House of Eratosthenes

If anybody ever actually read this blog, which of course nobody does, they would recall a long-standing theme of challenging science, particularly the “thou shalt think…” brand of science which dutifully instructs the lowly unwashed non-scientists on what opinions they should properly have, and when pressed to back it up, replies with some variation of “that is for scientists to know and you’re not a scientist.” We’ve had an up-tick lately in this type of science, which prohibits the Little People from asking common-sense questions like How? Why? What? Where?

Scientists have begun to feed on their own, effectively excommunicating peers who don’t tow the line. Is there man-made global warming? Are homosexuals born that way? Did design play a role in the creation of the universe? Increasingly, science has been indulging in the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy: Man is destroying the environment, and there is a homosexual gene, and intelligent design is entirely invalid, because all scientists agree this has been proven. And then if you come back with so-and-so is a scientist, and he disagrees, or he holds that it is not yet proven, then you are told so-and-so doesn’t count. All real scientists agree these things are true.

I find this to be strange, because when I was in school I was told science was all about challenging things. Now that I’m an old fart, it seems science is all about not challenging things. It’s kind of like a church. Bishops may not contradict what the Pope says, and priests may not contradict what bishops say. How do we know it to be true? Well, who in the world are you to ask such a question…you’re just showing how little you know about science.

Now I see that not only is science going through a change in method, it’s also going through a change in scope. Scientists aren’t happy being scientsts anymore. They want to do something else. Star Trek used to have episodes where the actors played characters out of Robin Hood, when they got tired of doing science-fiction. Fonzie jumped over a shark when he got tired of being a cool guy who hung around a hamburger stand. James Bond went after drug kingpins when he got tired of fighting SPECTER. It’s in the nature of all living things, called upon to do something within a constrained scope, to get tired and want to branch out eventually.

I have no qualm with that.

But if you want to become a dictator and a goo-gooder and a tut-tutter, clucking your tongue endlessly about people’s social habits, shouldn’t you renounce the scientist title?

Doesn’t it cost some money to go out and inspect how much housework men do?

Where does the money come from? Who pays it, and why? What do they want? And what was the mission statement offered when the money was requested?

The Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University has calculated that men, on average, do tasks for 146 minutes a day.

That is well up on the 1960s estimate of the 83 minutes.

Somebody wants something. I don’t know diddly-squat about who it is, or what exactly it is that they want, but I’ll guarantee somebody wants something, and whatever it is, we shouldn’t like it. How in the world would this possibly matter to science?

Overall, Sainsbury’s Bank estimates it would cost �11,920 to pay someone to do the jobs men carry out for free each year.

David Pickett, life insurance manager at Sainsbury’s Bank, said: “Much has been written about the rise of supermums and how they juggle careers with raising a family.

“However, there are also many superdads who as well as holding down jobs, also do a lot of work around the home – from DIY to cooking.”

I’ll tell you one way this matters. People read about a certain amount of money being needed to pay someone to do the same thing, and they get resentful. Over nothing, I might add.

If you live alone, you need to do what men in this article do, and you need to do what the women do in those other articles that bitch and piss and moan about all the housework women do. These are things that need to be done. They’re part of living. So it costs ten thousand dollars, or twenty, or thirty to pay someone for that much work. Make it a million. Who the hell cares?

It has to be done.

Here we go with the same questions I had about the “women doing lots of housework” articles. While Mister Mom is at home mopping the floor, what is his honey doing? She’s at work, probably. Is she making at least �11,920 at work in a year? Almost certainly. Okay then, she’s contributing. As is he.

Two people contributing to a household. So what’s all this bullshit about measuring things? Starting a fight where none existed previously, that’s what.

All in the name of science. I’d be willing to buy that, sure. But what kind of science? What were the researchers trying to find out?

You seemed to veer off the direction you were going, which was arguing that scientists are engaging more now in pseudo-science that before;and instead complained that scientists are becoming nit-pickers about what are peoples’ real-life routines.
Your original premise, that science is changing, is “light on”! It’s the message I’ve been preaching at you and anybody else w/in earshot for lo these past 25 years, namely that science has become an secular priesthood and operates as an agency for social/political influence, often ignoring the canons of scientific inquiry—the point you seemed to be making.
I hope you’ll do a sequel on this theme, on the grounds that the subject is bigger than one article.
BTW, I like your pic! Looks just like the Real You! (Tee Hee!)
- Old Dad | 08/29/2005 @ 17:35

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Scientists Unhappy Being ScientistsMonday, August 29th, 2005

Scientists Unhappy Being Scientists
Monday, August 29th, 2005