Galileo teaches us
what scientific research really is.
Find out more by watching our Truth in Two (with full text and Afterword).
Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website). Dr. Eckel spends time with Christian young people in public university (1 minute video), teaching at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video). Consider becoming a Comenius patron (here).
Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat
FULL TEXT
Galileo stood against the accepted viewpoint of his day. The Church had decided that Earth was the center of our solar system. Galileo proved that the view was untrue; in fact, our planet revolves around the sun. The Church of Galileo’s day tried to suppress his views. Galileo, like other great individuals, stood against the crowd and refused to believe the accepted scientific narrative of the day.
I had a student last year writing on climate change. The design of the paper mandated that students find at least two sources disagreeing with their own perspective. The point of the assignment is to learn how to respond to the best sources and arguments from an opposing position. My student was seeking scientific research that went against the accepted narrative. Knowing I am a theologian, she said, “I don’t want any religious people’s research.” My response was simple, “Everyone’s research is religious because everyone’s research depends on assumptions.” She said, “But I can’t find any scientists who disagree with my view. Why is that?” I went to the white board and wrote “Misinformation.” I explained, “There are those who want to dismiss alternative viewpoints. They do this on social media platforms by simply eliminating research that disagrees with their own.” Looking perplexed my brilliant STEM student responded, “Then how will I find the two sources I need?” I smiled and said, “I’ll show you. I’ve been keeping a record of some scientists whose research has been classified as “misinformation.” And they have published their work in scientific, peer-reviewed research journals.” You can find some of these scientists at the end of this Truth in Two. You see, when “misinformation” is used to sideline alternative scientific sources, science becomes nothing more than propaganda.
Galileo stood against the accepted viewpoint of his day. There are scientists today, doing the same. For Truth in Two, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, president of the Comenius Institute, personally seeking Truth, even when it’s hard to be found.
AFTERWORD
There are some who think study of the liberal arts – including “religious studies” – are “academic dead ends.” Well, I have news for you (as I did for my student). Everybody believes something, assumes something, and they apply that belief to whatever they study. The decline of “religion” is everywhere (if that means people who are leaving orthodox Christianity). On that score read 1 John 2.19.
To dismiss a point of view simply by calling it a lie or “misinformation” is not “science.” You cannot claim to believe in science and misinformation at the same time. Experiment, evidence, thesis, and debate are essential for data retrieval and analysis. Canceling or taking down a scientifically tenable position – whether others agree it is tenable or not – cannot claim what science does. Until a theory or idea is evidentially proven false, it still must be considered as having standing in the scholarly process. Questioning is important.
1600 scientists dismiss climate emergency, saying carbon dioxide is important for the planet.
Pseudoscience is what a Nobel Prize winner in physics calls the “climate agenda.” Since his remarks at an international conference in July, invitations to speak have been postponed or cancelled. According to Dr. John Clauser there is no “man-made global warming.” His concern is also economic since places like the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are expecting Western nations to spend trillions of dollars to overcome the problem when the monies could be used to help poor and suffering peoples.
You mean scientists “whitewash” data and hence their conclusions delivered to the public? Yes.