It did seem odd, people gathering together all over the world, including here in Vincennes, to “March for Science.”
We've known marches for civil rights and marches against war, marches for higher wages and marches against sexual violence, but holding a march in support of the periodic table was new to us. These are strange times.
The impetus for Saturday's Earth Day events were, as far as we can tell, to show support for unfettered scientific inquiry and against the muzzling, for political purposes, of those who undertake such research, especially government employees.
We're all for the freedom to pursue the truth, whether in the classroom, the courthouse or the chemistry lab.
But we're also long enough in years to know that the pursuit of the truth rarely wins you new friends in your own lifetime, that the winds can change quickly.
Look what happened to Galileo, and what about poor Socrates?
Scientific research has always had to endure the rigors of some type of political censorship, which itself has been driven by public suspicion of the scientist's motives; it wasn't so long ago that there were marches held against certain research, marches that likely involved many of the same people who took to the streets in Saturday's demonstrations, albeit they're now considerably older and likely walked a more-measured pace.
The media must share some responsibility for what's being called this “war on science” launched by the new administration.
In an overarching effort to be viewed as unbiased in its coverage, especially when it came to reporting on the environment, there was an effort to give both those who support concerns about climate change (and man's causative relationship to it) and those who believe the whole business to be bunkum, equal time.
To the public, it seems that for every expert who believes climate change a serious threat, there's another “expert” who discounts the whole business — that it's a 50-50 proposition.
The reality is much different.
To accurately depict the disproportionate weight of those who believe climate change a serious threat against those who don't, image the Red Skelton Performing Arts Center, with every one of its 891 seats filled, its aisles packed, a line four-abreast stretching out of the theater into the lobby, out the front door and winding across campus of experts whose research says manmade climate change is real.
And then, off to one side of the stage, alone on a stool (but resting comfortably surrounded by piles of corporate money), the single “expert” who doesn't.
There are some, no doubt many who marched on Saturday, who see the whole country in that ratio: here we are, the great multitude who are right, and there they are, the tiny minority who are wrong.
But it's that tiny minority who is in charge for now.
Saturday's events had for us a much deeper meaning, beyond worries about the blue flame of bunsen burners dying out all across America.
“Science,” as defined by Messrs. Merriam and Webster, means “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Right now, it's safe to say that many if not most of those taking part in Saturday's marches are ignorant about or greatly misunderstand the reasons why there are those who fervently support what the administration is trying to do.
That's seems to be the knowledge worth acquiring first.