APOLARITY

L and I had leftover dessert tonight – we had made gourmet pears simmered in sugar water with vanilla, covered with dark chocolate creme fraiche sauce. Not wanting the leftovers to go to waste, we took them outside and attempted to give them to passersby.

“Do you want a chocolate-covered pear?”

-”No, but do you have a cigarette?”

-”No, but do you have a quarter?”

-”No, but do you have any weed?”

Forget safety. Live where you fear to live. Destroy your reputation.
Be notorious.
—Rumi

Dang – what is it in me that causes me to get a kick out of being a jerk to the people I love the most? It doesn’t bring me any real enjoyment to be mean to them – there’s just…something in me that gets carried away with myself. I hardly notice until after I see the hurt/shock/pulling-away in your eyes.

I’m sorry. I’m trying to get better.

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, and I firmly support the right of a minority to have views that differ from that of the majority.

It smacks of intellectual dishonesty, though, when the overwhelming majority of experts in a field view the evidence a certain way, and the only argument the detractors can make is to accuse said experts of conspiracy, suppression, and disregard for the facts.

We all have ideological presuppositions that cause us to favor one explanation over another, believe one expert over another, but it becomes ironic and self-parodying when a group purports to stand for Absolute Truth, but is unwilling to acknowledge the academic integrity of thousands of brilliant and well-researched scholars.

I guess it depends on whose bias you trust more. Which is more likely, for “all or nearly all national and international science academies and professional societies” (wp) to be so ideologically entrenched as to not see what is clearly in front of their face; or for what is essentially a single, small lobby group, consisting of scientists whose religious tradition depends on an a priori understanding of the way things came into existence?