First, what’s up with prefixes and hyphens? https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/576/01/ http://www.allaboutlearningpress.com/how-to-teach-prefixes#Six rules for hyphens with prefixes Prefixes are normally not hyphenated.

The two authorities I consider definitive agree, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/content-detail.html, and http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html.

Anyway, if one types antiscience in a browser (at least Chrome), it shows as misspelled. It isn’t, but it is often misused. Typing it into Google search brings up what you might expect. I see wikipedia first, and it is a sad article. I suppose most scientists are antiscience if I’m to accept this statement, “Antiscience proponents also criticize what they perceive as the unquestioned privilege, power and influence science seems to wield in society, industry and politics; they object to what they regard as an arrogant or closed-minded attitude amongst scientists.”

Richard Feynman strongly advocated questioning authority, doubting, and digging deep into all topics of interest. He and nearly all great scientists have denounced any attitude of privilege or power in science.

What the statement seems to be describing is scientism. That is another word Chrome doesn’t know how to spell, and it is another word misused across the internet. Most people see different results in Google (et al.) searches, but the first several results presented indicate scientism is simply an acceptance of science as useful. No. Put simply, scientism makes science into a religion. It is the deification of science itself. That is a sad state. One cannot place ultimate moral authority and purpose into empirical experimentation and observation.

As to accepting science as useful and trustworthy overall, well, that is what normal people do. Scientism is a more dangerous form of superstition, at least when “scientists” are afforded the status of priests or shaman.

For the most part, everyone accepts science as good and useful, but people also have priorities, and when a higher priority contradicts simple facts, the facts are sidestepped in some way. Accordingly, we must guard against getting our priorities out of whack. As Feynman said, we must be careful not to fool ourselves, and we are the easiest ones to fool.

Getting to my point, it is in vogue to decry anyone who does not support evolution or isn’t afraid of global warming as antiscience. What I don’t get is how the two can be equated. Biology is well established and accessible to anyone who wants to look into it. It is easy to look up related information, it is easy to look around and see the biological similarities, and it is even easy to do some of the pertinent experiments for yourself. None of that is true with regard to what is referred to as climate science.

The people who reject biological evolution tend to see it as a threat or as opposed to their faith and innermost beliefs. It is understandable that they would be weary, but it is apparent that as more religious leaders come to grips with the subject, that more people accept the facts and quit being afraid.

Not so with global warming alarmism. First, it is alarmism; the same as any ancient apocalyptic or any modern doomsday cult. That alone should clue folks were the science resides in the matter. Further, the people who oppose alarmism tend to be well educated, scientists and engineers, and they tend to have no apparent religious motives, but rather scientific motives.

Overall, I assert the word antiscience seldom applies, and it should be used very sparingly. Name calling is emotionalism. Science cannot afford to succumb to emotionalism.

Advertisements