I sometimes come across people accusing others of being "anti-science".
Generally this term is used to by a person to describe someone who holds a different opinion to themselves on a topic on which they believe “the science is settled”. Examples may include: Darwinian evolution, vaccine effectiveness, laws and safety, man-made climate change, GMO and EMF safety, etc.
In each of these areas there is a strong consensus about what the truth is and thus people will say “the science is settled”. Others disagree. These folks who disagree are often labelled “anti-science”.
What would someone who was truly anti-science look like?
A person who was truly "anti-science" would be of the opinion that all scientific endeavors should cease forthwith.
The question is: do people with minority opinions on various scientific topics fit into this category? If they do I have never met such a person. Even literal believers in the Biblical creation story don’t suggest all science should cease immediately or be completely ignored. They may disagree with some of the commonly agreed upon findings of science or they may wish for science to focus on areas it currently ignores, but they don’t go around suggesting science, itself, should be banned.
So we can see this term “anti-science” is in general quite meaningless, and is used by those who wish to limit debate in an area and smear their opponents with a meaningless and fraudulent term. In other words, its purely a political tactic designed to discredit others and is used only by those with a poor ability to frame an argument!
Comments
Post a Comment