Year 3, Month 4, Day 1: Do You Know Where Your Fools Are? I Do.

Three actual scientists are heard in the pages of the Tennesseean, arguing against the newly introduced legislation that would require all kinds of silly-ass nonsense to be taught equivalently in science classes:

Almost 90 years ago, Tennessee became a national laughingstock with the Scopes trial of 1925, when a young teacher was prosecuted for violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution. With the passage of two bills, House Bill 368 and Senate Bill 893, the Tennessee legislature is doing the unbelievable: attempting to roll the clock back to 1925 by attempting to insert religious beliefs in the teaching of science.

These bills, if enacted, would encourage teachers to present the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of “controversial” topics such as “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” As such, the bills are misleading, unnecessary, likely to provoke unnecessary and divisive legal proceedings, and likely to have adverse economic consequences for the state.

It is misleading to describe these topics as scientifically controversial. What is taught about evolution, the origin of life, and climate change in the public school science curriculum is — as with all scientific topics — based on the settled consensus of the scientific community. While there is no doubt social controversy about these topics, the actual science is solid.

This one was a bit long, but they had a 250-word limit, so I let myself go a bit. Maybe there’ll be another paper with the same article tomorrow, and I can cut things down. Sent March 26:

The difference between social and scientific controversy is simple: the former is based on opinion, the latter on facts. Since opinions change with each successive generation, we can safely say our species will keep generating new social controversies for millennia to come.

Science, on the other hand, builds knowledge incrementally through a process of rigorous testing and analysis. A scientific controversy is created either by a new fact that doesn’t fit the accepted consensus understanding (as J.B.S. Haldane famously said when asked what could falsify evolutionary theory, “Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian”), or by a new theory that offers a more robust explanation for the facts that already exist.

Neither of these criteria are met by the arguments of climate change denialists. Their cries of “teach the controversy” are disingenuous; shall we teach the medieval theory of humours, phlogiston, or the “luminiferous aether”? These were all controversial in their time, and all have been disproved and relegated to the scrap heap of history.

Rather, the individuals fighting genuine education on climate change do it for simple and selfish reasons: they don’t wish to be inconvenienced. The corporations funding elaborate misinformation campaigns about global warming do it because they don’t wish to surrender their profit margins.

The scientific consensus is unambiguous: if we continue our profligate consumption of fossil fuels our CO2 emissions will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, with consequences including rising sea levels, droughts, and extreme weather. Unless we change our ways, our descendants will indeed inherit the wind.

Warren Senders