Though not normally one for confrontation, I admit that I often enjoy calling people on certain of their assumptions. By far my most favorite target is science. In general, conversations go something like this:
Science Person: Science is awesome. Anything anyone would ever conceivably want to know about reality may be discovered by science. I want to have Richard Dawkins’ babies.
Me: Science has replaced the Church as the unquestioned cultural authority in the West. Science is every bit as vehement in silencing dissent and heterodoxy as the Church ever was. Science can keep me alive longer, but it can’t tell me what to do with all that extra time (and never will).* *
In any case, what got me thinking about this whole science rag again was the filthy, lying liars (not to mention their filthy lies) at NOAA. They are predicting a 100% chance of snow tonight in the relevant area (my home). Put on your philosophy caps, kids: a 100% chance of snow – think about it. The only logical conclusion that may be drawn is that the good people at NOAA, undoubtedly scientists of some sort, have perfected time-travel. Not only that, but they have perfected time-travel AND used this newfound ability to check on the weather conditions during the early-morning hours of March 31, 2008. In South Dakota. That, my friends, would be the only epistemological warrant I can think of for claiming that there is a 100% probability of some future event occurring. A 100% chance does not mean, “we should be very surprised if it did not snow tonight.” Nay, “a 100% chance” means “it is absolutely certain that it will snow tonight.” This, I’m afraid, is a completely preposterous claim, and displays an understanding of probability somewhat akin to the average fourth-grader (I should know).
Additionally, I should note for the record that NOAA has SEVERAL TIMES indicated a 100% chance of snow. On this information I have more than once gone to bed resting in the assurance that it would, beyond all doubt, snow, only to find the next morning that the filthy, lying liars at NOAA had failed me again.
**Disclaimer: I have never actually had a conversation with a “science person” that went anything like this. All of my conversations with science persons, to date, have actually been quite cordial. None of them has ever expressed any desire whatever to conceive, carry, or birth (I suppose they rather go hand-in-hand, but whatever) Richard Dawkins’ babies. None of them has ever claimed that science can uncover every truth about reality that’s worth knowing (though I still secretly suspect that they believe so, and judge them accordingly).
Posted in Uncategorized