Conventional wisdom

It seems that I have been at war with conventional wisdom all my life. Perhaps conventional wisdom is overrated. I saw it criticized once in a magazine. The writer said that it is often wrong. What is the conventional wisdom these days? On a couple subjects, I am definitely at odds with the conventional wisdom. That is, the conventional wisdom about evolution and man-made global warming.

These two alleged pearls of conventional wisdom are argued from authority. As established science. Evolution has been settled science for over a century. Man-made global warming is more recent, but is considered that by virtue of the authority alleged to have been given to it. Global warming has been challenged, especially lately. But not so much with evolution, except for some in the so called religious right. Both challenges seem to be struggling against the perceived wisdom of the day. Both are suffering from attacks of legitimacy of the challenge. In terms of global warming, the legitmacy of the critics is considered to be immoral. They are "deniers", as in the Holocaust. Only a bad person would deny the Holocaust by this type of argument. In terms of evolution, the illegitimacy is in terms of credentials. The challenge to evolution is based upon a religious argument. But you can condense them both down to an argument in favor of these two viewpoints as an argument from authority. On whose authority do you believe?

I think the proper authority would be science itself. But this is not the case in conventional wisdom. Science isn't necessarily conventional. Science has at odds with authority before. Note that Galileo was kept at house arrest for daring to challenge the conventional wisdom of his time. If Newton was an authority that could not be challenged, then Einstein could not have been recognized with the achievement of discovering the Theory of Relativity. It would appear that science does not concern itself with conventional wisdom. Science doesn't make its discoveries by political action committees, nor by consensus. It appears that science has been hijacked by politics. And for that reason alone, I do not trust the common conventional wisdom.

In short, I try to think for myself as much as possible. I don't claim to be a scientist. I just try to use what knowledge I do have, plus a bit of common sense. Let's suppose the following: If a recognized expert told you that a cow could jump over the moon, would you believe it? Who are you to question the expert? But if common sense tells you something is very improbable, I think one would look for more than just the word of an expert. On that basis, I think one should challenge the hijacked conventional wisdom of the times regarding evolution and global warming.

But why attack the theory of evolution? Isn't it established science? Of course. But that is why no one really questions it. And you should. The evidence just isn't there to support it. Instead of evidence, we get extrapolations. Look at the fossil records. There has to be some explanation for this, right? But random mutation and natural selection does not fully explain how we all got here. It is just my own opinion, and I am not a scientist. Yet, one would have to admit that something is missing here. Certainly the evidence is missing. But I think the theory is also a bit suspect for the following reason.

In the law of thermodynamics, the tendency is toward greater disorder. That is, unless something intervenes. But in theory of evolution, the tendency is said to be toward greater complexity, and this happens all by itself. You might ask, but why compare thermodynamics with evolution? Aren't they two different topics? That is where common sense comes in. Where in any walk of life has there been a tendency toward greater and greater order if a matter is left to its own devices? It doesn't happen. It is always the other way around.

My problem with man-made global warming is that of scale. When I say scale, I
mean that the warmists would have you believe that such small changes in the
atmosphere can produce such large effects. I don't buy that.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. That is a
small, small number. Compare a stack of dollar bills compared to a stack of
one million one dollar bills. One part per million is comparable to one dollar
in a million dollars. It just isn't much. Even 200 dollars isn't much compared
to a million. But that is all the change in the atmosphere in over 150 years
since the industrial revolution. Not much change there. It is not enough
difference to make the difference that is claimed. I could give plenty more
examples of this, but this one should suffice for this essay.

I believe that if one just honestly look at these positions argued from authority,
the conventional wisdom falls apart.