Demigorgon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 261
Michael Crichton lets them have it.
- Thread starter Demigorgon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael crichton
Thanks, interesting reading.
I think you could lift the logic of that speech and apply it to other things. His opening comments on the beliefs of a garden of eden, reminded me of how little history people know. People romantacize the noble savage, to be sure, but they also don't have a perspective on anything from 1000 to a mere 100 years ago. I don't see how anyone who studies history cannot become more and more skeptical of everything.
There's also the economics of dogmatism, or "religion" as he calls it. Tragedy sells. Fear sells. It kept the shamans employed. It keeps the cable news people employed. In past news stories, I remember hearing that the Japanese were purchasing most of the downtown areas in the major USA cities, that the savings and loan scandal would bankrupt the USA, that there would be no more natural gas by 2010, that we would run out of internet addresses by 1999, and of course that there will be so many people, we'll all have 1 square meter so stand on by 2050. That news just makes more money than "Most things are ok, and we are working to make it better."
I think you could lift the logic of that speech and apply it to other things. His opening comments on the beliefs of a garden of eden, reminded me of how little history people know. People romantacize the noble savage, to be sure, but they also don't have a perspective on anything from 1000 to a mere 100 years ago. I don't see how anyone who studies history cannot become more and more skeptical of everything.
There's also the economics of dogmatism, or "religion" as he calls it. Tragedy sells. Fear sells. It kept the shamans employed. It keeps the cable news people employed. In past news stories, I remember hearing that the Japanese were purchasing most of the downtown areas in the major USA cities, that the savings and loan scandal would bankrupt the USA, that there would be no more natural gas by 2010, that we would run out of internet addresses by 1999, and of course that there will be so many people, we'll all have 1 square meter so stand on by 2050. That news just makes more money than "Most things are ok, and we are working to make it better."
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Er . . Michael Crichton isn't a skeptic. Take a look a this.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Books/Tra.html
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Books/Tra.html
Er, nobody said he was. That speech IS a good read, regardless of whether the author is fundamentally a skeptic or not. The Bible is also a good read.
Michael Chricton, in that speech, is arguing for science to drive the environmentalist movement, as opposed to old, flawed, "religious" beliefs. I agree with alot of what he says there, and I disagree with some of it, too.
Michael Chricton, in that speech, is arguing for science to drive the environmentalist movement, as opposed to old, flawed, "religious" beliefs. I agree with alot of what he says there, and I disagree with some of it, too.
bjornart
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,568
And I can tell you that the opposite conclusions of what you're preaching against was published in those journals as well. That the population explosion has disapeared in part because the calculations were wrong and didn't take into consideration that development in Africa would stall and preserve a state of horrific infant mortality rates, plus the new-comer AIDS, or that China and India, the most populous nations on earth would maintain a rigorous one child per family policy and make a gigantic effort to promote family planning.
The problem is science filtered through media, catered to media even, and fiction writers perpetuating this while pretending they are doing the oposite.
PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
DDT
DDT not a carcinogen and did not affect populations of organisms?
What robust proof and consensus in the scientific community is there to support this?
I know most of the evidence supporting the banning is 30 or 40 years old, but what is the latest evidence that Crichton refers to?
DDT not a carcinogen and did not affect populations of organisms?
What robust proof and consensus in the scientific community is there to support this?
I know most of the evidence supporting the banning is 30 or 40 years old, but what is the latest evidence that Crichton refers to?
DDT is a calcium channel blocker, and causes egg shells to weaken. Many birds then killed their young because they sit on them, and the eggs would break. DDT is not carcinogenic, however some of its break down products are somewhat carcinogenic, although they are unlikely to cause cancer. As a chloride based pesticide, it is environmentally persistent, and builds up via bioaccumulation in fish and other predators. In this sense, eagles suffered high accumulations, and hence a danger to their eggs. DDT is very cheap to manufacture, and is very effective at killing malaria carrying mosquitoes. Many developing nations cannot afford the alternatives, so many people die of malaria. However, China is the worlds leading producer of DDT, and they simply buy it from them when possible, so it is not so bad that the US does not produce it. I also strongly disagree regarding second hand smoke- it is already proven to cause respiratory diseases in children of smokers. Despite the controversy regarding adults and second hand smoke, we all pay for smoking, and it is vritually guaranteed to cause an early death and a lifetime of bad health so it should be banned in public, or outright. As a non smoker I also find it extremely offensive, it smells and stains my clothes. Want to smoke at home, and pay your share of the health care costs, then no problem, smoke away.
Interesting Ian said:
Let us pause for a moment and wonder aloud why this comment? Is it simply a misunderstanding or does it signal a deeper problem? One might suppose it is of a piece with the constant whines that skeptics are brainwashed and instantly dismissive of anybody who is not a member of their "cabal." Alas, poor woos, we don't run on arguments from authority. How many times must we repeat this and demonstrate this before it is understood? There is truth. And the truth is the truth, without regard to the speaker.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillHoyt said:
To my knowledge the type of "skeptics" on here have never before appealed to what a "woo woo" has to say on the issue of what they describe as "BS beliefs". Certainly I could not imagine any "skeptics" on here appealing to anything I have to say on "BS beliefs". Thus I find it strange they should appeal to Crichton. I highly suspect that the person who started this thread did not realise that Crichton was a "woo woo" until I brought it to his/her attention.
Everything I have heard from "skeptics" suggests that this statement is patently false.
Demigorgon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 261
Correct. I don't follow the guy much. I just read the article and thought it had some good points, which it does. And since he didn't mention anything on spoon bending I wasn't tipped off.
Spoon bending. *pfft*.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
epepke said:
In what way is it being challenged?
You continue to display your preconceived notions, which continue to be unaffected by the evidence here.Interesting Ian said:
There was no "appeal to Crichton" here. The poster thought Crichton raised good points, and wanted to bring that to our attention. I, for one, appreciate that. I, for one, don't dismiss his points (or anyone else's) based on who they are.
I'm afraid that is simply because you fail to acknowledge that there is truth and that science is epistemologically privileged. I'm afraid this evinces a lack of critical thinking skills.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillHoyt said:
I beg to differ. I see no evidence that the majority of "skeptics" here do not have this bias, you included. How often are "woo woos" applauded for what they say on the subject of skepticism? This is the only time on this board I have ever witnessed it, and this was an error since the original poster was under the impression that Crichton is a "skeptic".
Non-sequitur. No-one is talking about science, and besides, science certainly does not support "skepticism".
Edited to put skepticism in quotes.
That's not what the poster said. The poster said:Interesting Ian said:
The salient part is "thought it had some good points, which it does." Nothing about authority or woo-woo or skepticism. The poster thinks Crichton had some good points.
Science most definitely supports skepticism and vice versa. And somebody is most definitely talking about skepticism here. His name is Crichton:
"The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance"
That same Crichton is also talking about science:
"Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that."