Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the controlling-the-papacy dept.

Ed Mazza writes that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change and "leave science to the scientists." Santorum's comments come as the Pope, who holds a degree as a chemical technician and worked as a chemist before turning to the priesthood, has become increasingly vocal about climate change. "The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists," says Santorum, "and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality, When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible."

But Santorum's not a scientist either so using Santorum's own logic why is Santorum more qualified than the Pope to discuss climate change? "I guess the question would be, if he shouldn't talk about it, should you?" asked Chris Wallace of Fox News. "Politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect American workers," answered Santorum, adding that while "the pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about," he questions the Pope's use of his moral authority to combat the issue of climate change.. Santorum — a devout Catholic — disagrees with the Pope's stance that climate change is man-made and has often called climate science "political science," arguing that a scientific consensus on climate change underscores this point. "All of this certainty, which is what bothers me about the debate, the idea that science is settled," says Santorum. "Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that's political science, not real science."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:13PM (#194197)

    scientists can't know that gravitational force is proportional to the square of distance between objects.

    This is an active field of research... You may have heard that 95% of the universe is invisible if we accept that relationship?
    http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ [case.edu]

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:35PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:35PM (#194216) Journal

    Those represent other forces besides direct gravitational interaction. They're accounted for Einstein's formula for general relativity.

    Andy Schlafly, by the way, thinks that relativity was invented by liberals to use science to force moral relativism on people. True fact.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:40PM (#194224)

      Those represent other forces besides direct gravitational interaction. They're accounted for Einstein's formula for general relativity.

      Please clarify what "those" and "they" refer to in that sentence because I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:56PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:56PM (#194231)

      Andy Schlafly, by the way, thinks that relativity was invented by liberals to use science to force moral relativism on people. True fact.

      I used to laugh at that kind of stuff, but the insight is its not that it was invented but that its forced on people with 10000 bad popular science books explaining its all eastern mysticism and stuff like that, despite nobody in the general public caring beyond Einstein is that crazy hair guy who sticks his tongue out has an accent and is smart as hell.

      Compare to something that people really do care about like magnetism, look at all the "fuckin magnets how do they work" stuff on the internet, yet theres no popular science claptrap about stuff people actually want to understand. Now why is that, that editors and publishers appear to like certain physics concepts but not others?

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:42AM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:42AM (#194337)

        Compare to something that people really do care about like magnetism, look at all the "fuckin magnets how do they work" stuff on the internet, yet theres no popular science claptrap about stuff people actually want to understand. Now why is that, that editors and publishers appear to like certain physics concepts but not others?

        No one is trying to deny magnets do what they do because that fact hurts their business model?

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:41AM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:41AM (#194474)

          True, but ditto the popular physics axis of eastern mysticism/crystal power, quantum mechanics, and relativity.

          Personally I think the electron orbital issues WRT ferromagnetism or perhaps the invention, design, and implementation of powdered ferrite electromagnetic inductor cores COULD be as much of a page turner as any of the average popular science physics books, but "someone" in the publishing ogliopoly insists on shoveling out "relativity for dummies" and "quantum mechanics for dummies" sequel number 5000.

          I could even concede the point that maybe cultural relativism is great and if the cathedral wants to preach its an inherent good or even something far fetched like the 5000th shitty sequel of relativity for dummies (that title probably does exist, sadly) would be better than anything else in physics for a popular audience. However, even in that situation, the loonies have a point that a very small number of people (with very bad taste) decide what to shovel and what we'll get to see. Not entirely different than the poisonous effect of record company execs on music.

          • (Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:48PM

            by TK (2760) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:48PM (#194521)

            I think you're seeing a conspiracy that isn't there.

            Is quantum physics the go-to solution to power your unobtainium drive? Yes. Why? Because no one knows what it is, and the name sounds cool. It's in that area of modern science that is indistinguishable from magic to the average person.

            I remember an episode of Get Smart where Max explains to Agent 99 how a gadget works: an electric snake.
            99: What does it run on?
            Max: Tiny little feet.
            99: No, I mean how is it powered?
            Max: Transistors

            It's the same thing today as it was in the 60's. Explain your magical gadget with a word people have heard before, but don't really know what it is.

            The publishing cabal isn't pushing relativity because of some ulterior motive, it's just what the masses want right now. A quick hand waving solution to faster than light travel so that we can get back to Game of Thrones in Space 2: Orgies of the Cosmos.

            Wouldn't "quantum morality" be very black and white, the very opposite of relative morality?

            --
            The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
            • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:52PM

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:52PM (#194629) Journal

              Wouldn't "quantum morality" be very black and white, the very opposite of relative morality?

              Actually quantum morality would be inherently uncertain. You'd never know whether something is moral until you tried it. And in the same situation, you'd find the very same action sometimes to be moral, and sometimes to be immoral.

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:54PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:54PM (#194646)

                Actually quantum morality would be inherently uncertain. You'd never know whether something is moral until you tried it. And in the same situation, you'd find the very same action sometimes to be moral, and sometimes to be immoral.

                That would make it a good title for a teen drama TV show. Or a pr0n movie. Maybe a critique of organized religion? Probably best to combine all three, maximize potential audience.

                This is turning into my favorite discussion in weeks!

                • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:51AM

                  by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:51AM (#194867) Journal

                  If you combine all three, I think you get child porn featuring abusive priests.

                  --
                  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:41PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:41PM (#194622) Journal

        Now why is that, that editors and publishers appear to like certain physics concepts but not others?

        Maybe the market for a "magnets" book would not be as large as you think? Or maybe it's just that the publishers think it woulf be?

        But I suspect the main reason why you don't find such books is that nobody (or at least nobody with the ability to write readable books) has written them. I mean, a book only exists if someone writes it.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.