Posted by: Theyouk | September 13, 2017

What does it mean to ‘deny science’?

Is this a binary label (is it absolute)?

If one disagrees with or has a different idea of the nature of gravity, does that make one a science denier? What about the behavior/nature of photons?

If one cites the available hurricane record and points out that after a 12-year drought of major Atlantic hurricanes Florida and Texas just were hit by storms that were in no way ‘unusually’ strong (note that Harvey was not unusually strong–it just got stuck in one spot for an unusually long time), is one a denier?

Who determines if/how/when one becomes a science denier?

What should be the formal penalty for being a science denier?

Is there a formal repentance/rehabilitation process?

Can one buy indulgences to earn forgiveness for prior ideological/opinion sins of denial?

Am I the only one absolutely disgusted by the underlying premises of the label, and feeling like we are back in the middle ages?

I have a hunch that after an initial explosion of effectiveness, MS-Office, CRM systems and their ┬áilk may now be dumbing-down the actual conducting of business–and killing personal job satisfaction. In many companies, it is more important to know how to create a fancy PowerPoint(TM) or enter data into a CRM system than it is to know how to engage person-to-person (even if by phone). Data entry is now a HUGE portion of any white collar worker’s day. Is it for you?
I’d like to hear your thoughts on a) the question posed above; and b) how you think the modern business could improve–ideally radically–its effectiveness in regards to administrative overhead that is currently on the shoulders of every office worker. Please think outside the box. Incremental improvement is good, but is there a way break out of the current ever-encroaching model of ‘system servitude’?