Science: No Place for Consensus

"Scientific" consensus sucks. It is science-defeating. It is anti-science.

Isaac Newton's "laws" of physics were unbreakable until that ding-dong Al Einstein guessed that Mercury should do a galactic jitterbug in the sky due to gravity's impact on light wave-particles.* Heck, we still cling to those laws, because, for everyday living, they do the job pretty well.

The problem is that scientific consensus usually does the job of keeping things running smoothly, until it doesn't. People forget that Galileo's problem wasn't that he was a man of science taking on the Catholic Church: he was a man of science taking on scientific consensus. The Catholics just happened to be in bed with the reigning consensus of the day.

So here's my word of advice: when they say "consensus," you say "Galileo."

*Kids: please don't use me for homework. Suck it up and borrow the Cliff's Notes guide to Quantum Physics from the deadbeat in the back of class. Oh wait. That's me. Proceed.

Powerful Words for Good Little Authors to Avoid at All Costs

CBA authors and pretenders to the throne: ever wonder exactly which word it was that got your manuscript sent back for revisions?

Wonder no more: Seven angels, three kids, one family has a behind the scenes look at the infamous CBA word committee.

[And to The Writer's Cafe Press, my hat is tipping your direction. I assure you it is an accident.]

Sin: Not Even Wrong

Peter Woit has written many very humbling critiques of string theory, perhaps most famously in his book Not Even Wrong.

Woit, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, posits this basic argument: string theory, which has seen a quarter-century of near-dominance in physics departments in higher education, doesn't meet the basic criteria to be classified as a theory (thus, "not even wrong.")

I won't say any more about his argument or whether I, as just a dumb non-physics-nobody-troglodyte, agree with him or not* but what I do love is his turn of phrase. "Not even wrong" is a notion that casts a wide net, in which a person can snare all sort of empty cultural habits that we elevate to godhood.

Idols have always been "not even wrong." They signify only what the observer casts upon them, carry no intrinsic meaning, and promise everything while delivering nothing, and then telling us how satisfied we are. The garments in The Emperor's New Clothes are "not even wrong." The 30 minutes of "national evening news" are "not even wrong."

And something I've come to realize recently: breaking any of the Ten Commandments is, in a sense "not even wrong." What I mean is that there is a lot of literature and film and even philosophy that claims that, while breaking the Ten Commandments (i.e. committing any transgression) is "wrong," it is also "fun" or in some other way fulfilling. The "fun" or "advantage" is why we break any given commandment.

But I don't think that's right, at least, not most of the time. There's a nihilistic part of our nature that is "not even wrong." When a man commits murder, is he fulfilled by what it gains him? Does the money or catharsis or pride he gains move any part of his being closer to joy or laughter or even social advantage? Is there God's pleasure in it? Is it ever really "fun" to reap the whirlwind?

When you covet, does that coveting slake your thirst? Does it grant a joy alternate, a substitute for ownership? When we dishonor our parents, do we gain honor for ourselves?

Sin is "not even wrong." It is the absence of right. It is a choice to deprive oneself of the fellowship of God. It isn't a bad means to a good end. It is a bad means to an empty gesture.**

*I do agree with him. Completely and undoubtedly. Both feet stomping down from the heavens into his camp agree. But I didn't tell you. Because I'm objective.

**C.S. Lewis said it better when he said "Badness is only spoiled goodness."