The problem with mistrust in Science

I have so much to say on this…   my head hurts. It made me both angry and incredibly sad.

I read this article earlier and almost blew milk out of my nose, (which would have been impressive as I wasn’t drinking milk).
The Atlantic is evangelizing for the new religion of science. There’s no other way to state that.

The article epitomizes what is wrong with the media in this country, (beholden propagandists), along with a small glimmer of the effect that problem has on the readership; the people have stopped listening to the drivel. There are so many assumptions, insinuations, and flat out insults that I can’t even begin to address them individually, so I’ll hit the general idea and premise. While calling out the problem with the country’s ‘denial of science’ regardless of truth and how terrible it is, they ignore that the founding principle of science is to be skeptical of science, to not accept anything put forward as truth, but as something that simply hasn’t been proven wrong - yet. This should be a golden age for science…  but instead, we are fed propaganda about how we should be obeying and listening instead of thinking.  Science, is officially a religion. (This is focused on global warming but apparently wants to graduate to all science. How many genders are there again?)

This is nothing new, however. Science has been a religion the moment it sought to replace God with itself. To explain this we have to talk about the FFRF, which is evangelizing and seeking to convert by the legal sword, their own crusade. In my opinion, the FFRF  has bastardized the idea of ‘atheist’ and twisted it into ‘anti-theist’ and is feverishly working against something they don’t believe exists; attempting to enforce their organized belief system through a legal crusade and collusion with the government.  (Have I lost you yet, because I’m pretty sure the world is upside-down.) The point of atheism is that each person is their own arbiter of right and wrong… so… is it logically permissible to decry what another person deems ‘right’, or is that hypocritical?  But they just want to silence all speech, expression, or symbols they don’t agree with, you know, ‘cuz they don’t believe what that speech or symbols portray exists. Removing other’s speech and the ability to portray any idea other than what is ‘allowed’ is ideological fascism. Apparently, even the idea that someone is talking about… um… nothing, drives the FFRF up the wall. That’s right, at the end of the day, what offends them is seeing or hearing someone believe in… nothing, (which is funny because I thought that’s what they expressed belief in), to the extent that they will spend vast amounts of time and money in legal battles to silence it all. Now, none of this makes sense - unless the FFRF’s personal brand of atheism is actually in competition with theism…  which makes it a religion.  What do they believe in then?  Well, they champion science. This is where it comes into our discussion - Science has been co-opted.

Simply put, science in general has been twisted in it’s marriage to government, to power, to business. In today’s world, grants and funding are produced only if you receive the expected results or toe the political line. You don’t get a grant to study something for its own merit, instead, you get a grant to study the effects of one particular thing and it all has a political bias or an expected marketable product.  Don’t believe me?  Science came out of the closet earlier this year as a political organization.  Also this year, the Atlantic, the same rag above, even celebrated this march as not political enough. (The biggest enemy to propaganda is a good memory.) I guess a march for…. money, really,  …while a stand up comedian and TV show personality lectured alongside a rap artist about how any sex identity an individual wants… qualifies as “science”. (Where DNA and biology, heck, the definition of ‘life’, falls in there, I don’t know. But most everything I was taught in school is now wrong, so, why not?)

Awesome, right?  Why in the world would that turn off people from science?  Perhaps it is because they’ve been taught by media and news outlets that nothing is sacred? In fact, that the idea of sacred is laughable? Perhaps it might be that people recognize hypocrites when they see them?  Or perhaps, and this is my vote, they recognize a political stunt and someone simply wanting more money. Don’t get me wrong, there are good causes and things which absolutely should be studied and pushed forward. However, whoever decided that the most wasteful and easily controlled organization, (government), should decide what to fund needs to rethink their idea, because now we have the reverse problem: Science is a political tool of the government, just like the religion is supplanted. I’ll tell you how I know: Science is based in skepticism, in questioning and refusing to accept the wrote answers, so re-defining science as something I need to believe in, have faith in, “because it is truth” is terribly troubling.

Why?  Well, I guess that depends on how you define science.

Science, to me, is a sub-set of philosophy; a logical discipline which focuses on making sense of the natural, concrete world and is characterized by only accepting observed, quantifiable evidence and testable theories.  That restrictive characterization is what makes science a sub-set of philosophy. Philosophy seeks to make sense of all things, including both the concrete world but also the unquantifiable; existential, ethical, and abstract concepts, and thus must accept non-quantifiable ‘evidence’ - even logical thought itself is considered ‘evidence’ in philosophy.

Science scoffs at philosophers for accepting anything but ‘hard cold fact’ while not seeking answers. Philosophers only discuss proposed answers while they work to add to the great conversation. In turn, philosophers scoff at scientists as they watch them fall into logical fallacies philosophers are trained to avoid, or attempt to solve abstract ideals which cannot be tested.

Both have their place and both are equally good at what they do. However, science crossed the line when it was placed on a pedestal of truth by the AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming) faithful. In claiming truth, science has departed from its  parent, philosophy, as truth is something philosophers debate even exists. But, in claiming truth, science went far enough to sever it’s root, for science is based on the idea that it can’t provide ‘truth’.  However, that’s the entire premise, the terrible claim and predicament behind the Atlantic’s story; people are turning their backs on truth! SOUND THE ALARM BELLS! This is so tragically ironic: they are destroying science as they call for it’s adaptation. Make no mistake, they know this but they don’t care. It is more important for them to get what they want. (Power, money, influence?) These are not idiots, they know what science is, they know the scientific process. But they don’t want you to question what they’re selling. Why? Because it isn’t ’science’.

Let’s face it; Science is founded on questioning everything, especially accepted explanations for things. A true scientist not only questions what he is studying, but what he already accepts as ’settled’. In fact, they are always looking for the new ‘breakthrough’ which proves everything we knew before was wrong and pushes science into a new realm of discovery. For many scientists that is their sole ambition. Scientists don’t denounce those who ask, those who are skeptical, those who are searching, because those skeptics the ones who will either prove a theory, or advance science by proving the ‘accepted’ wrong; they’d be denouncing themselves.

This is the reason why I discount the AGW (ahem), sorry, “climate change” movement; they ridicule those who question and claim things are ’settled science’, even so much as to call for punishments for those who don’t believe. Science doesn’t do that, but some religions do. Now we have dogma, and inquisition, and the collection plate all wrapped-up in one neat package. If you were looking to find out if we have institutionalized government support, well, welcome to the new theocracy.

So, why are people, especially Americans, choosing to disbelieve science? Because we’re seeing the propaganda? Because it is  a religion which is being supported by our government, against our laws?  Because it is a scam - in that it promises to offer something that it, by definition, can’t offer? Because it is being rammed down our throats?  Perhaps all the above?

Not all scientists follow this new religion, in fact it appears to be a very vocal but small minority. But even at a minority,  too many scientists and people are caught up in this without knowing they’ve been co-opted. But a new, bastardized offshoot or co-opted movement usually involves outsiders who masquerade as trained members of the group and work to be a figurehead or leader and take credit for things they didn’t do. Often, they’ll also act as prophets of doom to scare people into compliance. However, they rarely follow their own advice and even try to hide or explain bad past predictions in hopes that no one will think they’ve ever been wrong.

With such stellar ‘leaders’,  is there any question why people don’t want to give ‘faith’ to ’science’?  But don’t worry, this will all come out in the end. There is resistance from renowned people.  But be very wary of those ridiculing those who don’t accept their demands for faith.

Think for yourself, people. Do the math yourself, quantify it and then make up your own mind.

Other sources/news:  ‘Hockey stick’ creator refuses to furnish his sources under court order.
Climate Scientist testifies before Congress on Climate Change and the cause of changing climate, 2013.

Energy required to heat the world’s oceans 1 degree F.  is equal to roughly 510.19 Billion Hiroshima bombs. Yes, I said BILLION.  How did I get that? Here you go:

Earth has roughly 332.5 million cubic miles of water
1 cubic mile equals just over 1.1 trillion gallons (from the same USGS survey)
1 gallon weighs 8.34 lbs.
1 BTU = energy required to raise 1 lb. of water 1F.
8.34(1,100,000,000,000 x 332,500,000)
or 30,350,355,000,000,000,000,000 BTU’s   (that’s 30 Sextillion, 350 quintillion, 355 quadrillion for those who can’t count that high without all of mankind’s fingers and toes exposed.)

or, in more rational terms, 510.19 Billion times the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb.

CO2 just isn’t strong enough to do that. Mentally war game that; if .08% rise in CO2 has that great of a greenhouse effect, how fast would the average home turn into an oven? Your car? An average conversation could be deadly, and you can forget an open stadium or crowd of any kind where sunlight is present. Why isn’t buying dry ice a capital offense?

I’ll shut up now.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.