Fauci Is Science

 

“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 General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Nanocelt TheContrarian: 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. 

    You sum it up beautifully right here. Thank you for a great post!

    • #1
  2. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I like this post quite a lot, even though I disagree with much of it — probably most of it. It’s good to have a robust discussion of particulars. This one deserves a thoughtful and detailed response, which is going to take a little while.

    You’re doing really good stuff, Nano. Thank you.

    • #2
  3. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    It was not Science that said that HCQ was unsafe after being used by a billion people over the last 60 years, that Fauci’s Bureaucratic Speech (B.S. for short).  It was not Science that said HCQ was ineffective after being proven effective in vitro against SARS1 for a decade, that was more Fauci B.S. 

    I don’t know about that physics stuff.  I do imagine that a lot of trial and error could happen in a billion years, if the trials last a billionth of a second.

    As for climate, yes, people don’t appreciate that the upper atmosphere is warmer than the surface air, because the upper atmosphere is busy absorbing radiation and emitting it back into space.  Yay for ozone stopping UV light.  More CO2 is a good thing, not our #1 enemy.  (Joe Biden should fire any general that thinks Global Warming is our #1 enemy.)

    • #3
  4. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    Nanocelt TheContrarian: 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.

    Hear, hear!  You can’t believe IN science;  you can believe some of the conclusions that have been reached using scientific methods.  But history (and Ionides) tells you that most of them will be wrong.  You can even believe in the scientific method.  It provides a useful set of tools for going about the business of improving our understanding of the natural world.

    But none of that will fit conveniently on a lawn sign.  

    • #4
  5. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    “Science” means I have credentials and you don’t or I believe that guy on my side with credentials and you don’t.  Either way, I am better than you.  “Science” is just a class membership signal like a Biden bumper sticker on a Prius or consumer preferences that could be featured in Portlandia.  Math, facts, data don’t matter if you are not a member and are not required if you are.

    • #5
  6. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    There is bureaucratic Corporate science and then there is the real thing.

    What helped keep real science afloat for so many years was how scientific and medical journals served as platforms for discussion. Someone had an idea. If they could demonstrate success with their idea even among a “small survey” of patients who had been cured of an ailment, that doctor or researcher could count on having some distinguished publication  promote his or her  idea.

    There was little in the way of an orchestrated attack on such innovative articles. Had COVID 19 erupted in the 1930’s 0r ’40’s, there is little question that HCQ protocols, ivermectin, favipirivar would have been prescribed by each patient’s day four of the infection. That would have meant that  the fatality count could not soar to half a million lives lost.

    Now we witness how putting forward a new medication for any ailment costs one million dollars. The government agencies and their employees are not charged by Congress to do investigations of any  proposed “off label” use of existing medications. So the remedies we might have used in 2020 to combat COVID were fraudulently withheld from us. And Big Pharma is not going to undertake a million dollar study of HCQ is this drug costs only 10 to 20 bucks per month’s worth of treatment.

    Now it is coming out that the much touted remdesevir is not a substance that can prevent COVID deaths.

    Please note: Medical journals focus on drugs that are in testing mode, not drugs so cheap they are ignored.

    Congress tried to right the wrongs of this situation by passing legislation over the last five years allowing for quick “off label” use of needed remedies, & also allowing for the examination of other nations’ studies & trials to boost the remedy’s acceptance in this nation.

    Yet because the lying murderous Fauci had the power to belittle & deliberately side step issuing HCQ for COVID patients, as being a proxy of Bill Gates, his purpose was to ensure that all institutional goals involved setting the nation up for a vaccine program that would also entail a vaccine passport needed for travel, for employment, for allowing people to leave their homes, etc.

    Bill Gates himself bragged that he spoke to Fauci more often than Fauci spoke to Trump.

    Why suppress  the needed remedies? Well it was relatively easy. Yes the mission was easy to accomplish especially given that medical and science journals would not campaign against this murderous suppression of both HCQ and ivermectin. Additionally search engine google would deliver more results on how dangerous HCQ was than the truth about how its use enabled Japan to have 2/125ths the fatality rat we had here.

    Why such suppression? No vaccine use could come about if any remedies were made available.

    Of course the fact that the non-availability of such remedies was due to Fauci’s fraudulent avoidance of Truth makes him liable for charges of aggravated murder! 

     

     

    • #6
  7. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian: 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.

    Hear, hear! You can’t believe IN science; you can believe some of the conclusions that have been reached using scientific methods. But history (and Ionides) tells you that most of them will be wrong. You can even believe in the scientific method. It provides a useful set of tools for going about the business of improving our understanding of the natural world.

    But none of that will fit conveniently on a lawn sign.

    My shorthand definition is: Science (l/c) is not a “thing,” it’s a process.

    • #7
  8. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” – Arno Penzias, Scientist who discovered the cosmic background radiation.

    • #8
  9. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and it’s not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.Raxxalan (View Comment):

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” – Arno Penzias, Scientist who discovered the cosmic background radiation.

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and is not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.

    • #9
  10. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and it’s not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.Raxxalan (View Comment):

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” – Arno Penzias, Scientist who discovered the cosmic background radiation.

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and is not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.

    I think you mistake the quote.  Mr. Penzias statement is actually saying that the best observational data from astronomy is consistent with the biblical story of Genesis.   In other words the experimentation and testing at least from his particular discipline is suggestive of a higher power.   He is by no means alone in this belief.   This doesn’t preclude more or new information coming to light that could change that.  It also doesn’t prevent different people of good will from coming to a different conclusion.  It merely means science is not necessarily incompatible with nor has it disproven the divine.   That is a relatively new belief that is actually not based in observation and testing.   

    • #10
  11. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and it’s not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.Raxxalan (View Comment):

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” – Arno Penzias, Scientist who discovered the cosmic background radiation.

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and is not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.

    I think you mistake the quote. Mr. Penzias statement is actually saying that the best observational data from astronomy is consistent with the biblical story of Genesis. In other words the experimentation and testing at least from his particular discipline is suggestive of a higher power. He is by no means alone in this belief. This doesn’t preclude more or new information coming to light that could change that. It also doesn’t prevent different people of good will from coming to a different conclusion. It merely means science is not necessarily incompatible with nor has it disproven the divine. That is a relatively new belief that is actually not based in observation and testing.

    No, I understood his comment. I was suggesting that he was engaging in… let’s say imprecise… speech, and not being very scientific.

    Consider what he said:

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted…[based on scripture].”

    Specify the domain as narrowly as you like, and it still doesn’t make sense. Astronomy? Consider the gravitational constant, which is approximately 6.7 x 10^-11 m^3 / kg s^2. That’s the data. Nothing in scripture suggests that, nor would indicate an error if the value had turned out to be twice that, or half that.

    And that’s true of most of the laws and constants of physics.

    What Mr. Penzias is doing, I think, is fitting his theological reading onto physical reality, and making it work. But, like a good astrology chart, the Bible can be mapped on to all sorts of things. That’s the beauty of a text that is lyrical, figurative, vague, and thousands of years old.

    • #11
  12. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Again, I very much enjoyed this post. And, on rereading, I realize that I don’t so much disagree with the substance, but rather with what I take to be the tone and the skepticism that it invites.

    As regards the popular abuse of “the science” by those who want to ram questionable policy down our throats, I share your disdain. Beyond that, I find anyone who puts on the airs of science without embracing the rigor and openness of the domain distasteful. Those two groups include our current crop of so-called public health experts, the climate catastrophism people, and (in my opinion) the Intelligent Design folk as well.

    The aspect of this well-written and interesting post with which I take exception is its focus on the fringe of contemporary knowledge. A similar post could have been written any time over the past four hundred years, and could have mentioned any number of hotly debated and seemingly intractable problems that have long since faded into quaint antiquity.

    A hundred and fifty years ago the existence of an aether, an invisible medium through which electromagnetic force propagated, was widely assumed and researched. Until Einstein, the motion of the planets subtly betrayed Newton’s laws in ways for which no account could be given — save perhaps that some invisible mass in close proximity to the sun was perturbing the planets.

    Two thousand years ago Galen of Pergamon hypothesized the route of blood circulation — and it took until Michael Servetus’ Christianismi Restitucio, more than fifteen centuries later, for us to gain a more correct understanding of something so fundamental.

    A hundred years ago the last throws of the Great Debate pitted two schools of cosmological thought against each other: were the nebula primarily nearby clouds of gas and dust, or were they distant galaxies comparable to our own? Until Hubble confirmed it, the vastness of the universe was wildly underestimated.

    Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter — things we take for granted today were once cutting edge and hotly disputed. What seemed confused and perhaps unknowable a century or two ago is now mundane; much of what seems confused and wildly speculative today will, quite probably, collapse to clearly understood particles of knowledge a few decades hence.

    Science is frothy at the margins. It’s chaotic, messy, full of wildly wrong guesses and subtly mistaken theories. But the foundation it has built is wonderfully predictive and useful, and quite possibly correct — as far as it goes. I think it’s a mistake to throw shade on the paradigms of science based on the turbulence at the frontiers of our knowledge.

     

    • #12
  13. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    Why such suppression? No vaccine use could come about if any remedies were made available.

    Yes!   And, the suppression of remedies provided the death count to justify lockdowns and vote-by-mail.   Big Pharma Wins. China Wins. DNC Wins.  America loses.

    • #13
  14. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and it’s not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.Raxxalan (View Comment):

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” – Arno Penzias, Scientist who discovered the cosmic background radiation.

    Which is why science proceeds through experimentation and testing, and is not based on the opinions of men who happen to be scientists.

    I think you mistake the quote. Mr. Penzias statement is actually saying that the best observational data from astronomy is consistent with the biblical story of Genesis. In other words the experimentation and testing at least from his particular discipline is suggestive of a higher power. He is by no means alone in this belief. This doesn’t preclude more or new information coming to light that could change that. It also doesn’t prevent different people of good will from coming to a different conclusion. It merely means science is not necessarily incompatible with nor has it disproven the divine. That is a relatively new belief that is actually not based in observation and testing.

    No, I understood his comment. I was suggesting that he was engaging in… let’s say imprecise… speech, and not being very scientific.

    Consider what he said:

    “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted…[based on scripture].”

    Specify the domain as narrowly as you like, and it still doesn’t make sense. Astronomy? Consider the gravitational constant, which is approximately 6.7 x 10^-11 m^3 / kg s^2. That’s the data. Nothing in scripture suggests that, nor would indicate an error if the value had turned out to be twice that, or half that.

    And that’s true of most of the laws and constants of physics.

    What Mr. Penzias is doing, I think, is fitting his theological reading onto physical reality, and making it work. But, like a good astrology chart, the Bible can be mapped on to all sorts of things. That’s the beauty of a text that is lyrical, figurative, vague, and thousands of years old.

    Mr Penzias was pointing out that the cosmic background radiation exactly matches a black box radiator, that is consistent only with a Big Bang, a moment of creation, which matches stunningly with Genesis:  Let there be light, and there was light….etc. He was not engaging in imprecise speech at all.  You might want to believe that the Big Bang “just happened,” but no one can exclude the possibility that there was a cause. Particularly when there is one chance in 10 to the 500th power that it could have happened as it did.

    • #14
  15. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Again, I very much enjoyed this post. And, on rereading, I realize that I don’t so much disagree with the substance, but rather with what I take to be the tone and the skepticism that it invites.

    As regards the popular abuse of “the science” by those who want to ram questionable policy down our throats, I share your disdain. Beyond that, I find anyone who puts on the airs of science without embracing the rigor and openness of the domain distasteful. Those two groups include our current crop of so-called public health experts, the climate catastrophism people, and (in my opinion) the Intelligent Design folk as well.

    The aspect of this well-written and interesting post with which I take exception is its focus on the fringe of contemporary knowledge. A similar post could have been written any time over the past four hundred years, and could have mentioned any number of hotly debated and seemingly intractable problems that have long since faded into quaint antiquity.

    A hundred and fifty years ago the existence of an aether, an invisible medium through which electromagnetic force propagated, was widely assumed and researched. Until Einstein, the motion of the planets subtly betrayed Newton’s laws in ways for which no account could be given — save perhaps that some invisible mass in close proximity to the sun was perturbing the planets.

    Two thousand years ago Galen of Pergamon hypothesized the route of blood circulation — and it took until Michael Servetus’ Christianismi Restitucio, more than fifteen centuries later, for us to gain a more correct understanding of something so fundamental.

    A hundred years ago the last throws of the Great Debate pitted two schools of cosmological thought against each other: were the nebula primarily nearby clouds of gas and dust, or were they distant galaxies comparable to our own? Until Hubble confirmed it, the vastness of the universe was wildly underestimated.

    Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter — things we take for granted today were once cutting edge and hotly disputed. What seemed confused and perhaps unknowable a century or two ago is now mundane; much of what seems confused and wildly speculative today will, quite probably, collapse to clearly understood particles of knowledge a few decades hence.

    Science is frothy at the margins. It’s chaotic, messy, full of wildly wrong guesses and subtly mistaken theories. But the foundation it has built is wonderfully predictive and useful, and quite possibly correct — as far as it goes. I think it’s a mistake to throw shade on the paradigms of science based on the turbulence at the frontiers of our knowledge.

    I think its a dangerous mistake to allow scientists to club us over  the head with their omniscience and infallability and answers to all questions when they are so egregiously wrong, not only on the frothy margins, but on the core implications of their theories. From Thomas Huxley to Richard Dawkins, etal.

    • #15
  16. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Again, I very much enjoyed this post. And, on rereading, I realize that I don’t so much disagree with the substance, but rather with what I take to be the tone and the skepticism that it invites.

    As regards the popular abuse of “the science” by those who want to ram questionable policy down our throats, I share your disdain. Beyond that, I find anyone who puts on the airs of science without embracing the rigor and openness of the domain distasteful. Those two groups include our current crop of so-called public health experts, the climate catastrophism people, and (in my opinion) the Intelligent Design folk as well.

    The aspect of this well-written and interesting post with which I take exception is its focus on the fringe of contemporary knowledge. A similar post could have been written any time over the past four hundred years, and could have mentioned any number of hotly debated and seemingly intractable problems that have long since faded into quaint antiquity.

    A hundred and fifty years ago the existence of an aether, an invisible medium through which electromagnetic force propagated, was widely assumed and researched. Until Einstein, the motion of the planets subtly betrayed Newton’s laws in ways for which no account could be given — save perhaps that some invisible mass in close proximity to the sun was perturbing the planets.

    Two thousand years ago Galen of Pergamon hypothesized the route of blood circulation — and it took until Michael Servetus’ Christianismi Restitucio, more than fifteen centuries later, for us to gain a more correct understanding of something so fundamental.

    A hundred years ago the last throws of the Great Debate pitted two schools of cosmological thought against each other: were the nebula primarily nearby clouds of gas and dust, or were they distant galaxies comparable to our own? Until Hubble confirmed it, the vastness of the universe was wildly underestimated.

    Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter — things we take for granted today were once cutting edge and hotly disputed. What seemed confused and perhaps unknowable a century or two ago is now mundane; much of what seems confused and wildly speculative today will, quite probably, collapse to clearly understood particles of knowledge a few decades hence.

    Science is frothy at the margins. It’s chaotic, messy, full of wildly wrong guesses and subtly mistaken theories. But the foundation it has built is wonderfully predictive and useful, and quite possibly correct — as far as it goes. I think it’s a mistake to throw shade on the paradigms of science based on the turbulence at the frontiers of our knowledge.

    I think its a dangerous mistake to allow scientists to club us over the head with their omniscience and infallability and answers to all questions when they are so egregiously wrong, not only on the frothy margins, but on the core implications of their theories. From Thomas Huxley to Richard Dawkins, etal.

    I certainly agree with that first clause. As for error… I suspect that, on balance, science has been more successful than any other approach to knowing — at least, approach to knowing anything nontrivial — about the world around us. But yes, it’s always dangerous to misapply authority, and the authority science can claim is of a particular type: an authority that is based on its intrinsic humility and acceptance of criticism. When people strip “science” of that underlying humility, and keep only the authority, we end up with abuses.

    As for Huxley and Dawkins, etc.: whatever the correctness of their views, it does seem that men who choose to take tendentious public stands based on claims of scientific authority are often bullying and obnoxious. While the scientific method demands a kind of abstract humility, the men engaged in it often fall short.

    • #16
  17. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Nanocelt TheContrarian: 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.

    A clear summation of the problem. And I think it will get worse for a while.

     

    • #17
  18. John Racette Coolidge
    John Racette
    @JohnRacette

    If this article were about Fauci’s narcissistic solipsism, I’d say, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a shiny pebble.”

    • #18