In FDR's day, the safest polling districts for rock-ribbed Republicans were around the universities - and this was something generally repeated all over the world.
Tenured professors of the physical and social sciences in particular were once among the most politically conservative of all voters.
Well !!!!!!
Today of course the situation is completely reversed.
Why ?
The voting patterns have changed because those long gone scientists - against their personal wills - discovered that Nature was revealed to be , over and over , dynamic --- not static as their scientific faith had led them to believe.
There is a near perfect co-existence of a belief in a static world /society and a belief in conservative social and political views.
(This post was prompted by stumbling upon an account of Manhattan Project team leader Harold Urey's co-worker David Rittenberg's use of bio-markers in the 1940s.
He discovered that the replacement of body tissue was not a static process as most held as an article of faith , but rather a highly dynamic process.
One of many such 'discoveries' I have noticed in the era 1890s-1950s.)
It is hard today to be a credible basic scientist and hold a view of natural processes as largely static - they're still out there but mostly as the older and more poorly educated of the applied scientists.
Scantily educated small town weathermen educated at no-name-brand colleges particularly come to mind .
They seem to fill the ranks of the DENIERS - along with economists of course.
Though with economists it seemed the more educated they are , and the more likely they were educated at the bigger better known university economics departments , the more they deny any limits on Man's ability to safely control the Natural World.
Henry Dawson did not at all seen the natural world as static - which could only have made him more of an outsider minority of one in the ga-ga Man-centric world of 1920s-1940s American academic science ....
Tenured professors of the physical and social sciences in particular were once among the most politically conservative of all voters.
Well !!!!!!
Today of course the situation is completely reversed.
Why ?
The voting patterns have changed because those long gone scientists - against their personal wills - discovered that Nature was revealed to be , over and over , dynamic --- not static as their scientific faith had led them to believe.
There is a near perfect co-existence of a belief in a static world /society and a belief in conservative social and political views.
(This post was prompted by stumbling upon an account of Manhattan Project team leader Harold Urey's co-worker David Rittenberg's use of bio-markers in the 1940s.
He discovered that the replacement of body tissue was not a static process as most held as an article of faith , but rather a highly dynamic process.
One of many such 'discoveries' I have noticed in the era 1890s-1950s.)
It is hard today to be a credible basic scientist and hold a view of natural processes as largely static - they're still out there but mostly as the older and more poorly educated of the applied scientists.
Scantily educated small town weathermen educated at no-name-brand colleges particularly come to mind .
They seem to fill the ranks of the DENIERS - along with economists of course.
Though with economists it seemed the more educated they are , and the more likely they were educated at the bigger better known university economics departments , the more they deny any limits on Man's ability to safely control the Natural World.
Henry Dawson did not at all seen the natural world as static - which could only have made him more of an outsider minority of one in the ga-ga Man-centric world of 1920s-1940s American academic science ....
No comments:
Post a Comment