Culture Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

Will “science” please stand down?

Spread the love

Because what our betters really want is that their nonsense, whatever it stems from and wherever it leads, always be dressed up as “science.” From David Klinghoffer

As protein chemist Douglas Axe tweets, “The people who keep insisting they’re on the side of science don’t get that science is an open approach, not a list of settled dogmas.”

I think the problem is that there are two phenomena here, both going by the name “science.” On one hand there is “science” in the sense that Dr. Axe first uses it, an “open approach” to seeking the truth about nature. And then there is “science” in the sense that others seem to have in mind when they invoke sacred dogmas and demand that we “Trust the Science” or “Trust the Scientists.” Science in this usage has taken on an increasingly cult-like aspect. No one would insist that you blindly “trust” an open process that follows the evidence wherever it leads. A process like that expects debate, not trust.

David Klinghoffer, “When “Science” Becomes a Cult” at Evolution News and Science Today

See also: It isn’t skeptics who are harming science today. Mahlberg: In the latest major backflip, the WHO has condemned lockdowns as a primary strategy for combating the spread of the virus, after originally recommending them.

5 Replies to “Will “science” please stand down?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    I think the crucial variable isn’t openness but just humility. Real science has always been dominated by rigid orthodoxies and fads. It has never been about debate. But before 1946, real scientists, ESPECIALLY government-sponsored experts writing for the government, were HUMBLE. They recognized their limits and carefully distinguished facts from theories. They deserved trust and received trust.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Because what our betters really want is that their nonsense, whatever it stems from and wherever it leads, always be dressed up as “science.”

    What better way is there than to follow the evidence wherever it leads? ID proponents are always claiming that that is exactly what they do so they must endorse the principle.

    As protein chemist Douglas Axe tweets, “The people who keep insisting they’re on the side of science don’t get that science is an open approach, not a list of settled dogmas.”

    Apparently, Axe is unaware of the irony of such a comment coming from a camp which continually attacks any science which they view as not consistent with their settled religious dogmas.

    I think the problem is that there are two phenomena here, both going by the name “science.” On one hand there is “science” in the sense that Dr. Axe first uses it, an “open approach” to seeking the truth about nature. And then there is “science” in the sense that others seem to have in mind when they invoke sacred dogmas and demand that we “Trust the Science” or “Trust the Scientists.” Science in this usage has taken on an increasingly cult-like aspect. No one would insist that you blindly “trust” an open process that follows the evidence wherever it leads. A process like that expects debate, not trust

    Again, what better alternative is there than to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads away from one’s personal religious beliefs?

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Yes, seversky, you and yours never follow the science. It is clear you don’t even understand what science entails. So you and yours are the science attackers.

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    Seversky did you read the article, did you not comprehend it, or are you trying really really super hard to find hypocrisy in it?

    “What better way is there than to follow the evidence wherever it leads? ID proponents are always claiming that that is exactly what they do so they must endorse the principle.“

    This comment feels like the latter. Again a distortion and I’m sure you are aware of that
    Further more you are just championing what they are complaining about in the post

    It is healthy to be skeptical to a degree and to question. It is also healthy to be open to different interpretations of the evidence if multiple can be valid instead immediately rejecting all but the one that fits the dogma of the time

    But if you really want to blindly trust science let’s go get that experimental vaccine for covid and we can take it(you know sars 2, look up those successes at making a vaccine for sars in the last 10 years, it should give you confidence scientists got this in the bag)
    while we are at it, eugenics was pretty damn cool by science for a long long time, TRUST SCIENCE. Also morality trust is just oxytocin, TRUST SCIENCE!!!!! (You know oxytocin peddled by Paul Zak tremendous amount of fraud behind the chemical and false publications and failed replications)
    You all have zero free will thanks to Benjamin Libet, oops oh wait we interpreted it wrong for nearly 50 years I guess we are sorry but you still don’t have free will, trust us we are experts we are science, we can’t be bought………………

    I might be being sarcastic but everything I said was 100% true so knock it off Sev

    It’s good to question things follow where the evidence leads not were scientist tell you to go because even they get things wrong and trusting anything blindly science religion government all can be really bad

  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    Trust science. Not long ago gender was determined by a chromosome, XY or XX
    Now it’s a social construct, determined by a nine year old, but it’s not in your genes well not the XY or XX chromosomes those are old commonsense and social constructs. But it’s still in my genes I’m born this way except you aren’t……………. also not long ago the science said male female brains are different, then they said male female brains are mosaics (supported trans) and not different but homosexual brains are different

    Again SCIENCE!

Leave a Reply