As a child, I read in my Weekly Reader that “science would free man from the burden of labor, and thus the man of the future would occupy his/her time in contemplating philosophical verities – or some such thing.
Yeah! They sure got that right!?!?
Many areas of knowledge – which have, or may have, dramatic effects upon the lives of billions – are today given only the most cursory treatment in secondary and University curriculums, if they are not omitted altogether. Many areas, and fields of knowledge, are rather esoteric, steeped in advanced mathematics and beyond the grasp of those schooled for socialization; thus when a scientific discipline proposes to argue the inevitable dire consequences for humankind if public policy (i.e., the law) does reflect the respective scientific discipline’s edicts, the general public is left to trusting the “experts” to explain the public’s interest.
The “experts” of today – those for example which argue the “science” regarding “man-made global warming and climate change” is settled – echo the classical physicists which uncritically accepted “ether,” to complete the false Newtonian explanation for the: “totality of consistently interacting physical objects” i.e., the universe; the fiction of “ether” only took roughly 300 years for Physicists to jettison in favor of “fields.” The history of “science” is littered with fictions – myths – blindly believed by the leading scientists of their day. But, of course, “scientists” today are genetically more omniscient than their progenitors– at least it would seem to be the case – hence they may assert a matter such as “man-made global warming/climate change” is “settled science!”
Such matters, as whether man’s activity and its global environmental impact could be publicly debated on CSPAN whereby a panel – composed of diametrically opposed credentialed persons could moderate series of debates upon additional sundry polemic topics e.g., the privatization of Social Security, abandoning the current tax–code for a revenue neutral national sales tax, or flat-tax, and in that wake; abolishment of the IRS, repeal of the 17th Amendment etc.; thus, allowing an un-informed public, to become informed – informed by the debates – allowing them to decide what ought to be codified, and what is unnecessary…
Such a proposal as this is necessary because the Press generally cannot be trusted (Note: as businesses – news organs, and their CEO’s are more interested in the “bottom-line” than they are the truth or the commonweal), and because the Media is inundated by University graduates which have – generally – sentimentally assimilated the dominant University ideological view, and thus they are dispositionally – if not epistemologically – incapable of objectively informing the public!