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.
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” — Mark Twain
Dr. Fauci says that to attack him is to attack “Science.” That is, of course, balderdash. Let me try to demonstrate what an actual attack on Science might look like. And it has nothing to do with Fauci. (His narcissistic solipsism is showing).
Science can account for only 4% of the stuff that makes up the Universe. 96% is “Dark Energy” and “Dark Matter” which are euphemisms for all the stuff that Science cannot identify or explain. How much confidence should one have in a field that is that far short of reality? (Scientists will tell you that it is a great accomplishment of modern science, a great advance, to realize how little we know about what we imagine to be reality–and in that they have a point).
The greatest theories that Science has produced, General Relativity and Quantum Theory, are wholly, completely, fundamentally, and intrinsically incompatible with each other. And “Science” is unable to bridge that gap, at least so far. They’ve been trying for a Century, no luck. The most brilliant scientists of the last 100 years plus have been unable to bridge the gap, and that includes Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, Gelman, Wheeler, Weinberg, Susskind, Green, and everyone else.
The most far-reaching and fundamental implication of Quantum Mechanics, one of the two great modern theories of Science, is that human consciousness directly interacts with quantum physical processes to “collapse the wave equation”. To the extent that this has been tested, it holds. Yet physicists generally refuse to even acknowledge this conundrum. They retreat into the “Copenhagen Interpretation” that for all intents and purposes says we should ignore the implications of Quantum Theory and just do the calculations. Move along. Nothing to see here. We are being lied to, and the nature of Science in toto is being elided by the very Scientists who claim to hold all Truth in their hot little heads. Not very honest. Not honest at all. Our greatest scientists are dishonest about the implications of science.
Current Evolutionary “Science” posits that human consciousness is an epiphenomenon growing out of (accidental) biological complexity and is not a reliable phenomenon on which to base our understanding of reality. And that our science is thus a “social construct” that does not have intrinsic validity. But of course, evolutionary scientists tell us to believe their conclusion that human cognition is not reliable. So why should we believe their pronouncements? They are in the position of the Cretan who says that “All Cretans are liars.” Why should anyone believe them?
David Gelernter tells us that the statistical improbability of the Evolution of one species from another is so great that Darwinian evolution (The Origin of Species) cannot possibly be correct.
John Ionides, the great epidemiologist at Stanford, informs us that 95% or more of articles in medical journals are statistically suspect. AS a practicing physician, I can assure you that Medicine is an art, not a science. Fauci, as a physician, has a fundamental misunderstanding of his field.
“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” Mark Twain.
Physicists (Leonard Suskind) tells us that science, including String Theory, cannot account for the value of the fundamental constants of the Universe. Those constants could be other than they are. If they were, our Universe could not produce life (let alone consciousness). Given the number of fundamental constants, and their mutability, String Theorists calculate that there is one chance in 10 to the 500th power (10 with 500 zeros behind it) that our Universe could exist. That probability is well within the realm of the miraculous. But miracles are not allowed, so scientists are busy examining the structure of the Universe, the distribution of matter (or at least the 4% of it that they can know) searching for clues to the existence of the 10 to the 500th power other Universes that have to exist in order for our Universe to exist. When they can’t account for almost all of the stuff that is in our Universe.
One has to give them credit for optimism. Our greatest scientists are now like the boy who wanted a pony for Christmas, only to find a roomful of horse manure, but was ecstatic and dived into the manure searching for the pony that HAD to be there to explain all the manure. Good luck.
Climate “science”–what can I say. This is an occult practice based on nonsensical models that are about as accurate as Niall Ferguson’s models predicting deaths from COVID. For one thing, the climate models do not consider the full role of CO2 (It’s all in the Arrhenius equation, they say, but the Arrhenius equation is empirical and was long since supplanted by the Eyring equation. What?). The models ignore Lindzen’s data of a decade or more ago from high-altitude weather balloon measurements that showed that the higher the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the more heat was radiated from the Earth into space. How could that be? CO2 is a volatile molecule, and can transport heat in convection style. So CO2 is more of a climate damping molecule than a global warming molecule. But don’t expect any of the scientists to say so. Judith Curry left academia due to the fact that she couldn’t get articles published, not based on science, but on politics. The entire field is riven with dishonesty. From Michael Mann to East Anglia. Bogus data. Bogus science.
To quote Curry: “I believe in science” has come to mean, “I do not question authority,” which is as antithetical to the scientific spirit as you can get.
I don’t mention such things as psychology, sociology, economics, behavioral economics, polling, etc, because such are not even close to the realm of science, despite the pretentions of practitioners of such occult arts. Pretty much everything that Stephen Pinker writes is tendentious nonsense.
It is an unfortunate development that Western Civilization has enshrined “Science” as a god. Fauci’s intellectual bankruptcy shows when he claims to be the voice of Science/god. “Science” knows no values. The Soviet Union was all about “Science”. Mao’s China was all about “Science.” All values are external to Science. Hence, to rely purely on Science is to divest oneself of any claim to any sort of human values. To enshrine “Science” as the dictator/god is to forfeit any claim to human sensibility or decency. Which seems to define Fauci. If Fauci has any value system, it is a perverse one, indeed.Published in