Are You a Spectator or a Player?

My sense is that we are comfortable thinking of this in terms of sports, that when we hear the word "spectator" we think of an observer of some sporting event.  Just that notion can be provocative, despite how commonplace it is.  It brings up ingroups, preferences in contact versus non-contact sports, and notions of gender ability/equality. However, none of those are the focus of this post.  As soon as we begin a conversation around "our" sport, we either have a rival or ally: is this person with us or against us, do they wear our colours or not?  First we have those spectators, the persons watching in the stadium or on T.V.  Then we have those whose professions orbit and are in close contact with the players and games.  This includes jobs that describe, analyse, promote, and plan strategies to win games.   Finally, we have those doing the difficult work of hefting the ball, running the distance, stopping the opposition; those people who make a living playing and being "on the field (track, pitch, etc.)".  So we have three categories: those who actually play, those who act as support staff to the players, and the many more who pay to watch the players.  However, I think this applies to much more than sports and that it indicates something more than just "people like to watch."  I get a chuckle out of the terms "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob", for example.  It is the fetishism around or commodification of another activity into this mold.  Given that we are in the throes of an impending national election in the U.S., I think the relation to politics should be apparent.  There are a few who are actually involved in politics-the elected and appointed officials and candidates-who are "in the game", the support staff-think tanks, P.A.C.s, lobbyists, and news coverage-and then there are the majority of the population who watch what these "players" do.  The problem here is that in a Democratic Republic, that's not what is supposed to happen.

We are not spectators to our government, it is not something that happens without us or in spite of us.  We don't just show up "for the game" and spend the whole time "filling the bleachers", passively observing what others are doing.  Nor is it sufficient participation to "cheer for our team" and say "we won" when our party's candidate is elected.  The very words Democratic Republic have meaning because they are a definition of what this nation is and how it's supposed to operate.  The truth is that an election is only one small part of the process.  The same is true of laws, court appeals, hearings, committees, etc., these are all parts and not the end-all or be-all of this form of government. It's also not a money-making enterprise for the elite who exploit their position to extort money from "fans" and "advertisers".  This is the travesty it has become: a spectator sport for the masses to feel vicariously empowered by instead of participating in, complete with the panoply of money, advertising, fabricated drama, and hyperbole of any major-league sport.  Actually, it reminds me mostly of the former W.W.F., with made-up backgrounds for caricatures of "good and bad" that never really lead anywhere because it was just entertainment instead of an actual sport.  Fun to watch, but in no way suitable to government.

A Brief, Nonprofessional Opinion About Discrediting Science

It occurred to me that the way I have heard science attacked lately takes one main form.  What I hear is folks saying that science is not factual, that all science has to offer is theories and "guesses".  In turn these people are arguing that since science does not claim to be absolute, it is just another belief system.  In short, the way religious individuals are criticising science is by claiming that it is not any better than their own religions.  Therefore, ironically, they are actually supporting and even proving that religions are less valid than science.


Just because scientists do not claim to have "The Truth" does not mean that science is flimsy or disreputable.  Certainly the inability of laypeople to understand hard science has no effect on the validity of it.  In reality, scientists get into some pretty far-out areas of the universe.  Places where our everyday thinking about things like "water is wet' no longer apply.  These are things we just can't say we understand completely.  We still have microwave ovens and P.E.T. scans, G.P.S. and cell phones, refrigerators and genetically-modified foods.  That's all science-based, not running on faith.


I will state this as simply as I can:

1.  Belief systems (read: religions) are not rigorous and objective but are only as valid as the people who believe them.
2.  Religion precludes your involvement and testing; there is no way to go about "knowing" anything.
3.  Science is a series of observations, conjecture about what happened, followed by testing, and re-evaluation to make sure.  Repeat ad infinitum.
4.  Anyone and everyone can participate in science: make observations, hypotheses, test them, and show your data to others and you are a scientist.