Bob Park
The idea that cell phones and microwaves generally might cause cancer can only be held by defying physics and misinterpreting statistics and ignoring every reasonable definition of risk. It is nothing but pandering to the most ignorant fear of "radiation" imaginable. As a teacher, which Bob Park was, the question is why shouldn't he be outraged by such egregious folly? Similarly, antimissile defense borders on open fraud (if not decisively indictable,) and people should be outraged.
All the science known til now can be proven wrong?
The saying that "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio," was casually tossed aside to justify listening to a ghost. This whole attitude (one cannot honestly call it an idea,) persists as a loophole to let magic back into the world. FTL? Why quit there? Why not forthrightly hope the new version of QM proves the existence of God, and shows how really sincere prayer can carry us to Arcturus, or at least Mars?
Scientists are willing to tolerate speculations of multiple universes, unseen dimensions, reality as a hologram and other mind boggling notions. The implicit claim that stodginess or lack of imagination have any role in rejecting the concept that just anything might turn out to be true is nonsense. On closer inspection, it is the opposite, the supposed openmindedness to wholesale dismissal of science that covers the return of the old "ideas" dressed up. The notion that manipulating the state vector can change reality is very like thinking that changing the (Aristotelian) essence will change the accidents, for instance.
Historically, the idea that new ideas in science will radically change the previous conception relies primarily on two examples, the Copernican revolution and the theory of General Relativity. For the first, it was only people's desire to imagine that there could be things that couldn't be explained, that didn't follow the laws of nature as revealed in experience and experiment, that mere science just predicted results but didn't and couldn't grasp multifarious reality, truth, that permitted people to babble about spheres in the sky in the first place. There was no material like that, there was no hint about what or who was cranking this contraption. The whole thing relied upon the airy assumption that just about anything might be explained, someday.
For the second, General Relativity's refutation of Newton's system of the world is highly exaggerated. The famous laws of motion (some of which were taken from previous work, anyhow) are left untouched. Despite Newton's efforts not to venture metaphysical constructs to "explain" the lawfulness of gravitation and motion, one, absolute time, has indeed bit the dust. Refutation of metaphysical assumptions is in one sense the business of science, so I don't see how this example shows science is disposable like Kleenex.
General Relativity devised simpler assumptions based on experimental evidence and internal coherence. If one protests there are still metaphysical assumptions in science, one, the assumption there is an objective world existing outside the consciousness, is never going to be dropped. As far as our understanding of nature is concerned, GR specified when it would give different results from Newtonian gravitation, and it gave a theory that gave the same results as Newtonian gravitation in appropriate conditions. Any new revolutions ins understanding of physics will follow this pattern. Insufficiently understood, unjustified or downright false assumptions may fall. But the new theory will explicitly explain when it applies to new phenomena and it will produce the same results found in previous experience and experiments.
In the case of FTL, previous results include special relativity, which right there rules out practically every mode of star travel. Previous results include Einstein's most famous equation, which means that space warping must involve extraordinary amounts of matter, possibly more than could be obtained within a single solar system, in that case again ruling out every such mode of star travel.
(In other sciences, like biology and history, scientific revolutions are bedeviled by counterrevolutions undertaken for reactionary ends. Thus, the repeated revival of race in biology, usually in disguised form. In history, biased sampling produces so-called facts that aren't. So and so forth. Science is a human enterprise, not a disembodied search for truth and these difficulties can be escaped. They must be conquered.)
The answer to the rhetorical question in the heading is, plainly, no.
Human emotions are the cause of government policies?
The distinction between the emotions and the appetites is somewhat arbitrary. The emotions of hunger, fear, frustration, lust, are all motivators of human action. When people act in conjunction as government, they are attempting to fulfill those appetites. The role of deception in human affairs does not mean that the actors are not attempting to rationally fulfill the logical goals of satisfying hunger, feeling safe, fulfilling their goals or getting laid. Plus others of course. Space war has no role in fulfilling any of these goals.
But what of more exotic goals, such as spreading the faith to heathen planets and such nonsense? Given that belief in God may not even motivate people to get up out of bed on Sunday morning, much less read the Bible (an ancient text not readily understood with very outdated notions of narrative,) and especially not give up prohibited sexual activities, it really staggers the imagination to think that such will cause people to invest the gigantic resources for space war. Frankly, I doubt they will invest the still gigantic but still much smaller amount of resources required for a simple sublight space probe, to return data after a few centuries.
But most of all, the assertion that governments, which are after all groups of people who must interact with each other by asserting some sort of intelligible goals and feasible methods of achieving them, somehow collectively emote on an irrational basis. Governments are not individuals and individual psychology is simply irrelevant. The claim is so extraordinary the burden of proof is on the proponent!
Again, the answer to the rhetorical question is no!
