From Shawn Otto at Scientific American:
Four years ago in Scientific American, I warned readers of a growing problem in American democracy. The article, entitled “Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy,” charted how it had not only become acceptable, but often required, for politicians to embrace antiscience positions, and how those positions flew in the face of the core principles that the U.S. was founded on: That if anyone could discover the truth of something for him or herself using the tools of science, then no king, no pope and no wealthy lord was more entitled to govern the people than they were themselves. It was self-evident.
In the years since, the situation has gotten worse. We’ve seen the emergence of a “post-fact” politics, which has normalized the denial of scientific evidence that conflicts with the political, religious or economic agendas of authority. Much of this denial centers, now somewhat predictably, around climate change—but not all. If there is a single factor to consider as a barometer that evokes all others in this election, it is the candidates’ attitudes toward science. More.
Do people really believe this stunned stuff? Today, science’s biggest enemy is itself. Look at the world around us.
Huge scandals around science in China and Iran, Retraction Watch here, the editor of Nature weighing in on peer review as “unscientific.”
And Otto thinks that the main problem is a disbelieving public? Amazing. But then again, maybe not. It’s called “avoidance.”
Thought experiment: What if the climate a-crock-a-lypse people are right? In the current environment, how would anyone know? Why on earth should scientists who doubt go to jail?
See also: Bunk science: The problem with peer review
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I am always disturbed by journalists who are deliberately misunderstanding the average “deniers” motivation. I am not a scientist (I am a programmer) but like someone buying a used car, I NEED to examine the car for myself because trusting the salesman and the mechanic that works for him is dangerous, and I could easliy end up with a lemon. When scientific theories are being presented to me as reasons to hurt our economy, it makes good sense to examine them critically. The promoters of “science” like the journalists at Scientific American seem to want us to accept what ever they say at face value, just like the used car salesman wants me to accept what ever he says at face value. I just think I am a fool if I do, and I wonder at the motives of people who want me to be a fool and be quiet about things like “climate change” when there is so much at stake.
And just how has he, or anybody else, established the Global Warming scare as science?
By Popper’s criteria of falsifiability, Global Warming does not qualify as science since it is not falsifiable:
Whereas Imre Lakatos held that a good scientific theory will be strong on novel predictions in science and a pseudoscientific theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions. And on that criteria Global Warming qualifies as a pseudoscientific theory instead of as a scientific theory.
If instead Otto tries to appeal to ‘consensus’ to try to establish that the Global Warming scare is a rigid science, well Michael Crichton has some fairly strong words for people who take the route of trying to define science as consensus:
Moreover, the consensus, even if consensus were a valid way to determine whether something was scientific of not, apparently does not exist:
One final note, it is funny how atheists are always trying to redefine science in such a way so as to only include beliefs that they themselves prefer to be true. In this case, if you disagree with the Global Warming scare you are anti-science.
But this redefining of science by atheists goes well beyond Global warming.
The artificial imposition of the philosophy of naturalism onto the entire enterprise of science prior to investigation, i.e. ‘methodological naturalism’, being the number one shining example of the Atheists unfairly trying to ‘rig the game’ beforehand so that only their preferred worldview is considered scientific.
Yet, contrary to what atheists would prefer to be true beforehand, it would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than naturalism has turned out to be,
Pardon, As a balancing point, it is possible to either get into ill founded anti-science or to dress up questionable agendas in lab coats. Both objectors to dominant schools of thought and their advocates can go wrong. Let us hear two cheers for facts and logic, and a third for acknowledging the inherent provisionality of scientific thought of note. KF
1. Current global warming is far from a certainty.
BUT, let’s assume global warming is occurring:
2. The cause of current global warming is unknown, and there is no reason to indict human activity as its cause.
BUT, let’s assume humans are causing global warming:
3. Human-caused global warming may have more net positives than negatives, such as an increase in agricultural productivity.
BUT, let’s assume that its effects are all negative:
4. The solutions offered to stop human-caused global warming may not succeed in reversing the process.
BUT, let’s assume that the solution is in our grasp:
5. The solutions that can stop global warming may be more financially costly than is palatable to mankind and might leave humans in a much more precarious position by removing their means of production.
And so on ad infinitum…
This isn’t really only about global warming, of course, but it serves as an ideal example of why authors of this piece in Scientific American are either fools or dangerous ideologues.
I’m not surprised that government officials are anti-science, because government officials are anti-evidence in general whenever the evidence argues against their desiderata. The evidence against central planning, welfare spending, the drug war, and so on, is conclusive, and these programs survive only because pushing them is an easy road to power and importance.
OT: