Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Five-hole · 11-23-2009, 09:05 AM

I have to premiss my post here by saying that I'm not well-read on the subject, and I haven't read the emails in question, but from the snippets you posted, I want to say this.

I think what is going on is the kind of thing Richard Dawkins talks about with his "militant atheism" doctrine. Scientists, and the scientific community, do not traditionally present themselves as holding the kind of strong, unified conviction that most people in the popular arenas would want to be suggested or swayed by something. That's why you still hear asinine comments like "evolution is just a theory"; the terms of the discussion in the scientific community cannot be mapped onto an ignorant public. It's probably the same with global warming (or climate change, or whatever you want to call it.)

If you don't present a strong and unified front, you open yourself to the serious risk of uninformed political or populist counter-attack by people who do use the kinds of language that sway people's opinion. They're trying to change the language of debate so the public sphere understands on their terms what is going on in the scientific community.

Again, I'm just assuming here.

11-23-2009, 09:05 AM	#129
Five-hole Franchise Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The C-spot Exp:	I have to premiss my post here by saying that I'm not well-read on the subject, and I haven't read the emails in question, but from the snippets you posted, I want to say this. I think what is going on is the kind of thing Richard Dawkins talks about with his "militant atheism" doctrine. Scientists, and the scientific community, do not traditionally present themselves as holding the kind of strong, unified conviction that most people in the popular arenas would want to be suggested or swayed by something. That's why you still hear asinine comments like "evolution is just a theory"; the terms of the discussion in the scientific community cannot be mapped onto an ignorant public. It's probably the same with global warming (or climate change, or whatever you want to call it.) If you don't present a strong and unified front, you open yourself to the serious risk of uninformed political or populist counter-attack by people who do use the kinds of language that sway people's opinion. They're trying to change the language of debate so the public sphere understands on their terms what is going on in the scientific community. Again, I'm just assuming here.