I don't know why this has really caught my attention the last little while, but it is beginning to get under my nerves. What I'm talking about is the arrogance of some in the scientific community, especially those in publicly visible positions with loud voices.
I read an article the other day about evolution, intelligent design, and creationism. The author of the article attempted to take a neutral stand through most of the article, but the then at the end basically proclaimed anyone who believed anything other than evolution, as currently accepted by science, to be an imbecile. The following discussion (if it can be called that) in the site's forums was quite heated, with supporters of all theories vocalizing their beliefs vigorously, with maternal insults being more the norm than the exception.
Another topic that keeps coming up is global warming. It's pretty trendy right now. Those voicing their opinions about the subject tend to be very loud and in-your-face, proclaiming that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is just plain wrong.
I'm not here to get into a debate of evolution vs creationism or to debate the existence of global warming, or its potential effects, but rather to call to attention the arrogance of those making these claims.
In both cases, the people making claims (claims going either direction, though those supporting the more scientifically accepted beliefs tend to be much more common) are unbelievably arrogant.
The problem here is that we can't really be completely sure of anything in the scientific realm. None of us was around to witness the creation of the Earth; science is going off of evidence and theories, so to state evolution as absolute fact is kind of a feeble argument. We don't know with 100% certainty whether global warming is real, let alone whether it is manmade or not, because we can't really even begin to understand how the planet's climate works. The trouble is that in both cases we just don't have enough knowledge to make a definitive call one way or the other, so assumptions have to be made, and when assumptions are made things can go very wrong. Yet many, many "scientists" claim to be able to state absolute fact.
If we have learned anything from history, it is that science is constantly changing. The scientific principles held as fact at any point in time are later disproved by some new principle that comes along in the future. People in the 15th century knew that the Earth was flat, yet this was proven wrong later on. Scientists in the past believed that objects in motion tended to slow down "because they got tired," yet that was proven to be false as well. The Sun once revolved around the Earth too. So how can we, even with our "advanced technologies" now, proclaim anything to be scientific fact? Weren't the technologies of the time considered "advanced" as well? And won't science 50 years in the future look upon things differently than they do now? Even scientific principles from 20 years ago are being disproved or rescinded all of the time (anyone remember Global Cooling?). Isn't it a little arrogant for those making these claims to say that they know these things with certainty? We just don't have all of the information that it takes to make decisions, and we can't ever assume that we do.
Everyone is free to make any claim they wish, but it ought to be done with a caveat: "as far as we know," or "as the evidence suggests," and those making them ought to be willing to at least hear out their ideological opponents, consider their arguments, and even consider that there might be answers other than those on the table. People have the right to view others as morons if they wish, but for new policies and laws to be put into place based solely on one side of an argument, where the opposing argument is dismissed without being entertained, is just asinine.
