We can always count on the Neanderthals on the Oklahoman Editorial Board to provide us with a good laugh every now and then. An opinion published July 20 was titled: “In policy, debates, bowing to “science” can lead down dark paths.”
The opening sentence states that the use of “science” is an intellectually offensive tactic of some activists to stifle debate. Reading through the opinion, the Oklahoman Editorial Board talks about how the eugenics, or ethnic cleansing, was declared a science by then associate surgeon general Dr. W. C. Rucker of the U.S. Public Health Service. The article proceeds to demonstrate how this set a precedence for sterilization of inmates in prisons and mental asylum. It was even perpetuated into the 1970’s when American Indian women were sterilized at an OKC federal facility.
Read this quote from the article:
“It took the Nazi Holocaust to discredit eugenics. Before then, critics were dismissed as backward, anti-science zealots.”
Leave it to the Oklahoma Editorial Board to say the Holocaust was good for something. As typical, the OEB does not cite any references that one can follow to read more about these subjects. What did Rucker show as his evidence to support his eugenics? Did other doctors or scientists support his findings? The article does not say. It implies that once Rucker made his declaration, the rest of the country followed like mindless rats seduced to follow the Pied Piper.
Rather than give other examples of “science leading us to the Dark Side”, the OEB latches on to this one thread and doesn’t let go, as if feeling the need to beat it into our brains to make the point. And all the examples are limited to Oklahoma.
The intro to the second to last paragraph is the most worrisome and chilling, that this board has a voice that is reaching out to the mindless rats:
“Science is one thing. People’s interpretation of science is something else.” Then, “policy proposals based on debatable interpretations of science should certainly be debated.”
Didn’t they warn us at the beginning about debates with science?
Although never specified in the article, one can read between the lines and see the inference to the present “debate” over global warming. Never fans of science, Gov. Failing, Pruitt and other Republicans, in Oklahoma and nation-wide deny climate change and global warming vehemently. They cling to their faith and beliefs and shun the evils of science.
Scientists can be wrong, which is why we have peer reviews. Nobody is ‘debating’ the issue of climate change, i.e. no one has presented data to show our climate is NOT changing. NASA and NOAA have submitted decades of data that have been researched and reviewed by both sides of the debate and have reached one conclusion: Earth is warming up.
The OEB has a point that one cannot take one person’s word as proof. Yes, got it. We went to a dark place then. But that has changed. We’re in the 21st century now, guys. People are watching each other like Orwellian Big Brothers. It’s okay to be skeptical but not to be obstinate and suspicious.