Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Is ‘Science’ for Progressives?
An article in the NY Post Thursday discusses polling data finding that Democrats have more faith in “science” than do Republicans. I don’t find that remarkable given the volume of self-congratulatory memes about “believing” in science that is endemic in lefty social media.
A more interesting question is what do those people think “science” is? Progressives appear to be more predisposed to favor their vision of science now than they did in the pre-Sars-COVID-19 era (normality seems so long ago, doesn’t it?). Empirically, such a trend is hard to understand. On the basis of performance, it is not a rational collective response to have an increase in faith and confidence in those who are identified as the practitioners of science for the simple reason that they were often spectacularly wrong, overtly politicized, often closely linked to special interests and viciously adversarial to the minority of scientists who dissented against whom they often resorted to ad hominem attacks in lieu of well-reasoned, (science-like?) debate.
Like the vast majority of other “experts”, the self-appointed personification of science himself has changed his position on every aspect of the pandemic without even a hint of apology or even acknowledgment. Following “expert” guidance caused enormous harm, accomplished nothing as to what was promised, and little of that guidance was consonant with past science or ever-accumulating current data. And yet some Americans are now more predisposed to respect and honor the authors of this debacle. Why?
My professor in a Philosophy of Science class a half-century ago offered the too-cute definition of science as “that which scientists do when they are doing science” to make the point that attempts to define “science” are invariably too narrow. Ricochet must have about a terabyte of past comments debating whether “falsifiability” is an essential element of any scientific endeavor so I hereby expressly cease and desist any attempt to present or even insinuate any formal definition of “science.” I will simply assert with confidence that whatever science is, when the facts and data uniformly contradict an assumption, hypothesis, prediction, or expectation, it is unscientific to cling to such a falsified idea.
Progressives don’t care what Popper or Kuhn have had to say about science. As with environmental issues, it is now clear that “science” is morphing into a synonym for the administrative state. We should defer to, submit and obey “experts” who are in sole possession of The Science and only malevolent ignorance leading to a hatred of science itself would cause one to think otherwise. Once we accept that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense that actual scientists who defy a prevailing narrative (one that invariably calls for intervention, control, and compulsion) are no longer doing science but purveying misinformation instead.
Polling data also reveals that younger Americans are more afraid of COVID than are we elderly folk—more than twice the fear at about 1,000 times lower risk. A mental habit of fear, magnifying every risk, cultivating a sense of helplessness in the face of each looming crisis, and then looking to “science” for protection and salvation is an obvious recipe for social, political, spiritual, and personal disaster. And yet, young progressives have somehow managed to draw the opposite lesson from the pandemic.
Published in General
And have we accounted for the potential damage done to each of these masked individuals to accomplish the 20% collective risk reduction? That can be an easy yes or no.
I wouldn’t repeat this too often.
I wouldn’t repeat this too often.
Evidently, the science behind Ricochet decided my last comment was worthy of instant dittoing. Weird and sort of poetic. Makes me think Hal might be lurking.
Yep. For a while it was eggs that were politically radioactive. Right now it’s gluten. But the lefties won’t be satisfied until they force everyone to eat a vegan diet. We gotta kill all them cows, doncha know, because they contribute to global warming. This is what passes for “science” on the left.
Don’t even get me started on the lefties’ attitude toward GMO’s.
I wouldn’t even go that far. Trust is something that applies to people, not science. Science is very skepticism-dependent. Good, honest scientists will never say, “trust the science” or “the science is settled.” Those aren’t characteristics we should apply to science. It’s always a matter of “this is what we think about x — so far. Until and unless shown otherwise.”
Science has never seemed to me to be anything other than insatiable curiosity about the world coupled with a formalization of comment sense.
Take an idea such as reproducible experiments, and no I don’t mean that they should fail in the same way. What is that other than one team saying to another, “We did what you said and it didn’t work for us. Sure you wrote it down right?”
Never trust any science under thirty!
@ Old Bathos (lit. “Old Deep”)
Thank you for a nicely written treatise on “science”. Perhaps one of the most daunting aspects in life now is actually communicating with your fellow man, one with whom you use language common to both yet lack common definition to significant words of that language. As it has been said before, “nations divided by a common language” also comes down to the personal level in argumentation and understanding.
I think this becomes the case when words are corrupted in their usage to promote and emotional knee jerk response rather than to convey actual, rationable thought. Science, moral/morality, justice, equity and so many similar words are used as trump cards rather than points for discussion and exploration. They become evocative and provocative without giving insight into anything of particular worth. At times I think a useful synonym in such cases would merely be, “Shut up , you!”
As to the idea of “science”, it basically means “knowledge”, the exercise and pursuit of every reasonably intelligent mind, even of some who are “non-verbal”. In that sense, it is the application of experiences in life to projecting outcomes of our actions in the future. Everybody who thinks, even in a limited sense is a “scientist” in that way. Those with more experience, those who learn from the experiences of others probably (but not always) have a greater ability to garner better results, but the process remains the same: trial and either error or success, adding to the wealth of our personal experiences.
When we let others take over the job of ascertaining “knowledge”, when we trust without verification and grant carte blanche authority to others to “know” for us, others will gladly take it and abuse it. Currently, “Follow the Science” or “the Science says” is a weaponized meme, implying that there is a unified entity named Science which should control every aspect of your life as it is “infallible”. And now, as Old Bathos has observed, the ” self-appointed personification of science himself”, that malicious maladroit of the media and government who has proclaimed “Je suis la science!” reigns and people are dying on an altar before him.
When words are gelded of their meanings, when responsibility and reason are abandoned for the illusion of safety and security, the State usurps God and humanity becomes a commodity to be squeezed and used up in it’s clutches.
Quite true and very well put.
And regarding science, I think it was Bret Weinstein that said (paraphrased) that most of science has been observational and almost none of the scientific knowledge we’ve acquired has been in the controlled studies of the type that pharmaceutical companies employ; they provide a kind of knowledge but it’s not how we ascertained the great majority of our knowledge. Astronomy, geology, archeology have been purely observational, and I’m pretty sure he mentioned physics in this list. And I think he also included evolutionary biology.
We would not expect controlled studies to produce new science—a random controlled trial is based on an existing hypothesis about prior observations and then merely says yes or no. New science involves looking at what has always been there in new ways informed by a growing knowledge base.
True, but this just shows how twisted they are. They are devoted fascists who don’t practice science. Isaiah 5:20 applies here as well.
But reproducible controlled studies do lend proof to what is already suspected, in a way that supposition doesn’t.
With the Covid vaccines, we’re all GMOs aren’t we?
All? Probably not. As I understand it, developing an immunity to a virus is not a “genetic modification.” But if what you say is true, then it follows that anyone who has contracted CoVid, and thereby developed natural immunity, is also a “GMO.” And since I think that GMO’s are just peachy, I’m fine with that. Can I change my handle to GMO3435?
No. We aren’t that lucky. The mRNA vaccine stimulates our cells to generate antibodies. It doesn’t change our DNA. We are genetically modifying people with sickle cell anemia and it’s going well.
I don’t know about this. Is this CRISPR technology being used?
Apparently it is.
That’s amazing! I wasn’t aware they were actually using CRISPR on people at this point. It sounds promising for these sickle-cell sufferers.
It is wonderful that we can defy our nature towards health and goodness.
Settled? Sediment and lees settle to the bottom of a wine bottle. A few coffee grounds settle to the bottom of a cup of French Press coffee.