Science and the Media

I really hate how the media puts WAY, WAY too much focus on two extremely specialized areas of science and not much else.  They put a ton of focus on global warming and on evolution.  Now you can still know mountains and mountains of information in the field of biology alone without even addressing evolution.  The same could be said of chemistry and global warming.  And we haven't even gone into addressing the fields of physics and astronomy.

Now evolution might do a good job of addressing WHY certain animals have similar skeletal structures and all of that, but you can spend years studying and memorizing the anatomy of thousands of different species without the idea of evolution impacting your study at all.  It's not like your quota on the number of muscle names you can memorize goes down because you refuse to believe that one species evolved into another no matter how much biological evidence is out there.

The media seems to imply if you don't have time to do your own research or your own experiments then just trust the formal experts.  I suppose that's sensible advice.  But arguing against such things is a part of the scientific process as well.  At one time space was believed to be filled with a substance that carried light waves and now formal scientists believe that's the case anymore.  Not to mention at one time it was considered more scientific to believe that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.  This was the result of people trusting formal recognized scientific experts like Aristotle, not religious figures like the Apostle Paul.

The biggest problem people have when they argue against evolution is they have zero alternative theories to explain the biological evidence.  But such people, although religiously stubborn, are not necessarily scientific dolts.  I've seen some people deny evolution that have MD degrees.  They spent years studying the different parts of the body and they know a lot about it.  They're very capable of understanding science when they want to.

I really don't get why there's such heated division on global warming.  It has zero impact on anyone's religion.  I think the best way to prevent further environmental damage is to simply produce less.

I'm wondering when scientific literature became an all-or-nothing philosophy like religion has been for the past several centuries.  Where if you don't have absolute faith in the current expert consensus then you don't belong in their group.  Neil deGrasse Tyson, who introduced me to such wonderful information as Faraday's electromagnetic studies and special relativity recently warned that if we persist in denying global warming and evolution we open the door to regressing into the world of complete superstition once more.  I think he was in North Carolina when he said that.

Oh well.  I don't plan to let such things deter me from self-study of the physics that I have an interest in.  I don't have to completely shut the door to the mystical in order to understand the rational.  In fact, I think the mystical is a great way of dealing with things like emotions and ethics.  Things that the scientific world can't really address.

But then again, the scientific world probably does have the tools to address global warming and evolution since those are not based on emotions or ethics.

Oh well, it doesn't matter to me.  I'd rather have a deeper understanding of gravity than biology or meteorology.  And I actually have learned a lot about it.  Like how Newton derived his equation for the conservation of angular momentum using a similar triangle argument and how that explains Kepler's second law.  That stuff is wonderful, whether you believe in or don't believe in Christianity, global warming, Freddy Krueger, the moon landing, or whatever.