“Trust science. By this we mean a true science, based on objectively established criteria and agreed foundations, with a rational methodology and mature criteria of proof – not the multitude of pseudo-sciences which, as we have seen, have marked characteristics which can easily be detected and exposed. Science, properly defined, is an essential part of civilization. To be anti-science is not the mark of a civilized human being, or of a friend of humanity. Given the right safeguards and standards, the progress of science constitutes our best hope for the future, and anyone who denies this proposition is an enemy of science.”–Paul Johnson, “Ten Pillars of Society”
Via Hot Air, the DNC’s Howard Dean:
“One of the most disturbing things about the Republican Party over the last couple of decades is that they just don’t believe in science any more. And that is not an approach that is likely to generate any kind of creative thinking. …People who use snowstorms as an example of why global warming doesn’t exist don’t understand the science and they don’t care.”
You mean using a single weather event like Hurricane Katrina? Not only did Democrats blame the storm on global warming, they blamed warming for Blackhawk Down!
We only began to mockingly cite storms as “proof” after years of this nonsense. Although the inevitable ice storm that follows every single Al Gore appearance is too settled to dismiss. The “debate” really is “over” on that.
Let’s start with the universally agreed-upon facts:
Dr. Dean is a doofus.
And he’s using “science” as a crutch. To him, science isn’t science, but merely something that “proves” all of his favorite policy preferences and attitudes. And attitudes are the opposite of science.
If you’re against everyone having their own nuclear weapons lab in their basement, are you “Anti-Science”?
Or have you instead just made a decision about the moral limits of applied science–just like those who oppose embryonic stem cell research?
California voters were told that if they only poured $3 billion down that rathole, it would take them to the Promised Land of jobs and cures. Turns out, it was bad ethics and bad science. And now they’re even more broke.
Let’s take Darwinism. Can science really tell you exactly what happened eons ago? Especially a science whose main talking point is about what is missing, i.e.; the Missing Link? As Chesterton put it:
They talk of searching for the habits and habitat of the Missing Link; as if one were to talk of being on friendly terms with the gap in a narrative or the hole in an argument, of taking a walk with a nonsequitur or dining with an undistributed middle.
We’re All ‘Bad Crazy’ Now
We note that, in announcing his parting of the ways with the Right, Johnson lumped “creationism” and ”climate change denialism” under the heading of “anti-science bad craziness,” suspiciously adjacent to “homophobic bigotry,” with all of these bad-crazy tendencies typified by the same personalities, including Sarah Palin and various figures of the Religious Right.
Hostility toward religion, and toward the traditional beliefs associated with religion, is a necessary correlation (if indeed it is not the origin) of fanatical Scientism. To deny the existence of God is to invalidate any supernatural authority in human affairs, which necessarily means that ultimate authority must reside in human hands. This all-encompassing human authority cannot be entrusted to religious people, as they do not accept the denial of God on which such authority is premised. So Christian conservatives like Sarah Palin and her supporters are viewed by the high priests of Scientism with a horror similar to what the mullahs of Iran reserve for the infidel.
What we are witnessing is therefore not actually an argument about what science has proven in regard to climate change or evolution or anything else. Rather, when we see defenders of the “consensus” seeking to employ government authority to impose policy based on claims of scientific expertise – while they insist that official recognition must be denied to skeptics who question such claims — we are witnessing a power-grab. Just as Lenin once made “All Power to the Soviets!” the slogan of the Bolsheviks, so now our own totalitarians cry, “All Power to the Scientists!”
Americans are instinctively suspicious of such tactics simply because these tactics express an anti-democratic impulse. Invoking the prestige of Science to carry an argument about public policy has the effect of disenfranchising everyone who is not a scientist.
Or a liberal. Which is the point.
Well, then how ’bout climate science? Mark Steyn:
Let Ian “Harry” Harris, who works in “climate scenario development and data manipulation” at the CRU, sum it up. Mr. Harris was attempting to duplicate previous results—i.e., to duplicate all that science that’s supposedly settled, and the questioning of which consigns you to the Climate Branch of the Flat Earth Society. How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel:
“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently—I have no memory of this at all—we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?
“OH F–K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
Thus spake the Settled Scientist: “OH F–K THIS.” And on the basis of “OH F–K THIS” the world’s enlightened progressives will assemble at Copenhagen for the single greatest advance in punitive liberalism ever perpetrated on the developed world.
The anecdotal link between scientists and their government funding and prestige is fairly strong.
The link between liberals and their desire to use “science” to further their pre-existing preference for Mega-Government is even stronger.
But the scientific evidence for the Lost Freedom Theory, the result of a Government Big Enough to Think It Can Control the Weather, is proven, settled and unfortunately, very repeatable.
Don’t be a Freedom-Denier.
If you want to clone, then clone. If you want to rule, then rule.
But quit calling your moral decisions and political policy preferences “science”.
You’re scaring the lab rats.