Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

March for Science: As if science as such is just history now.


From Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, at the Stream:

Bill Nye may not be a scientist. But he used to play one on TV. Now he is an honorary co-chair and speaker for the “March for Science” in Washington D.C. and elsewhere on April 22.

The choice of Nye as one of the faces of the March is revealing. March organizers have paid lip service to critical thinking and “diverse perspectives” in science. However, Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.

He attacks those who disagree with him on climate change or evolution as science “deniers.” He wouldn’t even rule out criminal prosecution as a tool. Asked last year whether he supported efforts to jail climate skeptics as war criminals, he replied: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”More.

Well, as some of us have said, marchin’, marchin’ isn’t going to help much when most of the problems are actually back at the desk.

If what people want is lots of air time and few honest reappraisals, maybe Bill Nye is a good choice of figurehead.

Curious the number of times one keeps running into concepts like post-normal science, post-fact science, and “post-truth” science.

As if science as such is just history now.

Predictably, the March risks being hijacked by hordes of grievance groups. And even Nature is telling concerned scientists to just shout louder.
Sure, that’ll work.

Very much as if science is a post-modern narrative and everyone gets their fifteen minutes.

See also: But PNAS: You are in the Marchers’ gunsights too…

Objectivity is sexist.

On why Americans “hate science”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Bill Nye doesn't believe in evil. He says we are all here because s**t happens. OldArmy94
Sad kairosfocus
Bill Nye figures that promoting falsehoods is evil, and in the case of Global Warming denial, a grave threat to life. What rational justification is there for allowing gullible people to be misled by ideas that have been found to be false and dangerous by thousands and thousands of peer reviewed Scientists? chris haynes

Leave a Reply