One Small Voice: We can all do better using science

by Lynn Mandaville

It wasn’t even April Fools Day, and our president was trying out outrageous “foolies,” and old ones at that.

At a meeting of the National Republican Congressional Committee April 2, Donald Trump again attacked wind power as a viable addition to or solution to the use of fossil fuels.

Please, before you tune me out, know that this is not a tone-deaf defense of the Green New Deal.  That resolution, not legislation, has become another distraction from more pressing issues for our country.  Its goals are noble, but not necessarily presented so as to avoid the usual belittling, bullying hyperbole against its intended idealism.

No, what I’d like to take up is a disturbing trend lately to eschew science and accept wild myths.

We are seeing what has happened in recent weeks, and continues as the map of measles outbreaks expands across the United States.  We have long endured the argument for teaching creationism next to evolution in public schools’ science classes. Conspiracy theories abound, growing exponentially through social media (and, maybe, through something called the Dark Web (?) about which I know nothing).  These are enough examples.

Americans, for whatever reason, have become more and more willing to rely on their own perceived knowledge of things in general, despite the dumbing down of America.

I’ll use myself as a hypothetical.

In high school I was not an exceptional student in math or science.  I tried hard, but mathematical concepts (except, for some reason, geometry) were all but impossible, and my grades showed it.  Sciences were nearly as difficult, but I muddled through with the help of sympathetic teachers who tutored me through to my very-hard-won B-minuses.

To this day I still try to learn in these areas (I valiantly worked my way at a snail’s pace through Neil Degrasse Tyson’s book Astrophysics For People In A Hurry).  But would it ever be a reasonable idea to come to me as one with definitive information in those subjects?  Hell, NO!  I get asked science questions occasionally, but always refer people to other sources;  at worst, Google; better, Wikipedia; best, the local library.

I follow my own advice in any situation where I’m asked to weigh in on a subject wherein I have no training, formal or informal.  Even when asked about hobbies or reading preferences, I encourage looking further than my brain or experiences.

Want to know a good science fiction writer?  Other than the classics like Bradbury or H.G. Wells, I don’t know them because I don’t read them.  Talk to someone with more reliable knowledge of the genre.  Need quilting advice?  I’m fairly good, but am a by-the-seat-of-my-pants learner here.  A dabbler, not an expert.  Get online to any number of reliable web sites.  My point:  I am a great partner in Trivial Pursuit, but don’t sign on with me for non-trivial answers.

So it follows that if I wanted definitive answers to vaccinating my child, I would NOT rely on the likes of Jenny McCarthy or any other celebrity to steer me.  (Even Doctor Oz relies on true experts in any given field for the critical stuff.)  I would seek out information from the Journal of the American Medical Association, or a web-based site like merck.com or medlineplus.com.  Or MY FAMILY PEDIATRICIAN!

If I were questioned as to where we should teach creationism (as opposed to the first choice of religious institutions), I would suggest that, in a public school setting, it belongs in language arts as mythology, or in ancient civilizations as the socio/political components of those cultures.  I would even steer clear of an elective such as comparative religion, because there is a likelihood of instructor bias.  (I took one such college level class taught by a Presbyterian minister, which concentrated almost entirely on comparative Christianity.)  But I certainly wouldn’t include it in a science class.  Creationism relies on faith, not the scientific method.

And, if I wanted reliable information about non-fossil fuel energy, I would not seek out our president.  He claims that the sound of “windmills” causes cancer, despite the American Cancer Society’s reliable truth that there exists no proof anywhere to back this up.  He talks of windmills rather than wind turbines, which compose the technology that generates large-scale, clean power.

If he had any knowledge of wind turbines and energy storage cells (disclaimer: my own knowledge here is limited and should not be taken as a comprehensive source) he wouldn’t say such silly things as “Darling, we can’t watch TV tonight.  The wind isn’t blowing.”  And if he would think before he opens his mouth, he wouldn’t say such contradictory things as “windmills are a bird graveyard” as well as “the birds kill windmills.”

Yet millions of Trump supporters are likely to embrace his myths.  Regardless of his academic record, Trump was a business major, not an electrical engineer, or an engineer of any kind.  But if he says it, without benefit of resources or cabinet officials to cite, or even common sense, people will accept that he knows what he’s talking about just because he talks about it.

This is symptomatic at the highest level of the American willingness to accept what’s convenient, rather than to do the research to know what is true.  It is the willingness to accept mythology instead of science.

I find this trend disappointing at least, appalling at worst.

To quote comedian Jim Jeffries, “I think we can all do better.”

To paraphrase the same, “I think we MUST do better.”