Scientific Conclusions

           The beauty of the pursuit of scientific conclusions is that they don’t have to be precise or even correct. Scientists are always in a muddle. Mathematics and physics—sometimes—are precise. But scientists are otherwise only issuing temporary answers. “Mankind is _______ years old. Yes, definitely!” Six months later, when someone else uncovers one more skeleton, we hear, “No, no, thanks to the scientific method we know now that mankind is ____ years old. Isn’t that wonderful?”

            “The streets of Pompeii were frequented by prostitutes and shoppers looking for bakeries and the baths. And these little alcoves were post offices, and we can prove it!” Fifteen years later, another Scientist twists around all those facts and utters new, even more startling facts!

            The serious scientist relies on hard facts. Unless he can prove a theory with hard facts, through scientific tests—usually in laboratories, never minding common sense or clear actually—it’s not a threat or true. Malathion is not a threat because no tests have proved that it is. Never mind common sense, which tells us that all chemicals—especially those manufactured by man—are poisons. Sure, some natural substances are poisons too, but they are not bottled in intense concentrations. They’re dispensed naturally for natural purposes, which are usually in aid of the cosmos. (This is in anticipation of the use of that lame cliché argument against my tirade). The air, land, and water are dying thanks to our polluting of them. NO, no, no, that’s not scientific. NO, it’s merely the truth that any cretin could see—if he looked and opened up his sealed, moldy mind. Many scientists work for Industry, of course, and there lie some criminal activities of the lowest order; that is, of the lowest level of sensitivity.