Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Science

The American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2016 | John Horvat II

[Cincinatus' Wife]

In classrooms across the country, high school students are taught the scientific method. It consists of constructing a doubtful hypothesis and designing a series of experiments to test the hypothesis with the observable facts. After a number of tests prove positive. The student can then take the facts and reach a conclusion. When a conclusion is constantly verified,it is enshrined in what might be called "established" science.

There is a second kind of science that uses methods very different from those of "established" science. In fact,this science,if indeed it might be called such, uses the exact opposite method. It consists of constructing a conclusion and then testing that conclusion with a hypothesis that is repeated over and over again using doubtful data to back it up.

The "logic" of this particular scientific method is that the truth of the conclusion is determined by the number of times the hypothesis is affirmed. With enough repetition,even the data starts to take on the appearance of the truth. The secret is to get as many people and media as possible to parrot the great discovery. At a certain point,the conclusion can be enshrined in a special pantheon that might be called "settled" science,and woe betide any "denier" who dare question it.

Like its cousin "settled" law, "settled" science can be useful even outside its field. It can be employed to silence opposition, impose laws and promote political agendas. It respects no rank or positions. August researchers and famous professors can be toppled from their positions if they express the slightest doubts about a "settled" position. Even the strongest evidence is ignored with disdain and disbelief. Meanwhile the hypothesis mantra is just repeated over and over again.

"Settled" science cases abound in today's politically-correct times......

....reality itself must be altered to conform to the agendas of the liberal establishment...

[Jim Noble]

When a conclusion is constantly verified,it is enshrined in what might be called "established" science

That's actually not how scientists (real ones) operate.

As soon as a "conclusion" is "constantly verified" to the point that it can be published in Nature, PNAS, Cell, or some other such journal, it comes under relentless attack.

The whole enterprise is one giant game of King of the Hill.

Of course, introduce government funding into the picture and the whole thing turns to shit in a hurry.

[RipSawyer]

Just to satisfy my curiosity, what is the speed of like in a vacuum? Is it higher than the speed of dislike in a windstorm?

[RipSawyer]

“...pick any conclusion, and then find (or define) the rationale to get there.”

To me it just seems like what Ayn Rand warned about.

[JoeFromSidney]

The red shift of distant galaxies,

Even that's not settled. See Halton Arp's book Seeing Red.

He shows that there are astronomical objects that are obviously physically connected but which have radically different "red shifts."

[Oztrich Boy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Sound familiar?

[Gene Eric]

Certainly.

The politics of science is nothing new unfortunately. Individuals have been slaughtered for it since the age of Babylon.