Donald B. Ardell – 10.16.2011
There are dreadful consequences straight ahead for America
as a direct consequence of the platforms espoused by all but one Republican
presidential candidate (Jon Huntsman), namely, the denial of significant
realities. The nation is already awash in dysfunctional thinking, conspiracy
theories, media distortions and organized resistance to innumerable facts.
Large segments of the population, it seems, cannot deal with certain realities.
Though demonstrated by science, certain realities undermine and give the lie to
foolish but revered superstitions. Empirical evidence touted by an overwhelming
consensus of the world's scientists is, to a large segment of American society,
rendered controversial by candidates Perry, Bachmann, Cain and nearly all
leading contenders of the GOP nomination. The term "conservative" has
been rendered synonymous with Christian. The Tea and Republican parties consist
of religionists devoted more to certain ceremonial and other forms of god
worship than respect for secular constitutional government. Such people are
contemptuous of evidence unsupportive of their ancient dogmas. The world-views
of Right Wing fundamentalists persist in the face of facts. This is in part due
to early education and in part a continuation of cultural reinforcements. The
future well being of individuals and the quality of life of our society hang in
the balance, and the 2012 elections could enable a new critical mass of science
denial. At present, these people deny scientific evidence: if they prevail,
they will next be in a position to question the competence and legitimacy of
scientific evidence to establish reality. They already favor an alternative
reality, one based partly on biblical myths, the other on making stuff up. The
next step would be to implement policies that render such demential normal and
legitimate.
It seems to me that those of us who value REAL wellness,
particularly the keystone quality of a developed sense of reason, should strive
to do all possible to counter the hazards of science denial. Let's make this
advocacy a key element of wellness promotion. The dangers of denying science
are far greater in the aggregate than the hazards of poor diet and insufficient
exercise. The latter are, of course, dreadful and pernicious. Science denial is
disastrous to an extent we can only begin to imagine. Being fit and healthy
will be of limited value if we remain awash in dysfunctions brought on by
climate change and other disasters created by our rejection of reason.
Wellness enthusiasts might initiate or expand a new focus on
reality advocacy as part of wellness education by reading popular science
writer John Grant's new book, "Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media
Distortions, and the War Against Reality" (Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY,
2011). Grant does a thorough job documenting the extent of the antagonism
toward science in America today. The nineteen chapters over the course of 374
pages describes the damages caused by the flood-tides of science denial.
Grant's new book also documents the growing hold of pseudoscience and
alternative ("complementary") medicine, and shows how advertising
disguises the hazards of drugs, smoking and other products and habits. It soon
becomes clear to the reader how easily mountebanks of many descriptions are
able to obscure sound health programs (e.g., the case of the anti-vaccine
movement). Attention is also devoted to the influence the anti-intellectual
trend has had on our culture. While Republican candidates for president did not
create these disabling conditions, their positions on campaign and other issues
do reinforce the worst of the lot. The fact of science denial is also at the
root of the successes of New Age gurus, prosperity preachers, healers who
channel god, the creationist advance in science classes, the climate change
skeptics and others who promote that which is contrary to the clear lessons of
established science. This sorry state is a consequence of gullible, easily
fooled, under-educated people facing a stark choice - at least for them: whom
to believe. Should they look to the science deniers or the scientists? Alas,
those who find Republican presidential candidates worth taking seriously are
very likely to go with the science deniers.
As John Grant makes clear in the first chapter of
"Denying Science," a non-existent god won't help us. We're on our own
and all we really have to understand reality is our brains in good working
order. There is no better window into reality than what Robert Green Ingersoll
called reason: "I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a
flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night. Blown and flayed
by passion's storms, and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish it and nought
remains. Ingersoll linked reason with observation and experience, calling all
three the holy trinity of science."
Consider, for just a moment, the two ways that Ingersoll
described as diametrically opposed approaches for understanding reality. Read
this quote from Ingersoll and ask yourself which of the two would be embraced
by the Republican contenders for that party's nomination for president, and which
by those who respect and rely on science: "There are two ways -- the
natural and the supernatural. One way is to live for the world we are in, to
develop the brain by study and investigation, to take, by invention, advantage
of the forces of nature, to the end that we may have good houses, raiment and
food, to the end that the hunger of the mind may be fed through art and
science. The other way is to live for another world that we expect, to
sacrifice this life that we have for another that we know not of. The other way
is by prayer and ceremony to obtain the assistance, the protection of some
phantom above the clouds."
If, as I imagine given your presence reading TPJ, you favor
the first approach Ingersoll described, I think you will very much enjoy
"Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War
Against Reality."