Culture Intelligent Design Naturalism Science

An interesting take on how science splutters out amid cries of “Trust the Science!”

Spread the love

COVID-19 was practically a laboratory experiment for that:

You would expect a person with a “scientific” mindset to look for information, and to share it… But the new fan of “science” doesn’t trust the public with information, and so far as he can, when information doesn’t fit his goals, he buries it. When he says “trust the science,” he means “trust the scientists” — a group of people whose research he many times can’t see, hasn’t read, and can’t explain, whose funders he doesn’t know, and whose political and social goals he hasn’t been told. It’s gotten so bad that OSHA, the branch of our government tasked with keeping workers safe, is no longer requiring businesses to report adverse reactions to the vaccine — for the reason that (I quote) “OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination.” I don’t know which scientists to trust, but I know whom to not trust, and that is the person who refuses information and hides it.

A scientific mindset should be a machine and a method. It should mean that you know what facts you know and what you don’t know, that you’re open to new facts and factoring them in, and that the most important thing isn’t feeling right, but heading in the right direction. What being “pro-science” actually means today is that you have the “right” facts. Not that you’re good at sifting, but that you’re good at accepting — and that you have the “correct” scientists as authorities.

Jeremy Egerer, “The End of Science” at American Thinker (October 29, 2021)

Curiously, “Trust the Science” echoes across the landscape at about the same time as Cancel Culture has started going after prominent historical scientists. There may be a connection in the sense that the slogan relates to a state of mind in which Correct scientists are identified and given implicit obedience — for now — and Incorrect ones are destroyed.

You may also wish to read: At The Times of London: “Charles Darwin will be next if his great defender is toppled” Huh? What? If Huxley (or Darwin) is cancelled, “the practice of science itself no longer matters.” Well, that’s true but for Cancel Culture, that’s a feature, not a bug. It shows their immense power, generally in the robes of victimhood. Have none of these Darwinians been paying attention to the war on math and the war on science?

2 Replies to “An interesting take on how science splutters out amid cries of “Trust the Science!”

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    This is the inevitable result of 1946. NSF and WHO and CDC were created at the same time with the same goal. Science must become a branch of spy agencies, with the same goal of gathering all information into a secret blackmail-generating data bank.

    Before 1946, government-paid experts were no different from other experts. All knew the limits of their knowledge and tried to distribute information in a careful and humble way. After 1946, government-paid experts are part of the infallible blackmailing priesthood of Deepstate.

  2. 2
    David P says:

    How is something “practically” a laboratory experiment? Saying “practically” is like giving a nod to a false narrative without totally committing to it.

    Yes, I agree we shouldn’t just blindly trust people. Especially those willing to push conspiracy theories.
    UD has sunk so low since they got political.

Leave a Reply