Ed Driscoll offers Party gossip, with links, at Instapundit:
—“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,” the New York Times today: It’s no secret that the Hillary Clinton campaign chairman is a UFO buff, but the recent WikiLeaks dump of Mr. Podesta’s hacked account sheds new light on how deeply interested he is in extraterrestrial conspiracy theories.
“Leaked Podesta emails encourage UFO buffs seeking declassification in a Clinton administration,” the Washington Times, October 16, 2016
Speaking of “spiritual people,” maybe the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn can use her Ouija board to make contact with the aliens. The truth is out there! More.
A growing source of unproductive conflict in western culture: “Science” is becoming merely the attitudes, values, beliefs, hopes, fears, allegiances, and prejudices of the people who work there, without any external standard applied and none expected or wanted.
Hence all the marchin’, marchin’ doesn’t look the way they hoped it would.
And then, of course, tinpot jeremiahs attack a skeptical public that supposedly “hates science.”
This won’t end well.
See also: Occult graining ground among ”sciencey” liberals
Does post-modern naturalism lead to a rise in superstition? Millennials are ditching monotheism for witchcraft. But then post-modern naturalism holds that whatever you evolved to believe in is the ultimate Cool for you.
On why Americans “hate science” Health science is the way most people interact with science and in many areas, it is running neck and neck with the office rumor mill for credibility.
If this is science, yes we do hate it
3 Replies to “Why you, UD reader, are perchance not a member of the Party of Science…”
The Pentagon’s UFO program is just old-fashioned corruption, not bad science. Its sole purpose was to enrich one of Harry Reid’s buddies who ran a UFO-investigation company. Now that Reid is gone, his crimes can be exposed without losing budgets.
polistra at 1, thanks! So it’s not really belief against all reason but corruption beyond all accountability? – d.
One of the great problems our culture has is accepting words with sliding definitions.
It has reached the point where science has become synonymous with atheism. It’s anti-reason. Yes, it is trouble, but the solution is for the rest of us to insist definitions are commonly understood and consistent.
For natural science I propose that we use it solely to mean the pursuit of finding the consistencies of nature.
This definition would make clear the obvious that you can’t use natural science to address causes of singularities. More significantly it would mean that you can’t use natural science as the authority of great truth merely mundane observable consistencies.
ID, for what it’s worth, would fall under this definition of science as it recognizes a consistency of nature i.e. biological organisms (even nature itself) matches a rigorous standard of characteristics applied to known designed objects.