PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. Galileo Could Not Be Reached for Comment by William Ward, Ph.D. Round Earth Theory Persists, Amidst Controversy Scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have released new evidence that the earth is nearly spherical. Viewing the earth from the newly realigned Hubble space telescope, a small group of NASA astronomers and geologists claim to have seen a nearly circular earth silhouette, compressed at the poles by 1.36 percent and bulging by the same percentage at the equator. "The slightly bulging profile is caused by centrifugal force of the earth's daily rotation about its axis," claims NASA astronomer, I. B. Wright. These findings are reported in the February issue of "The American Astronomer." Dr. Simon Anachronism, President of the Santa Barbara-based Flat Earth Society and long time opponent of NASA's "round earth theory" was reached shortly after "The American Astronomer" appeared on the newsstands. "Evidence that the earth is round continues to be exceedingly shaky. Our 2000-member Society, which has doubled in number over the past few years, finds serious flaws with the NASA evidence. The Hubble telescope, for example, suffers from design flaws including spherical aberrations in its principle mirror. These aberrations are sufficient to produce the illusion of round when viewing a flat object," stated Dr. Anachronism. Others we have interviewed concur that round earth evidence is incomplete. Reliable sources from the Vatican, for example, point out that, while there are no clear Biblical references to the shape of the earth in the King James version, there is a 5th century translation of a verse in Genesis, "And let the flat earth bring forth fruit." Actress and mystic, Shirley MacLaine has lectured throughout the country on the flat earth theory. "It's no wonder that Magellan failed to complete his voyage," said Ms. MacLaine While appearing distressed over the comments of critics, Dr. Wright remains cautiously optimistic. "Yes, there will always be critics of any scientific theory, but we must continue our vital scientific research at NASA." Galileo could not be reached for comment. The above 1997 commentary, a response to newspaper reporters who try to present both sides of a story and thus, assign equal importance to correct & incorrect viewpoints of factual issues, was written during press coverage of science department mismanagement at Rutgers University. Dr. Ward explains his motivation for writing the essay below: I wrote the “Galileo essay” to a local reporter who, after listening stone faced and unfazed for an hour to a group of senior Rutgers biochemists (myself included), each of us justifiably irate about well-documented administration mismanagement of a department at Rutgers University, asked us whom he could interview to get the other side of the story. We refused tell him where he should turn for the other side, but, instead, we protested that any other side would be a wrong side. Disregarding our protest, he found the other (wrong) side, anyhow, and then gave the “wrong” side equal coverage in his article. Some of these issues are presented in my newly published satire, “Hey, Doc! Does Speling Count?” now available from CCB Publishing. Scientists spend their entire lifetimes struggling to be right about everything they publish in professional journals. We are bound by an unwritten code of conduct that forces us to investigate all evidence until we are nearly certain that we have captured the truth. Journalists seem not to follow such a code. With the exception of a few daring editorialists, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC comes to mind, many journalists seem unable or unwilling to sort truth from falsehood—so they present two sides, one that is right and one that is wrong. So, what is the point of printing an article if the take home message is “up may be down” or “down may be up?” Should not journalists struggle, just as scientists struggle, to communicate truths that help move people in the right direction. Why, with respect to the “right” position, should the “wrong” position be given equal weight, equal column space, or equal air time? Just finding someone who expresses the “wrong” position is not a good reason for the journalist to abandon his/her own journalistic/intellectual sense of right and wrong. Plenty of issues can be reduced to matters of right vs wrong. The journalist’s final position needs to be strongly and accurately defended, of course, but no journalist, just to appeal to the American sense of “fair play,” should abrogate the responsibility of stating conclusions based upon facts. “Fair play” is irrelevant when one party tells the truth while the other party lies or distorts the truth. --William Ward, Ph.D. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
