The Truman Show (1998), is a movie in which Jim Carey’s character, Truman Burbank, lives in a reality in which his sleeping, awakening, going to work, coming home, and sleeping again are all contrived and controlled within the confines of a TV studio. All truth and reality beyond the backdrop of the studio were unknown to Truman, that is until he became curious and began to resist those who were defining his truth. He was able to free himself to do a bit if investigation on his own.
What if you or I were to grow up in a world in which someone in an institution
such as government, education, the church, or our economic supply chain were
limiting our access to truth and reality?
I’m glad you asked.
On September 17, Tucker Carlson (The Tucker Carlson
Show, Fox News) asked a related question to Dr. Scott W. Atlas,
Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution who also is a member
of the presidents Coronavirus Task Team.
The question was:
What does it do to the practice of science when
certain areas of inquiry are off limits or censored?
The dialog that followed addressed the increasing tendency of media
platforms like Twitter and YouTube to censor reports and commentary that are
contrary to accepted dogma concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here is Dr. Atlas’s complete response (See VIDEO
interview). It is very troubling
to those of us who recognize that science will not function for the good of
mankind when data and interpretations are not freely exposed to critical
analysis and additional verification by other scientists and a learned public eye. Dr. Atlas reminds us that, “When you start
censoring science, you are removing the way we decide what is truth and what’s not.”
Dr. Atlas adds, “We are sort of teetering on the edge of what is done in third
world countries.” When you say ‘It’s
about the science, you’d better know the science, you’d better understand the
science, and say things that are consistent with the science.” The good news is that the public censorship
of professional scientific opinion is having a backlash from both scientists
and by the public. When we question the
system, we can still hold people in power accountable.
In earlier Oikonomia articles ” (see end of this article), we have emphasized
what we call “good science.” By our
definition, “good science” does not overstate its conclusions even under
pressure from granting sources or groups with a political agenda. Nor would “good science” condone publication
of statistically altered data. In short,
“good science” has a conscience ((Latin, conscientia = “knowledge of right and
wrong within oneself”). “Good science”
is conscientious about being objective, cautious, humble, and unbiased in a
culture that can easily bring bias and elicit unethical behavior.
Jesus invites all who will follow Him:
If you continue in My word,
then you are truly disciples of Mine;
and you will know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
- John 8: 31-32
What Do You Think?
Isn’t it time we give more attention to valuing the truth, and then using our respective platforms to speak out on behalf of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, access to quality education, and teaching of the moral foundation based on the biblical command to love others as we love ourselves (Mark 12: 31)? Our involvements can support efforts to preserve our basic freedoms and the law and order necessary to justly secure and maintain them for all of us. Without them, the social and economic structure of civilization cannot exist.
I welcome your “Comments” (see below or contact me at silviusj@gmail.com) and refer you to related information at the following:
“The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics & Accountability”
“Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science”
“Halting the Demise of “Liberal” Education” or “How Truman (Jim Carey) breaks through to truth (on movie, The Truman Show).”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment