Posted on 08/29/2022 8:27:32 AM PDT by SJackson
The inevitable end result of "trusting the science."Mon Aug 29, 2022
"Trust the science," say the media.
Polls show that fewer Americans do. There's good reason for that.
"They don't trust science because science is increasingly untrustworthy," says science writer Andrew Follet in my new video. "The only group that trusts science right now is Democrats."
Sixty-four percent of Democrats have "a great deal" of confidence in the scientific community, compared to 34% of Republicans.
Of course, true science — using the scientific method — is important. But that's not what much of "science" is these days.
Instead, today government science is misused by progressive politicians.
Example 1: Environmental activists want to limit commercial fishing. They want Congress to pass what they call the "Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act." It claims climate change is the "greatest threat to America's national security" and offers a dubious solution: close more of the ocean to commercial fishing.
The administration's deputy director of Climate, Jane Lubchenco, told Congress that a scientific paper concludes that closing more of the ocean can actually increase catches of fish.
Really? That doesn't seem logical.
It isn't. The paper was retracted. One scientist called its logic "biologically impossible."
Also, Lubchenco's didn't tell Congress that the paper was written by her brother-in-law! And edited by her!
Did the White House punish Lubchenco for her ethics violations? No. In fact, after her testimony, she was appointed co-head of President Joe Biden's Scientific Integrity Task Force!
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences banned her for five years. Yet she's still on the White House's Scientific Integrity Task Force.
Sadly, much of what's called science today is simply left-wing advocacy.
"New fields like fat studies, African studies, Latinx studies, queer studies," says Follet, "are essentially entirely fake."
Fake? Well, they must be. "Experts" in those fields keep being fooled by people who submit gibberish.
Example 2:
A ridiculous paper, "Embracing Fatness as Self-Care in the Era of Trump," was accepted by Massey University's "Fat Studies" conference. The conference then invited the paper's author, "Sea Matheson," to speak.
Attendees gave Matheson's speech rave reviews, praising the paper's description of Donald Trump's "fatphobia" and inviting Matheson to review other work submitted to their "scientific" journal, Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society.
But Matheson is no scientist. "She" is actually comedian Steven Crowder, who disguised himself as an overweight woman to expose "ivory tower quackery."
Crowder is just the latest person to fool today's so-called science journals. James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose submitted nonsense papers to "grievance studies" journals like Fat Studies, Sexuality & Culture and Sex Roles.
Seven accepted ridiculous papers.
One that took a section of "Mein Kampf" but replaced references to "National Socialism" with "feminism," was accepted by Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.
Gender, Place and Culture accepted a paper that claimed there is rape culture at dog parks.
Follett blames this perversion of science on government. Its science agencies, like much of America, have been taken over by leftists hungry to promote themselves and their agenda.
In science, the way to promote yourself is to get papers published. That often gets you more funding. Government agencies like the National Science Foundation provide most of that funding.
"Nobody wants to publish something that goes against the paymaster," says Follett. "You don't get published unless the NSF likes your results."
Example 3: The NSF gave nearly half a million dollars to a team that wrote a paper questioning glacier science because it "stems from knowledge created by men."
Absurdities are pushed by the right, too. Some people still claim that man plays no part in climate change or that the climate isn't warming at all. Some say vaccines don't work. But the right's junk science doesn't get backed by government funds.
I'm angry that my tax dollars go to support leftist nonsense.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't care. That's probably because they don't know that government throws so much money at ridiculous progressive advocacy.
"We'll all start caring when the bridges start falling down and the planes start crashing," says Follet. "That's the inevitable end result of this."
In the 1850s trusting the science would have had us use phrenology to pick the leaders with the biggest skulls.
In the 1920s they were sure radiation was good for your health. They glazed cookware with it
Fixed it--at least, I fixed the acronym.
I got 72 “Grays” worth in 2012.
Back when I was in school they didn’t even have “Grays” IIRC.
Lysenkoism was a neo-Lamarckian idea, claiming that in crop plants, such as wheat, environmental influences are heritable via all cells of the organism. Lysenkoism was applied to agriculture during the Stalin era with disastrous consequences.
The three most murderous movements after 1900 were the US eugenics people, there Nazis, and the communists.
The absolute centerpiece of all their propaganda was that they were only following pure science. This was always the answer when horrifying actions were criticized.
The call to govern by science is the cry of the authoritarian.
To democrats, science is just whatever they feel comfortable hearing. It also functions as a flail to whip others with, if they believe in God or individual freedom. Because real science, as all good democrats know, says there is no God and capitalism is killing the earth. That men can be women (whatever a woman is, because science can’t define that).
Ping.
The “scientific method” is nothing but “thinking white.”
Furthermore, he refuses to release any financial information about patents while he is in government service,
nor any kick-backs from big pharma for medication referrals.
It will be interesting to see where he goes after leaving government service
My monthly copy of Physics Today (American Institute of Physics) is now loaded with woke crap.
Jane Lubchenco, who is a Harvard Ph.D. like me, is corrupt, and serves science very poorly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Lubchenco#Controversy
She is a bidenite bureaucrat who works to enslave humanity with climate-jockey restrictions!! PHOOEY!!!!
My monthly copies of “Science” and “Nature” contain legitimate scientific papers and reviews.
However, they also contain tons of woke garbage, and make readers sort through it in order to find the good stuff!!!! PHOOEY!!!!
Thanks for the ping. Yeah - I find myself in an odd frame of mind now having been given the moniker ‘antivax’ by the culture. I still trust science just not “the science” and certainly not Dr. I am science.
Today there are way too many 'scientists' and they ALL are scrambling for 'grants' to do the things they do to get MORE grant money.
I wonder...
Back in the day, how much tax money was diverted to the doctors investigating nicotine smoke being applied to the anal nether regions?
It seems like the technique is still with us.
How’s Scientific American doing?
I quit subscribing to that when John Rennie, seventh editor-in-chief (1994–2009), started yanking the reins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.