Article Image

IPFS News Link • Science

Why People Don't Believe in Science


In November the magazine published an issue devoted to climate change. Susan Goldberg, editor since 2015, says that afterward she received a congratulatory note from [Rupert] Murdoch, saying he'd "gathered his family around" to read through the important issue. She says he's made only one editorial suggestion to her. "James is an environmentalist," Goldberg says. "He said, 'I wish we could do more stories about why people don't believe science.'?" –Bloomberg

So the new head of Fox, James Murdoch, wants to find out why people "don't believe in science." (See above excerpt.) We can help him.

Climate change, gravitational physics and vaccines have all come under intense attacks in the 21st based on easily available 'Net information.

Falsehoods have been established and promoted: That's the real reason.

People's energy-use, for instance, has to be supervised because of global warming. Yet for every "fact" regarding global warming, there is another one that contradicts it.

People's health habits have to be tracked by public entities to ensure that they receive the correct vaccines. Yet it has become clear over time that vaccine proponents are covering up studies showing vaccines cause autism and other life-injuring conditions.

And certainly human insignificance has to be impressed upon people through the preaching of gravitational physics. Yet Nikola Tesla's electrical version of the universe seems in many ways a good deal more persuasive than Einstein's gravitational one.

James Murdoch's question actually mirrors a statement by Hugh Grant, Monsanto's CEO who sat down in April with CNN for a wide-ranging interview.

"The thing that drives [me] a little bit nuts, and is the frustrating piece in this, is it's such a polarized debate and I don't think it should be," Grant said.


Maybe because Monsanto's Glyphosate, the cancer-linked herbicide that is an essential component in the expansion of GMO crops, is already being banned around the world over safety concerns.

And the Internet has exposed that.

In the short-term, Murdoch's strategy for National Geographic will probably work well.

His video-version of National Geographic is "blowing up" into a big deal as it merges HBO-style production values with new and improved editorial fare.

More from Bloomberg:

[National Geographic's] development slate is brimming with boldface names. Alex Gibney is producing a miniseries about the global water crisis. Brett Morgen is making a biopic of Jane Goodall. Scott Rudin is developing a series about the events leading up to the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl.

But in the long-term informational trends may militate against it because Murdoch's programming approach is "more of the same."

We can see clearly that he accepts the shibboleths of modern science and its scarcity propaganda.

The programming mentioned in the Bloomberg article is focused on the weary warnings of modern science. The underlying idea is that humanity is running out of the basics – food, water and energy.

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

And don't forget that in the mid 1900s science and government told us that by the end of the 1900s if not sooner, we would have bases on the moon, moon cities, and weekly if not daily shuttles between here and there. The people believed, put their faith in science, and got royally screwed.