SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:48PM
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
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
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
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.