Al Petterson <aamp AT my-deja.com> writes:
> Invariably, when discussing the origin of the solar system, the section
> will start with a qualifier. "Scientists think the solar system was
> formed over four billion years ago..." or "Most scientists believe..."
> and so on.
>
> The qualifier is *always* there in *every* book
I like this, although I'm not a very big scientist. Many people write
their papers and theses without any qualifiers, which sometimes makes
it difficult to discern between:
A claims which are known or proven somewhere else
B claims generally assumed
C claims not proven elsewhere but assumed here
Claims A are often given as citations, but if they are considered
"basic knowledge", the citation may be omitted. Now, a reader doesn't
necessarily know what is basic, and how well that basic knowledge is
researched.
> I know why the "scientists think" qualifier is put there. And that
> makes me more upset. The qualifier is there as a sop to the YECs who
> would write and complain to the publisher if it wasn't.
Don't be paranoid. Ok, I guess that is sometimes the reason for adding
those quelifiers, but so what? They can be correct even if they are
creationists.
What creationists really want are qualifiers that say "evolution is
just a very uncertain and unproven hypothesis". Such qualifier would
of course not be a correct one.
> And it perpetuates the notion, in very young minds, that the age of
> the solar system is even more uncertain and tentative than the
> nonexistence of water on other planets was. And this just isn't so.
>
> Am I being too sensitive here?
I think that's a very difficult question. People want certainty. If
science is presented to them as very uncertain, they seek religion
which promises absolute certainty.
Of course, certainty doesn't imply truthfulness.
--
-- Marko Grönroos, magi AT iki PISTE fi (http://www.iki.fi/magi/)
-- Paradoxes are the source of truth and the end of wisdom
|
