From: glowboy@robot.nuceng.ufl.edu (Louis Iselin)
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Nuclear Engineering Sciences - Univ. of Florida
Date: 16 Dec 1992 12:15 EST  

In article <29545@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes...
>constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes: 
>>>
>>3. Greenpeace and its eco-cohorts have invented global warming as an
>>impending disaster about to happen. What are their solutions? If they 
>  
>Er sorry? I think you will find that Greenpeace did not "invent" global
>warming, there is good "hard scientific" evidence for global warming.
>Rabid statments like this make you appear as a perfect example of the
>people you are trying to criticise.

Your "hard scientific evidence" is not conclusive in the least!

>Greenpeace et al do carry out quite a bit of scientific research. 
> 
>Many green types are against nuclear power for quite unscientific
>reasons. This does not make them any less valid, if they can be
>justified. Science is not the be all and end all. It is a tool,a very
>important tool.

True, science is not an end all - it is a process.  The process of
using logic to evaluate evidence and draw conclusions based on the
available evidence.  Is there an example of an illogical conclusion
being justified? How does one "validate" an illogical conclusion?
Such a conclusion would only be acceptable to the person making the
unscientific conclusion.

                 Many green types are against nuclear power because of
>the cultural and political baggage it carries with it. They see that
>hard scientific statements made in the past have proved to be erronious.

Then they held science as an end all and suffer from false expectations.
"Cultural and political baggage" means that they misunderstood science
to begin with and now blame science for their own inadequacies.  Again,
the solution is a better understanding of science for what it is and
what it is not.  The more you know, the better off we all are.

>People have lost their faith in the nuclear establishment. And when this
>establishment alters the results of experiments into renewable energy to
>stop further research this fear can be justified. (see Salters Duck)
>Violently slagging people off is not going to change peoples minds. In
>fact it will reinforce the subconcious belief that you are an arrrogant
>scientist unwilling to listen or address the concerns of others. This is
>not a personal attack, but rather a generalisation of the way many
>pro-nuclear scientists react to people holding views which are counter
>to their own.

Read Greenpeace in the above paragraph instead of scientists and you will
understand why many scientists and engineers despise Greenpeace!

>Personally, whether Greenpeace are right or wrong is not the issue, but
>the fact that they challenge. In rebutting their challenge (if
>necessary), questions should be asked as to why it is being made. To
>dismiss the arguement of another as propaganda because it contradicts
>your own is folly.

Trying to justify those unscientific conclusions you claim are important?

What do you mean that being right is unimportant?  Being right is all
that counts!  And I notice that the fact that Greenpeace et al. are
constantly being challenged never crossed your mind??????
And to continually support a position which has been continually
shown to be untrue is equally folly.

>>4. Society, not the nuclear industry, unfortunately veers women away
>>from scientific careers. To attempt to reverse this trend by providing
>>basic facts is a start. How VERY un-PC of you to keep women/womyn 
>>uneducated in scientific matters.
> 
>No arguement
> 
>>I hate to say it and burst your bubble, Jym, but fear of nuclear power
>>_IS_ due to ignorance. How many people out there still think the plant
>>down the road is going to blow up like a bomb? Besides you, there's 
>>quite a few. If educating people, rather than scaring them, is undesirable,
>>then Greenpeace is performing its propaganda well. 
> 
>Also partly due to a mistrust of the people controlling it.

And why is there mistrust?  Because you do not understand the science
behind the plant.  You believe Greenpeace et al. and no one else! 

>Chris

This thread started as amusing, but stupidity and arrogance about
one's stupidity is ridiculous.  It might be passed off as ignorance,
but there is no excuse in our time for failure to attempt to learn
about science and technology.  The difference between a science-based
system and a unscientific system is that the science-based system
always strives for internal consistancy across all boundaries.  The
Greenpeace et al. system is never self-consistant with the facts.


Louis H Iselin, PhD candidate
UFla. Nuclear Engineering Sciences
DOE Health Physics Fellow
Newsgroups: sci.energy