in grazers to utilize marginal areas greatly expands our ability to grow food, and the manure is natural fertilizer. Garden meadow or forest, there is a whole community that works to enhance each other. From bacteria to earthworms to fungi, to insects and birds and mammals..to the plants and trees. These cycles of interdependence are fairly well studied now. Trying to revert to a plants only plan simply does not correlate with what ecologists and others say about how these systems work. Nor does monocropping huge areas of grains guarantee anything except eventual failure as the insects and other creatures find an all you can eat buffet always in reach. Monsanto’s research in seed including GMO’s, and weed killers such as round up, are failing to provide the higher yields expected, often in only a few years from release. Deciding what foods to eat should be a function of a human making choices based on availability, knowledge, and well, taste. Pseudo science to cover belief in the morality or health giving benefits of a particular type of diet just muddies the waters. The Ozone Layer Beginning in the 1970’s, the theory that Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC’s, were make the hole in the ozone layer larger, thus leaving earth with less protection from various rays. The governments around the world moved to ban CFC’s. This was expensive; cars had to have AC systems replaced when they broke down, refrigerator coolants had to change, and for a while, you could not get aerosol hair spray. It may seem funny now, but the clarion call was that humans had damaged the earth possibly beyond repair. That skin cancers would sky rocket (they have, but from another source…tanning beds.) and other illnesses would follow. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol phased out ozone-depleting chemicals, including CFCs. Not until the 1990’s was it revealed that the hole naturally fluctuates from year to year. During the middle of the last decade it was again growing, but recently it has been shown to be shrinking. Of course human intervention is lauded. http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/509743/Ozone-layer-is-predicted-to-get-smaller-by-2025 Nevertheless, that may not be true. We may have chased a phantom, cost economies an untold amount, and given scientists careers, based on a lie. Or at least, stretching the few facts to fit certain political scenarios. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html This entry sums up the feelings and observations nicely, and shows the alarmist state activist environmentalists wish to keep us in. http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=145672 Before the Ozone Hole there was… Acid Rain Here is a good overview http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/acid_rain.aspx Beginning in the early 1970’s, we were told our manufacturing and electric plants were causing total destruction to the northern forests. Canada was receiving this acid rain from the US. We were told we had to stop polluting. Attempts to put “scrubbers” on factory smokestacks, etc. met with limited success. Lawsuits began in the 1980’s. Legislation in the 1990’s. A strange system of “trading pollution units” to keep areas below the total pollution goals was instituted. Electricity cost more…estimates are that it cost us $5 billion. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP) entailed hundreds of scientists working in small groups over a period of 10 years at a cost of $550 million. The report submitted to Congress in 1990 revealed….. “The NAPAP study found that among thousands of U.S. lakes, only 4 percent were somewhat acidic. One-quarter of those were acidic due to natural causes, leaving only 3 percent somewhat influenced by human activities. The study found many of the Adirondack lakes were acidic when explorers first entered the region, and likely contained few fish at the time. Logging the virgin forests prior to 1900 reduced the regional lake acidity. Acidity then rebounded with the decline of logging.” http://www.argee.net/Thrawn%20Rickle/Thrawn%20Rickle%2036.htm Yet we passed the clean coal legislation anyway. We have never followed through on the positive aspect of the report..that we could use lime to rebalance acidic lakes. Our children are taught in science class that acid rain is a fact and is due to humans polluting the environment. Once on the “PC” list, it seems it cannot be discarded. Availability of oil In the 1970’s, we had an oil crisis. We sat in lines on even or odd numbered days to get a pittance of gasoline for our cars. It was a political crisis, and at the same time we were told oil would run out, adding to the hysteria. Here is a good review of the “strange politics” of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis The shortages were politically and governmentally based; no scarcity actually existed. Strangely, OPEC, which ended up the loser in the battle to control oil in the 70’s, is presently trying again..to derail US shale oil production by keeping their prices low. The game for control of energy continues. Now to the science. It was predicted we would run out of oil by, as I remember it, 2000, or 2025.This fueled (pun intended) improving mileage in cars, finding alternative energy sources, and other huge social changes. Conservation became cool. This article goes over the predictions, and why those predictions were wrong. http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-peak-oil-predictions-haven-t-come-true-1411937788 There is no way that early scientists (geologists) could foresee technological advances. Fracking has changed the game; off shore oil rigs too though those developments have been halted after the BP oil spill. Our abundant supply of natural gas, which also produces less carbon and may ease concerns about global warming, is yet another factor. The problem here is, once again, with human government and politics. Supposed facts used as weapons as those in power seek to stay in power. That part of human nature will not change. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/opinion/frum-peak-oil/ Now that we have looked at the sketchy history of science and it’s misuse… Science can be skewed by bias, misused by those seeking power, forced into political constructs (such as backing a Presidential administration’s politically derived policy or changing the thrust of research grant requests to ensure the money for research. )It has been co-opted by the military (which happened quite early on…1920’s to 1930’s) It is not the “pure” theoretical field the public imagines. Fighting for teaching positons and tenure, having to publish results, or working for private business and being required to come up with “money makers” has put tremendous pressure on the scientific fields and individual scientists. While it is totally different than the 1800’s and earlier, where learning could put you on the wrong side of the Church, which resisted anything that might be seen as undermining faith in God, and had the power to punish “heretics,” what is being undermined now is the idea of the rising power of learning and technology, with scientists as the priests. Perhaps having to admit they are human, not superhuman, will be a good thing. What about global warming? There are facts about global warming..now called climate change, which bear serious scrutiny. The leading figure in all of this is former Vice President Al Gore. As he also claimed to be “the father of the Internet,” thus marking him as either very uninformed, a liar, or a master of political doublespeak, and he is not a scientist, it puts many of his projects in a more negative light. Did scientists just go along with his program of planetary reform? Use of Statistics Whether you agree that the “Climategate emails” of 2009 proved deliberately altered data or not, the fact is that various techniques for showing data favorable to your argument are common practice in everything from large business and economics to…science. For instance, the recently published statement that July 2012 was the hottest month on record, beating out the 1930’s date of 1936…was quietly retracted. The 30’s are back on top again.it was not exactly a media sensation. In fact, it has been largely ignored and the 2012 record is routinely stated as fact. http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/ I checked it out myself. Plotted July from year to year, 1936 to 2014. July 1936 is 76.80. July 2012 is 76.77. Play with the maps, look at the tables. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us As there was drought in the 1930’s, and drought now, it isn’t the weather that is an issue, it is the abuse of statistics. Here are some nice climate maps from various times. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/ Most of you have heard of the hockey stick, or adjustment method for data. It is more doublespeak, frankly. Meant to awe the average person with how he or she cannot tell the temperature by looking at a simple thermometer. The situation is now so muddled I am not sure anyone, least of all the climatologists, know the truth. And our own government has had a hand in this. Politics at its finest. We have actually been “cooling” for 15 years….which global warming advocates insist is a temporary trend. They point to increasingly violent storm events as the real measure of climate change. (There is little evidence that storms are more violent. However, with increased human population, there is more opportunity for lives and property to be damaged by these storms… Here the tornado maps… http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends ) Whenever the science is questioned, the terminology is changed...and skeptics are called names. Very scientific. A good piece for showing our change in thoughts about climate over the last few decades.. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/ And another..showing the supposedly impossible increase in the ice caps. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html We have also learned a few things since Mr. Gore’s dramatic movie. Ocean Patterns The oceans have natural cycles of cooler and warmer waters called, El Nino and El Nina. El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, El Nina the cold phase. These affect weather patterns and precipitation. The Ozone Hole… May have helped alleviate global warming! How’s that for our old enemy proving useful? http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=84&t=11 Greenhouse Gas Theory It turns out CO2 helps reflect solar heat back into space. It acts rather like a thermostat. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ While those in the climate change camp still insist CO2 warms the earth, usually CO2 rises in cold periods. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html More lovely graphs http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371 Volcanoes There was an increase in 2013 in volcanic activity, from the standard 60 to 80 events. (Not all eruptions are disasters for people.)Volcanic ash in the atmosphere does lower temperature. The numbers for eruptions are still above average for 2014. However, some scientists have already declared the rise to be due to global warming! One other factor in any numbers associated with volcanoes is the increase of ability to track eruptions. We have satellites and other recording methods not available in the past. http://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/the-number-of-volcanic-eruptions-is.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl2.471/abstract;jsessionid=0F949C642991A811A1D66638AB7FA579.f02t01 Here is the abstract. “The slow-down in global warming over the last decade has lead to significant debate about whether the causes are of natural or anthropogenic origin. Using an ensemble of HadGEM2-ES coupled climate model simulations we investigate the impact of overlooked modest volcanic eruptions. We deduce a global mean cooling of around −0.02 to −0.03 K over the period 2008–2012. Thus while these eruptions do cause a cooling of the Earth and may therefore contribute to the slow-down in global warming, they do not appear to be the sole or primary cause.” Earthquakes What about earthquakes? There has been an increase in 2014, and some of it may be due to fracking. Most events have not been life threatening. Some scientists say the melting ice sheets act like peeling off glue from tectonic plates, allowing more movement. They blame earthquake increases on..global warming. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-change-linked-to-volcano-eruptions-earthquakes Just two years later, we are seeing the ice sheets increase not decrease. Earthquakes still on the rise (but not considered statistically significant either way.) Sunspots We are presently in a Solar Maximus that is quieter than it has been for 100 years. Quiet cycles (cycles are about 11 years in length) have been correlated with cooler temperatures on earth. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html However, scientists cannot agree on whether we will continue a cooling trend through this cycle or whether the cycles even affect weather! We have a real chance for observation and data collection and furthering our understanding of climate at this point in history. Unfortunately the politicians have already tried to shut down debate; an excuse to limit resources, tax “greenhouse gases” and force new technologies to be utilized regardless of cost (though benefitting producers and investors) is just too irresistible to those who would control their societies. We can vote, we can protest, we can attempt to open up dialogue on climate change; what we can do, what we should do, and yes, evaluate the human cost in abrupt changes with how we eat, move about, and produce goods. We can reject the notion that because (give a percentage) of people believe in global warming, that makes it a fact. Opinion polls have no basis in determining scientific fact. Once “most” people believed the earth was flat. Didn’t change the facts. If these early theories of climate change prove true, all the disbelief in the world will not change it. I believe scientists need to be encouraged to study the interacting cycles on this complex planet and perhaps give us better information in the future. Using only one factor (CO2) is probably too simplistic. There are challenges to the conclusions which are currently being ignored. In the interim, we have lost the impetus to do much about pollution. In an interesting political twist our President has decided we will lower emissions from coal plants to lower ozone emissions, not CO2. It furthers the cause of shutting down coal but on an actual pollutant not CO2 (which plants utilize; a fact often overlooked). I expect this to be politically explosive. I also wonder if the CO2 argument has lost steam and ozone will be one of the new buzzwords for politicos. Evolution A review of the origin of life experiments..which have all failed outside of lab conditions. We can make strings of proteins, but they do not progress. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/presto_the_origin_of_life_in_f049221.html Mutation As The Basis of Evolution What I was taught in school….by science teachers…. Only one in one million mutations can survive. Less than that will be beneficial to the organism (and therefore passed to offspring). Which means finding out these “classic gene sweeps” or new diversity, turns out to be rare should not be a surprise.. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/920.figures-only Our models for the beginning of life and diversifying through tiny changes simply do not work. So evolutionists now propose a “leap” theory..instead of tiny changes over time, fully developed new forms. While it explains the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, it does not explain how the changes occur. The trees showing relationships of animals and evolutionary relationships are changing... those models are not representative of the actual relationships between animals genetically. It’s not a tree of life...it’s a web. http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/hgt/JTheoBiolvol112pp333-343yr1985.PDF "Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis... compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed." "The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories." " 'We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology [design or shape] entirely,' says Syvanen." "It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works." "Rose goes even further. 'The tree of life is politely buried, we all know that,' he says. 'What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.' Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says." " 'The tree of life was useful,' says Bapteste. 'It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on.' " Interesting. The science is wrong but evolution is a fact. The intellectual dishonesty is astounding. I found this summation on this webpage. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html Haeckel’s drawing of embryos. This famous set of comparisons, drawn in 1868 by Ernst Haeckel, and dismissed as fraud by other scientists in 1874, is still used to support evolution in schools. (That embryos echo evolution by going through amphibian and other stages before differentiating. He stretched the truth by making embryos look much more alike than actual specimens have ever been.) I was shown this set of drawings. (1970’s or 100 years after the fraud was discovered) The fact that they do not line up with actual specimens was never discussed. Here are the drawings Current evolutionist , Michael Denton, has put forth drawings of the earliest stages of embryo growth ( not possible 130 years ago) they show the first stages of life to be unique in 3 types of animals. And once again, I think this is great news…that there are scientists committed to truth and looking to formulate models which more closely approximate the actual facts of biology. I just wish the education system was keeping up. Teaching 130 year old science as “fact” is ludicrous. In Darwin’s world, competition was the only basis for species to flourish or die. And they must change, continually. Red of tooth and claw indeed. This mechanistic approach to biology was understandable given the time; religion decreasing in importance, the beginnings of the industrial age (they could figure out machines. Everything became viewed as a machine)….His ideas were adopted by the burgeoning world of science. What the newest types of research..gene mapping, microbiology, etc, are showing is an amazingly complex web of life. But few will step out and challenge accepted theory, even when it is obviously dated.
Plants can teach us much about the nature of our world. It turns out, plants are not always competing. In fact, they tend to arrange themselves in groupings that enhance each individual’s capacity to grow and reproduce. The concept is presented as “guilds.” I suggest you take a look at permaculture or ecology sites to learn more about this. In conclusion, I leave you with this quote. Zombie science "Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status." To say "that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication. And anyway, there are... the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart." "Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down." "Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science." Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329. Sexuality Mapping the human genome has led to excitement and theories from geneticists. Although this research is in effect brand new, it is used to proclaim everything from alcoholism to (male) homosexuality to be genetic. We are right back to where we started with Darwin and the misuse of science to promote social change. Of interest...The number of self-reporting gays and lesbians is actually quite small. The numbers have not changed much with public acceptance.More recently studies show that up to half of self reporting gay people later drop that designation, this does not seem to be in conjunction with religion or therapy, They just move on with their lives. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf Published July 15, 2014 Summary: 96.7 % of Americans reported as straight 1% report as gay or lesbian .7% report as bisexual What about public perception? http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx When queried, Americans by and large think that gays are over 20% of the population. Even the Kinsey report in 1948, now shown to have been seriously flawed, only estimated 10% of men in the US were gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports The current cry is that homosexuality is genetic and there is a marker in men..not in women or bisexuals…that “causes” homosexuality. http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=77 http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/06/17/the-latest-in-scientific-research-there-is-no-gay-gene#.VHxrWzHF_0w And for the..”it’s genetics stupid” folks http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/ It claims women who produce many children and have male gay relatives have this gay marker are passing on the trait. Nowhere does it say that genetics are the only factor. Even the most ardent supporters of this research cannot say that environment does not play a role. What is not discussed is the failure to establish concrete examples of absolute correlation. Gay men (presumed to have the marker), with twins do not show a 100 percent correlation. Gay twins can have straight brothers. There is a higher correlation than a random control group; brothers of gay men also have a higher rate of being gay. Family conditions and parental roles may have as much to do with this as genetics. It is now revealed that this was THEORETICAL GENETICS,there was no data, no studies, just a ...guess. used to forward the gay marriage debate, it then disappeared into the ether. Another studied condition thought to be genetic, alcoholism, shows the same type of confused pattern. Not all children of alcoholics are alcoholics. I attempted to compare the “gay gene” (given that I had no other basis except for genes connected to our brains; I am not calling homosexuality a disease) to a problem widely regarded at genetic…schizophrenia. Strangely, most published studies are from the 1940’s to the 1960’s, studying twins, schizophrenic children in foster care, etc. The closest to actual gene studies I could find suggested a problem with mitochondrial errors, etc. it will be many years before mental disorders will have more genes identified and possible therapies developed. I suppose even showing how inconclusive research is on this aspect of brain function, shows how limited our understanding is of the brain, and sexuality, in general. Current Understanding of Human Sexuality. http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/sexual_health/development.html Kids start out with learning about their own bodies, and with forming relationships with their parents. Mom then Dad become important to both girls and boys. Sexuality is just one more aspect that matures along with the child. By age 2 or 3 they are beginning to figure out gender roles. By preschool, they may say they have a boyfriend or girlfriend, or spend some time playing “doctor.” By school age other body facts...like pregnancy, adult sexual behavior, inappropriate jokes they do not understand but think are hilarious…they will go on to friendships, to being excited and scared by puberty and their body changes to learning how to date and form “grown up” relationships. The emotional and social context takes priority. While the rate or stages of growth are genetic, the context...family pressure, peer pressure, etc. are without a doubt as important or more important. Becoming a fully functional human being does mean the ability to form romantic commitments or at least sexual ones. It is as much a set of learned behaviors as inherited ones. There is no reason to assume that gay individuals are not also socialized in all the same contexts as straight individuals. How we express our sexuality is also dependent on cultural norms, parental teaching about morality and religious beliefs. Quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time". One study has suggested "considerable fluidity in bisexual, unlabeled, and lesbian women's attractions, behaviors, and identities". We have once again tried to shove something complex and changeable into little ”boxes” where we label people. And keep them forever. There is a line of thought among feminists that women should be freely able to choose their sex partners without having to conform to genes or expectations. This choice is called political lesbianism. I find it fascinating that women feel they can chose and men insist they cannot. The debate about (male) gays being ”born that way” implies the same sort of thinking as is applied to misbehaving straight men. “They can’t help it.” “Men are dogs.” At one time people of the black community were labeled in the same way. All it took was a black skin for one to be labeled promiscuous, or bestial. This disturbing thought…that men are just unable to control their sexual urges, and therefore we just have to “forgive” the bad little boys, totally negates all the advantages of being human…. we can make choices. Same sex attraction is one thing; actions are another. Anyone can be virginal, celibate (neither choice is deemed of value in our current culture) single, single but looking, monogamous, or choosing multiple partners of the same or both sexes or many partners at once. A person can be careful and use appropriate precautions or refuse to look into self-protection. A person can give up sexual contact for religious or other reasons. Anyone can simply not discuss their choices, or can be open about their sexual experience. People can change their minds and their lifestyles and choose significant others not in line with their “basic” orientation. Once in the privacy of their own homes, they can be acting in any way as they wish and with no relationship to how they identify themselves in public. These ideas, all disproven, are now used to forward the transgender debate. Once again, brain scans show the same range as homosexuals.. in the birth sex, not the opposite sex,( neuroplasticity can account for the differences between heterosexual and homosexual) twin studies...no correlation, and the latest theory chimerism, suggests they have a medical condition, like downs syndrome and other disorders, how utterly disrespectful. Pseudo science for a political agenda. The attempt to line up genetics with what was being pushed by the so-called “gay agenda” was an attempt to prove that gays experienced the same loss of rights as blacks in America. While a gay man can hide his choice of lovers, a black man cannot hide his skin color. There is no comparison between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. Using (barely studied and iffy at best) science to push things along (nondiscrimination and same sex marriage) when in fact this is an obvious political agenda, just shows that scientists are human...they can go along with the flow. The media hype has changed public perceptions so much it seems to assume that a large segment of the population is GLBT when in fact it is only a small percentage. This agenda is about social mores and equality in society not about learning about human sexuality or even consensus on child rearing practices (future members of society.) It also was used to set apart opponents to changing laws and mores as ignorant and strictly interpreted Christianity as somehow perverted for believing only heterosexual marriage should occur. I don’t like bully tactics. I don’t think anyone does. Yet respected scientists have joined the fray, defending a now obsolete theory and setting themselves up as icons (much like the other side with creationism or intelligent design.) And persistently insisting on genetics as the ”answer” to our questions about homosexuality. They have added weight to the argument that is perhaps not warranted. There is an even darker side to this particular set of theories. Should political winds change course, there might be interest in using genetic markers to find homosexuals and remove them from society or abort babies with the marker as undesirable, etc. (whether the marker actually indicates homosexuality or not.)That is the stuff of nightmares. No one should lose their life because of how they use their genitals. And humans should not be sorted by genetic perfection, the latest rabbit hole is Crispr technology to eliminate genetic disease.( yet the changes so far have caused mosaicism, changes through the whole organism, latest tests have lessened that risk, but not eliminated it) But it won;t stop there.Iceland already has encouraged abortion to eliminate Downs syndrome. Undoubtedly, we will hear the same tired old science quotes trotted out whenever there is disagreement with the agenda of the moment. Evolution to sexuality to climate change, we live in a culture that splits us into factions and labels opponents as “subhuman” or “deranged.” If scientists have become stuck in parroting old beliefs to keep their jobs, if politicians are pushing any one idea or solution, it is going to be up to the public to raise questions every time a simplistic idea is passed off as “undeniable truth.” They need to educate themselves about the basics of science, and attempt to get more correct, newer science into the classrooms to better prepare our students, both for anti-propaganda purposes and to mentor students who wish to have careers in science .Perhaps we could teach a course in the history of science. Alchemy to chemistry. Darwinism to gene mapping. Then teach students biological theory as it stands now. Perhaps with better understanding of what the issues are, and what scientific knowledge actually brings to the question, and therefore less manipulation from special interest groups/ politicians, etc., we can free scientists to vigorously pursue promising new answers in many areas of study. |
Faith and ReasonA grandma's perspective on a few things.. Archives
May 2020
Categories<a href="http://www.ontoplist.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ontoplist.com/images/ontoplist50.png?id=553a2c21e7ccf" alt="Blog Directory & Business Pages - OnToplist.com" border="0"></a>
|