I do not dispute your explanation of the scientific process. What I dispute is your idea of silencing those who disagree with those conclusions. People are entitled to believe whatever they want, using whatever reasoning they want. They also have just as much of a right as you do to engage in public discourse with those ideas, even in congress. Congressmen are there to represent people, and if enough people agree with their views they should be in congress. Facts should be able to stand on their own in the court of public opinion. They don't need to be coddled by silencing opposition.
The issue here is not general disagreement. People are entitled to whatever they want to believe, for better or for worse, for truth or for falsities. The issue isn't even the participation in public discourse. The issue here is the effects on public policy, which in turn affects all of us. Fundamentally wrong views on well-proved facts shouldn't have a say in public policy.
Take creationism/"'intelligent' design" for instance. Many people via representatives in state/federal legislatures want this to be taught in
science class as an alternative "theory" to the well-known and well-supported Evolution, which surpasses the qualifications of being a theory at this point. But "intelligent design" is merely Christian dogma of creationism, and not a scientific theory as it is billed. Surely this is the will of the people so it is all right. Right?
Teaching false views on scientific fact is one of the most damaging and dangerous things we can do as a nation. Especially damaging to young kids who shape the future of the country.
You're right, facts should be able to stand on their own in public opinion. But they don't. The United States has the least percentage of it's population view Evolution as scientific fact than the rest of the developed nations. And for a nation who is supposed to pride itself on it's scientific prowess, it is quite shameful. Other nations are laughing at us for it.
Catering to the lowest common moron might get votes, but it doesn't make for progress. When there are a large number of people who happily remain blissfully ignorant of the fundamentals of how something works, they shouldn't get a say in how it's managed.
Exactly. This guy should be stripped from his membership of the fucking
SCIENCE committee. Do I want someone dictate the future of scientific policy in this country who does not have a grasp on fundamental scientific truths about things like woman's physiology? And along with other people with other things such as Evolution and Global Climate Change and the like? Hell no I do not!
And I should remind us that he is currently a Representative, but he is running for the Senate. The Senate is an institution who is supposed to be the more academic and more learned branch of Congress. The founders were smart in making our legislature bicameral in that sense. And Akin proves time and time again that he is not qualified to be a senator in that sense.
But let me ask you folks. If well-known and well-documented scientific fact is not what we decide is the truth, then what other 'truth' do we use? The answer is simple: nothing. No other viable alternatives exist.