August 25, 2006
Blogs For Bush has some very sad news for us all: science is dead.
However, Jon(athan) Swift points out there is an upside to all this:
What is especially great about Noonan's theory that science is dead is that he doesn't have to conduct any experiments or present any evidence to prove science is dead because science would actually have to be alive to do that.
Posted at August 25, 2006 08:14 AM
so does this mean we can hop on over to mars anytime we want after trashing this old dump?
cause i want to be first in line for that, if i can edge out stephen hawking.
I guess that means I'm going to have to change my major. Damn.
At least this means I can drop out of graduate school relatively guilt-free. Woohoo!
Well, thanks for that link; it was definitely the head-exploder of the day. I love the way Noonan looks forward to the glorious new age that will ensue when we treat religion as absolute truth, instead of all that silly science crap that dragged western culture out of the Dark Ages and into the world dominance that we so love.
Never having seen this blog before, I thought (or at least hoped) that this blog was a deliberate parody, but a quick check of the rest of the posts (as well as the ads) ruined this notion. So a new question popped into my head: Is "Mark Noonan" the English translation of "Osama bin Laden"? Under different circumstances, these two could have a great conversation on the evils of science impeding people from the real truth.
Religion versus Science, boy, how old IS that question?
Ah, the great debate between Darwinism and intelligent design that rocked the world. No doubt many of the great scientists of our day had to reassess their views on evolution with the coming of intelligent design. The great debate over intelligent design has only been equaled by the recent great debate on the question does gravity exist?
I am even more worried about gravity than intelligent design because if there is no gravity we shall all be plunged into the ether of outer space. Of course the roiling debate over gravity leads us to the conundrum posed by Bush which would be is up down or is down up? Without gravity would there even be and up and down?
Of course this begs the question does tooth paste progress? Is tooth paste a product of evolution or is it the result of intelligent design? No doubt this is the next great debate that will rock the world.
He should've written it as a dialogue, where he's walking down the road and sees a scientist, then they talk a while, then he walks off and says, "Hasn't he heard? SCIENCE IS DEAD!"
AND WE HAVE KILLED IT!!!
Perhaps the blogsforbush guy just got his abstract concepts mixed up: if you look at the succession, from Reagan to Bush to Clinton, then the precipitous descent to Bush, jr, it's hard to not come to the conclusion that progress is dead. Killed by entropy, or regression to the sub-mean, the swine flu, or some other semi-scientific principle. Or maybe it was global warming. It sure wasn't evolution.
Why does Bush need a Bushblog when he already has all the national newspapers blogging for him?
"...long live science!"
very little doubt left in my mind that when these folks talk about "science," they mean "widespread information distribution." they may truly think that universities and churches have parallel power roles in society - centers of social control - or have similarly meritocratic hierarchies, but peer review is optional among religious leaders, and even then it seems to lean heavily toward mastery of orthodoxy rather than development of knowledge. additionally the university is a gathering place because it's a place to work, a reflection of cultural knowledge and development, not the center of all social activity. to see schools as churches is very twisted.