About this Blog

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary* provides these definitions:

1. Eschew: "to frighten off" or "to avoid habitually esp. on moral or practical grounds."


2. Obfuscation: "to make obscure" or "confuse."

*1980 edition.

About the Title

The title reflects a a little irony. I knew a famous science professor in college who had a placard on his office door frame that read "Eschew Obfuscation." Ironically, his principal claim to fame led to some environmental policy developments that seemed necessary but may have been irrelevant; perhaps time will tell. At any rate, the environmental movement has degenerated into a quagmire of obfuscatory language where plain language does not convey a sufficient fear quotient for the policy makers. 

My Purpose

This blog is intended to be a general purpose blog to help readers think about things in creatively and, as they say, "outside the box." In this sound byte instant messaging world, "hard thinking" is becoming a rare commodity and people's horizons are being artificially contracted by social engineering. It is my humble hope to provide incentive, to whatever small extent I can, for readers to look at issues from all sides . There are many excellent blogs that attempt to clarify confusion and misinformation surrounding important social, medical, and scientific issues, and I may link to the ones I think most relevant. I will attempt to only present facts where they are verifiable, but facts need context and interpretation, so my personal biases and opinions will undoubtedly appear. This is my first blogging effort and it will be a simple one until I gauge viewer interest and perhaps expand my expertise.

Understanding the World 

Science is a method of gathering facts about the world; that is, why things are the way they are and how it all works together. While science formally involves theories and hypotheses (testable bits of theories), there are observational and modeling approaches that add knowledge but may not formally involve hypothesis testing in many cases. Natural History, the precursor to ecology, is one of these. Charles Darwin, for example, was more of a natural historian than a scientist in the modern sense, but his discoveries remain important. Often, simple observations lead to theories, which scientists test by formulating falsifiable hypotheses. Theories are seldom strictly proved, but accumulation of hypothesis testing that supports a theory can lead to essentially universal acceptance. And here is where questioning becomes important. Politically active groups of scientists can declare acceptance of their theories, so the first question should be "is this theory really universally or even mostly accepted." Note that this is not a question requiring any scientific expertise; one merely needs to "ask around," being careful to get diverse input.

But science is not the only method for trying to understand the world. Obviously religion and philosophy are two others. Often they provide seemingly different answers to questions, which causes confusion. In most cases the confusion arises because one method is seen as "true" or "correct" according to one's worldview, something that may also need to be questioned. In my own mind, they are all fully reconcilable so long as the limitations of each are understood, and I expend considerable intellectual effort attempting to do just that. Zealots in any of these will surely disagree, which is their right; however, their complaints may be valid but cannot be proved.

Faith

Belief that science can lead one to truth is "Scientism"; essentially, a worship of science and scientists and uncritical acceptance of what "scientists say." Another way to say that is faith in science and scientists to explain virtually everything. Unfortunately, we see this repeatedly, particularly where secular scientists criticize scientists or non-scientists with certain religious beliefs. Since science is empirical, however, it has no business doing that and becomes unscientific in doing so. Do not get me wrong, there are areas where scientific discoveries to conflict with religious beliefs, and thinking people should work to resolve the conflicts as they see them. In Christian terms, science can never test the hypothesis that God exists, just as it can never test whether certain actions are morally right or morally wrong. It can provide information to help believers study their religion and possibly help them decide whether they have the right one (yes, as a Christian, I do believe there is only one right one...prove me wrong).

Philosophy has similar issues. I don't know enough about philosophy to expound on issues, but philosophy is a metaphysical (non-scientific) approach to understanding the world or universe or whatever. Philosophical answers may be right or they may be wrong, but I'm not sure how one judges that. Perhaps by whether it seems to work. Whatever, it is not science or religion per se, though there are clearly overlapping bits.

Disclaimer

Please question me on anything. I reserve the right not to argue, but I don't mind accepting correction when correction is nedded. For example, I may post a photo of a flower along with the taxonomic name I think is correct; correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm only an amateur botanist. Another example, I may misquote someone; correct me if you have the correct quote with documentation. In religious matters, I'll discuss things as intellectually as I can and will listen to rational petitions regarding other beliefs/interpretations/etc.; I will not accept "because the Bible says so" or "because science refutes it" without a rational defense of your interpretation or evidence.