Science used to be seen as something revolutionary – a catalyst for incredible change with the potential to bring about solutions to problems humanity had been wrestling with for some time. [bold, links added]
It was revered for its innovations – from the creation of vaccines to prevent deadly diseases, to the development of treatments (and even cures) for devastating conditions.
Science gave us the technology to track health conditions and has considerably extended the average lifespan of human beings.
Yet real science has been thrown out the window by the very same people who claim to follow it. They treat it as a religion, worshipping ‘The Science’ and its purveyors.
Over the last two years, these experts have functioned as heralds of ‘truth’ and prophets of doom, scaring people if they fail to follow their instructions.
It is intriguing, given these same experts are typically antithetical to religion, many are likely atheists, but they still deify those who have the most inflated egos on the planet.
At the core of science is questioning.
To question is essential to determining what is truth and what is not. It has only been through this process of challenging established lines of thought that innovations in knowledge and technology have been possible.
Now it has become taboo to even think about questioning ‘The Science’. Questioning is ‘anti-science’.
This has been evident in several significant areas where science has mixed with politics, particularly over the last decade and even more so in the last few years.
Recently, the abandonment of science has shone through in the actions of politicians, unelected bureaucrats, scientists, experts, the pharmaceutical industry, and any other parties procuring a narrative to suit their agenda. …snip…
As we have seen on the subject of climate change and global warming, experts that contradict the apocalyptic narrative are treated as heretics.
Look at what questioning the science and offering another perspective did to our own Dr. Peter Ridd… He ended up out of a job with his scientific papers discarded by academia, even though his suggestion that the Great Barrier Reef was bleached due to natural cycles (not Climate Change) was shown to be accurate.
Scientists like Dr. Ridd are akin to doctors Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, who are unable to get their work through the peer-review system because the review process has been hijacked by the cult of ‘The Science’.
Submissions are no longer reviewed impartially as they should be. Instead, they are checked to make sure they support the accepted narrative. If they do, they get the tick of approval; if not, they are thrown away.
The peer-review system has morphed into a monstrosity of inaccuracy and politics where peers pat each other on the back and scorn those who question their religion of ‘science’.
Ironically, the most incessant preachers of ‘The Science’ utter the most incredibly anti-science slogan – ‘Trust the Science’. Anyone who uses this phrase is incapable of critical thinking – the skill necessary for questioning.
They would rather put their faith in cherished inaccuracies rather than confront an uncomfortable reality that real science demands it is subjected to ruthless questioning.
Should we be surprised? Many of the same practitioners hesitate to define a woman, a simple scientific task. Basic biology says that a woman is a human being born with female reproductive organs, but a worshipper at the church of ‘The Science’ would insist that womanhood is a social construct. …snip…
What is evident from all of the above is that true science is being thrown to the wayside in favor of the new age religion, The Science™.
Members of this cult bow down to celebrity figures attempting to extend their fifteen minutes of fame. They believe – and do – whatever they are told by their infallible ‘gods’. …snip…
When they see evidence that they have been conned, they either begin to finally see the light, or they refuse to accept it no matter how compelling the data is, descending deeper into their cult-like mentality.
If someone genuinely believes in science, they must respect the scientific process and its difficult questions. They must not attempt to conform to a faith-based cult.
Science is not supposed to be ideological – it is evidence-based – but when you mix science and politics you get into dangerous territory.
Jordan Peterson said it best recently when discussing Covid policy with conservative host Steven Crowder:
‘We now have bleeding over of the scientific concerns into the political domain because politicians are using these experts as proxies for pushing forward their own particular ideological positions, and that’s a very dangerous misuse of science.’
If this entanglement of the scientific and political realms continues, it may yet create a monstrosity that threatens to unravel the very fabric of Western civilization itself.
Read the full post at Spectator AU
Atheists aren’t that stupid, they don’t believe in any religion and that includes the holy church of climate change.
I’m an atheist and I don’t know a single fellow atheist who “believes’ in climate change.
Atheists are skeptical of everything.
“I WANT YOU TO LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE!” says Greta… no she doesnt, she wants you to listen to people who interpret the available scientific data in the same way she does. “Science” doesn’t tell you anything … it requires people to interpret the data, and that is now skewed by political agendas.
Greta like just about all the youth who took part in all those Climate Marches are the examples of all the Brainwashing thats taking place in the Schools these days with the Dept of brainwashing(Education)and the NEA leading the way why else did they come up with CRT and the liberal rag the NYT’s taking that big lie
‘We now have bleeding over of the scientific concerns into the political domain because politicians are using these experts as proxies for pushing forward their own particular ideological positions, and that’s a very dangerous misuse of science.’
Yup – and there’s an election coming up.
(Must admit, the election in Australia seems to be a choice between bad and worse.)
If the useful idiots in the picture realy beleived in real science they would be quesionng the Climate Alarmists instead of beleiving its real
The nub of all this is expressed in the last sentence: “If this entanglement of the scientific and political realms continues, it may yet create a monstrosity that threatens to unravel the very fabric of Western civilization itself.”
That is surely the point of it all. Climate change alarmism and the denial of distinct sexes are aspects of Cultural Marxism promoted by academics so as to turn the minds of young people.
The BBC, whose Charter requires impartiality and fair debate, has banned any kind of debate or questioning about climate change, even instructing its staff that way. Yet it still demands that we all pay about £145 a year to watch or own a TV, to fund it. The effectively abusive term “denier” is now common. This is not science. The very word “science” means knowing. Yesterday’s “science” may not be that of today or tomorrow.
“Science is the culture of doubt” – Richard Feynman.
Science is a method – it’s not a subject (like say Chemistry or Thermodynamics) – so mantras like “believe the science”, “we are following the science” “the science is settled” etc. etc. are both vague and hollow.
When a politician says something like “we are acting on the science” (which is particularly prevalent on this subject and has been similarly applied to the Covid-19 crisis), you would do well to remember this is clearly obfuscation and what it really means is :-
1) I don’t understand the subject !
2) I therefore cannot explain it to an audience.
3) The subject is complicated and confused
4) There are conflicting opinions between experts.
5) I have chosen only those opinions or experts that suit my paradigm or expedient needs.
6) I will claim success for good outcomes and blame the scientists for bad outcomes.
So when you see / read / hear a politician or the press using these mantras (to cloak his untrustworthy self in the respectability of “science”) remember you are being spoken to as an adult might speak to a child – you are being fobbed off by an ignoramus masquerading as knowledgeable – it’s clearly insulting.
There is no such thing as “the science”!