Science at Work
Every now and again, Lee has some deep thought about why evolution has to be true, and how science has a corner on all objective truth, and some other nonsense like that.
So I was thinking this morning, and I've had a deep thought of my own. Nutritious wisdom comes from science, right? Well, I seem to remember a Lewis Black monologue in which the talented (although exceptionally liberal) Mr. Black made a very profound observation about nutritional science.
Black points out that nutrition specialists have told us that eggs are bad. Then they told us that eggs were good. Then they told us that eggs were bad again. Then they told us that eggs were good... But only the whites. So which is it?
According to Lee and Drumwaster, scientific theories, as they develop, should be progressive. This is to say that they should slowly refine themselves, turning from theory into legitimate scientific knowledge that can be repeatedly proven and reproduced. Instead, one of the simplest questions ever, "Are eggs good or bad for you?", seems more like Chapter IX of 1984.
We know for a fact that scientists use their "research" to push an agenda in some cases, such as global warming. Since the only agenda that can nominally be pushed on this one would be from the most overzealous of PETA lunatics, I'm guessing we rule out an outright agenda. So what is it? Are eggs good for you, or are they bad for you? Surely almighty science can give us a straight answer on this. Right? Right!?!
So I was thinking this morning, and I've had a deep thought of my own. Nutritious wisdom comes from science, right? Well, I seem to remember a Lewis Black monologue in which the talented (although exceptionally liberal) Mr. Black made a very profound observation about nutritional science.
Black points out that nutrition specialists have told us that eggs are bad. Then they told us that eggs were good. Then they told us that eggs were bad again. Then they told us that eggs were good... But only the whites. So which is it?
According to Lee and Drumwaster, scientific theories, as they develop, should be progressive. This is to say that they should slowly refine themselves, turning from theory into legitimate scientific knowledge that can be repeatedly proven and reproduced. Instead, one of the simplest questions ever, "Are eggs good or bad for you?", seems more like Chapter IX of 1984.
We know for a fact that scientists use their "research" to push an agenda in some cases, such as global warming. Since the only agenda that can nominally be pushed on this one would be from the most overzealous of PETA lunatics, I'm guessing we rule out an outright agenda. So what is it? Are eggs good for you, or are they bad for you? Surely almighty science can give us a straight answer on this. Right? Right!?!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home