Posted on 09/15/2022 9:24:48 PM PDT by DeweyCA
Science is supposed to be objective, an undeniable source for truth not subject to fads or fashion. The phrases “scientists say” or “the science is settled” is supposed to inspire hushed awe and open ears. Scientists are supposed to serve as arbiters of truth, at least on questions within their fields of expertise, able to settle disputes and sort fact from fiction.
Many progressives, especially, employ the phrase “the science says” to silence disagreement about everything from climate policy to gender ideology. “The science,” at least in certain circles, is an authority appealed to in order to end debate and dismiss critics of favored policies. Increasingly, the theory that science is a neutral arbiter or source of truth looks shaky, especially when scientific publications openly announce their commitment to ideology over evidence.
Bell Curve author Charles Murray recently tweeted an editorial published by the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Human Behaviour. Murray (who is no stranger to what happens to those who publish politically incorrect findings) highlighted a section in which the editors announced they will be censoring scientific results that do not conform to a favored political narrative. Specifically, the editors reserved the right to amend, refuse, or retract “[c]ontent that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, [or] (dis)ability …”
They also reserved the right to censor content that “undermines — or could be reasonably perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of” any of these categories, as well as to refuse submissions that are “exclusionary of a diversity of voices …”
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how language this sweeping could be used. For instance, studies that find children do best in homes with their biological mother and father could be “reasonably perceived” by the editors of Nature Human Behaviour to suggest the “inherent inferiority” of same-sex parents. Research that finds female athletes are disadvantaged when competing against biological men could “undermine the rights and dignities” of transgender opponents. A study that finds little girls do better in societies that don’t practice female genital mutilation could be censored for its “assumption of inherent … cultural superiority.”
As Murray tweeted, “It is hard to exaggerate the scientific insanity this represents.” Even psychologist and science author Steven Pinker, no friend of Christians or religious conservatives, slammed the journal, tweeting: “Nature Human Behavior [sic] is no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed … how do we know articles have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness?”
It’s a good question, and one more people should be asking. Increasingly, the scientific enterprise itself is looking shaky, not only because of political correctness but because the practices on which science depends — peer review and replication — are breaking down.
Consider an analysis published in the journal Science last year in which behavioral economists at the University of California found that the least reliable studies are the ones other scientists cite the most. This team analyzed over 20,000 papers in some of the top psychology, economy, and science journals, and found that “studies that failed to replicate since their publication were on average 153 times more likely to be cited” than studies that did — mostly because their findings were more “interesting.” And this problem was found to be worst in leading journals Nature and Science.
The takeaway here is not that science is bad. On the contrary, science is a gift of God, made possible in how He made the world and His image bearers. Science has made the world immeasurably richer, and the world arguably owes a debt for these riches to Christian assumptions and pioneers. However, scientists and science editors are human and just as vulnerable to bad ideas and dangerous ideologies as other humans.
Reform can happen within a field of knowledge. Thus, science can regain its authority as a source of truth and public good, rather than propaganda. Christians in the sciences have an especially important role to play, as voices protesting ideologically loaded conclusions and as examples of integrity and objectivity. Until that reform happens, anything announced with “the science says,” especially on intensely politically charged issues, should be greeted with suspicion. As Pinker said, we have a right to know whether their claims “have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness.”
“Science” in the modern vernacular refers to a political ideology with a strong component of appeal to authority to quash debate.
As Someone said- they are masters at double speak-
their warped science (ie, biased opinion) says that there is no real definition for what a Woman is- Yet they turn right around and insist that a Man can be a Woman
Question authority, question yourself. Test ideas, by the evidence gained from observation and experiment, follow the evidence wherever it leads. And perhaps even the most important rule of all, remember you could be wrong.
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Well, sometimes it does! Otherwise possible effect of methane drowned out by that of water vapor. Effect of 4.3um CO2 band inherently negligible due to small amount of upgoing thermal radiation at that wavelength. Effect of 14.9um CO2 band mainly drowned out by that of water vapor. Therefore, small increases of CO2 will consequently have only a very, very small effect.
We have entered the Lysenko phase of the science!
Academic Lysenko was Stalin’s favorite scientist.
His crazy theories were taken as the Bible by the communists and totally destroyed Soviet Agriculture.
But, if you dare to protest, you got free trip to Siberia.
Tyson appears to believe profoundly in anthropogenic climate change.
>> Even psychologist and science author Steven Pinker, no friend of Christians or religious conservatives
An MIT cognitive sciences guy. Too bad he’s known to be a bigoted jackass. Fascinating author nonetheless.
Fascinating.
I’d heard the upgoing thermal radiation atmospheric window was relatively small. The assumption was that the impact of small increases in CO2 are magnified because it blocked that window.
The chart you posted shows the impact of CO2 is outside the window. Global warming attributed to a direct increase in CO2 is a scam.
Bottom line, Scientists and the science community is funded by these mental idiots in control
I have read an article, which explained that Galileo Galilei was an outlier.
Scientific consensus was 99% against him, and there were excellent scientific observations backing his opponents.
Galileo tortures were scientifically justified as he was definitely attacking the scientific consensus!
If we relied on Scientific consensus, we will still be in the middle ages.
Science indicates.
It is more so than ever:
Nothing you read and half of what you see.
Even while being totally against censorship, if anyone is ever to be censored, it should be Murray, for his misuse of statistics to “prove” his scientism. His reference to Pinker adds amusement, in that Pinker is equally guilty of statistical slight of hand.
NN Taleb has published several papers, on both of these clowns, that detail their statistical transgressions.
Nice chart. Right about methane. It only contributes to greenhouse effect in a totally dry atmosphere, like created in a laboratory bell jar. When idiots on the media say it is “60 times as powerful as CO2” or some such phoney number, Then “real science says” they’re full of it.
I learned my science in grade school/high school. Somebody is wrong here today about a great many things. This is evident where there is so much that is self explanatory yet the opposite is said to be the “science”.
A good friend pointed out many years ago that actually MUCH OF SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED!
And actually science is CONTINUALLY LEARNING NEW THINGS THAT PROVE WHAT IT BELIEVED YESTERDAY WAS WRONG!
Great current example today is the Webb telescope - it’s really shaking up the astrophysicist world, causing some to stay awake all night thinking, “Is all I’ve believed all these years BEEN WRONG?!?” It is disproving a lot of old beliefs.
You’d think the science world would have some humility realizing their whole world is about disproving old science.
But no. And the Marxists hold science as being inviolate truth. WRONG!
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.