Since the following was posted today to my February 5 blogpost about Michael Crichton, I figured I would reprint it before I commented on it:

Anonymous said...

Oh my, look at your own bias. I can smell it from here. I think that Michael Crichton got some of it right, however, the point that really got to me was how the media and politicians are always trying to keep us in a state of fear by their constant scare tactics, as described in the book. If you keep harping that something is goind to happen, "The Sky is Falling", a lot of people are going to believe that. When I was twelve years old, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, I truly believed that we were going to be obliterated. In other words, sometimes we have to take things with a grain of salt, because if we don't, we're all going to die from being scared to death.
Madalyn Conrad
October 26, 2005 1:13 PM

I have to admit you're right, Madalyn. I am biased. It's very perceptive of you to have noticed. You see, I have a background in science, and frequently read peer-reviewed journals and science articles, and can separate out real science from junk science. So when I hear a Michael Crichton, a John Stossel or a Rush Limbaugh dispute the science behind global climate change, my bias is to overlook their political hot air and check the facts.

And it is a fact: the world is getting warmer. Sorry if that scares you.

Yes, I'm biased, and you can even go further and say I'm out of touch with the mainstream. When I read that 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution, and that only 15% accept evolution without a God involved, I realize how different I have become from the fundamentalist herd mentality.

I further agree with you on the media bias. In an attempt to appear "balanced," journalists feel that they need to give equal time for a scientist discussing his latest research to someone who disputes the facts - a science fiction writer, a pundit, a weatherman, whomever. It doesn't matter to the media that one side has educated scientists publishing their research in peer-reviewed journals, and the other side makes unsubstantiated claims that they cannot back up. But instead of providing a balanced account, it just confuses the public and creates doubt where there is much scientific certainty.

As for scare tactics, I've got to hand it to you again - you're right once more. Just look at how they scared us with spurious claims of weapons of mass destruction into invading a sovereign nation on the other side of the world; how they scared us with talk of terrorists, duct tape and Saran Wrap into accepting limitations on our freedom with an unconstitutional Patriot Act; how they whipped us into a national frenzy over a single comatose woman in Florida.

But I have to admit you've got me confused with the Cuban Missile Crisis thing. Are you saying you're disappointed that there wasn't a global nuclear holocaust? Or are you saying that there never really was a Soviet threat? If the latter, are you outraged over Vietnam?

Gassho,
Your friend,
Shokai