It’s a reminder, if any is needed, that science is a tool, which can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, subject to the whims of human emotions. Scientists are people just like everyone else.
Though a bit depressing that Doyle has apparently seen fit to hide that tweet of his from everyone but his "small circle of friends" ...
But Pascal said pretty much the same thing several hundred years ago:
Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -- 'religious conviction' clearly covering a lot of ground:
Well said. The FreePress did a great mini docu podcast on "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling" which was fantastic if you haven't listened yet. It covers your same points.
With "Phelps-Roper", as I think her name is? Seem to recollect skimming it but not much more than that -- may have to go back & take a closer look.
But too many of us are scientifically illiterate -- Sagan suggested 90% -- which makes us easy marks for the charlatans & grifters. Which includes those peddling "conventional wisdom" and "folk-biology" -- like the view that "sex is immutable!!11!!" 🙄 and that everyone is either male or female -- as gospel truth.
Scott Alexander had a useful insight on that "systemic" problem some years ago:
SA: "Topics here tend to center vaguely around this meta-philosophical idea of how people evaluate arguments for their beliefs, and especially whether this process is spectacularly broken in a way that may or may not doom us all."
ICYMI, Mark Twain had similar perspectives & insights:
Twain: "Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals. ....
And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God."
Indeed. Whole transgender clusterfuck seems to bear some unfortunate, if illuminating though hardly flattering, similarities with Swift's tale of Lilliputian civil wars over egg (ova) cracking protocols and with Pope's Rape of the Lock (Part Deux).
But in many ways that clusterfuck is where the rubber meets the road, is predicated on a whole raft of principles which too many haven't a flaming clue about or are trying to abrogate, repudiate, bastardize or ride roughshod over.
Periodically wonder if it's hyperbole or understatement to say that western "civilization" hangs in the balance ... 🙂
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless; my emphasis]."
Griffiths (PhilPapers): "Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes – one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
PK: "Strictly speaking it’s the sex that an individual is disposed to develop into that is determined at conception, i.e. the sex that a person will become *if* they develop the ability to produce gametes. This is one of the few contexts where that particular distinction matters."
LGBTQIA: "The term [sexless] includes intersex people who were born sexless as well as people who became sexless later in life (desired/planned or not) and people who desire to be sexless."
I agree with what you say, Steersman, but I wish that you (and many, many others) would be more careful with your rhetoric. I say this because my own field happens to be comparative religion.
Wokism, and other political ideologies are indeed what could be called "secular religions" but only if you refer specifically to fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalism is not traditional religion (although it purports to be traditional). Rather, it's a modern phenomenon--more specifically, a reaction against both modernity in general and secularism in particular. In various ways, so do modern political ideologies. Religious and secular forms of fundamentalism have in common several characteristic features, notably dualism ("us" vs. "them"), consequentialism (the end can justify the means), utopianism (the hope of building a perfect society) and revolutionism (as distinct from reformism). Every ideology since the nineteenth century (notably, in our time, wokism and transgenderism) has relied on intimidation, moreover, to close down debate and thus control discourse.
My point is not that traditional forms of religion have never done so--anyone can point to early precursors of the fundamentalist mentality--but that traditional forms of religion sometimes have indeed done so. For evidence, I would point not only to well-documented debates that theologians and philosophers carried on for generations (without resorting to threats) and to the common admission that "doubt" or ambivalence are part of religion . Much depends on historical context.
Quite agree with your "Religious and secular forms of fundamentalism have in common several characteristic features ..."
Religion, per se, is maybe less a problem than the misuses of it, notably the dogmatic certainty of many of its adherents. A trait which, as you say, many "secular forms" also exhibit. Reminds me of a passage from Dawkins' "The God Delusion":
Dawkins: "... I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic [or panentheistic] God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language.” [pg. 41]
Often takes some effort to separate the nutritious wheat from the often poisonous chaff -- so to speak. But generally rather important to do so.
This excellent article focuses on medical science. The social sciences are much further along toward sacrificing all their credibility on the altar of political zealotry. Anthropology, my own field, is a lost cause, and indeed a laughingstock. But even psychological research, with its facade of quantitative rigor and "objective" measurement, is full of biases that a careful reading of almost any published paper on a hot-button topic will reveal.
"The solution to all of these problems is simple to understand, though not necessarily simple to implement or to realize. It involves a return to humility."
And courage. I think what's mostly lacking is the guts to stand up and take a bullet for civilization. Western liberal democracy is for those who have the sanity, decency, educated intelligence and courage to defend it every day against the omnipresent forces -- mostly from within -- that never rest in their efforts to destroy it. From all sides! BLM, wokeness, Trumpistry, LGBTQ+ ... all seek to eat civilization alive.
Incredibly well said. Someone should roll this up in the form of a newspaper and smack Hotez and Fauci on their noses until they shrink back into the dark recesses of Democracy’s cavernous butthole, where they belong.
Status - likes, clicks, money... it has become the ubiquitous pursuit of academics having replaced the previous pursuit of reputation for honest and accurate work to advance their discipline. I live in a university town. The admin and faculty parking lots are filled with Tesla cars and other exotics. The biggest homes and yards in town are occupied by University employees... some retired. Undergrad students have tens of thousands of student debt with a worthless degree from classes taught by professor assistants.
Science is a mess because our industry of higher learning has been corrupted into a wealth-making machine for elites. Science has lost its mission and has become yet another institution we cannot trust.
There is an old quote that goes something like this: What do you get when you cross science and politics? Answer: Politics.
The Covid experiment in mind control clearly shows how utterly effective public witch hunts are. Even a relatively decent human, when faced with losing their jobs, family, friends, etc. (while simultaneously being subjected to public hatred and harassment) may rationally choose to be silent. We also need some “humility” when we consider what scientists have been (and continue to be) subjected to. Everyone is an armchair hero, but in the real world...???
I don’t know how we’re going to get out of this mess. Certainly awareness is needed, but we may need some type of “disruptive event” to get this uniquely heavy and extreme pendulum to start swinging in the opposite direction.
There is a difference between trusting science and "the science."
Once upon a time, it was the Catholic Church that suppressed scientific advancement. Now, it's the government and even wider society. It's sad, because science is the lifeblood of human advancement. Without STEM--and more importantly, curiosity-- we would still be languishing away in caves, having never discovered weapons or fire or language. To suppress and discourage scientific inquiry, discovery, and facts, just because the truth is considered unpopular or blasphemous is one of the greatest tragedies.
"Once upon a time, it was the Catholic Church that suppressed scientific advancement." — scholarly citations in support of this 'truism' would be welcome. It's a common idea, but I'm not sure it's robustly supported by historical fact. Regarding humility, it seems that certain scientists, such as Stanley Jaki (both a theoretical physicist and theologian), advocate for it while at the same time clinging to a firm belief in supernatural explanation for existence itself. See, for example, https://catholicstand.com/father-stanley-jaki-birth-science/
Galileo, as Steersman also mentioned, was an example of this. Quoting Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' on Galileo's improvement of the Copernican theory: "[T]he Aristotelian professors...united against [Galileo] seeking to persuade the Catholic Church to ban Copernicanism...[T]he Church was afraid of a scandal that might undermine its fight against Protestantism...took responsive measures. It declared Copernicanism 'false and erroneous' in 1616, and commanded Galileo never again 'defend or old' the doctrine. Galileo acquiesced."
Galileo would then try to get the decree revoked, but failed. He did, however, get permission to write a book on the Copernican theory as compared to the older, Catholic-accepted Aristotelian theory.
Continuing to quote Hawking, because Galileo wrote his book, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,' he was later "brought before the Inquisition, who sentenced him to house arrest and commanded him to publicly renounce Copernicanism." Again, Galileo acquiesced, due to him being a devout Catholic.
This is just one example. Copernicus--if my memory serves me correct--actually had to release his theory anonymously.
The point is, suppression of the truth IS historical fact, whether under Catholic rule in the 1600s, a Soviet regime in the 1940s, or even by social media and news outlets in the 2020s.
Generally true, though some congregations are starting to read the writing on the walls:
CLP: "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
According to my understanding of intellectual history, the Catholic church both suppressed and facilitated scientific advancement. The examples of suppression--the trial of Galileo, the burning at the stake of Bruno and Vanini--are iconic, but it's too often overlooked that modern science erupted in precisely the part of the world where the Church's power was concentrated. Whatever the forces holding back science elsewhere on Earth did a far better job of it than Catholicism.
It all started with Climate "Science", COVID-19 just made use of all the tools for the manipulation and politicization of Academia and scientific institutions
Climate science has ZERO in common with the issues discussed in this article. Fifty years of data, not to mention basic physics, demonstrate the reality of climate change. If you don't understand that, you are willfully ignorant or a fossil fuel shill.
Actually, it started way earlier than that. Michael Crichton gave a talk back in 2003 titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming" where he traced it back to the Nuclear Winter hullaballoo in the early 80s. (https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf) I read the TTAPS paper, and found it profoundly bad.
Sadly, it is the author who is engaging in a "betrayal of science" here.
Colin: I'm very disappointed that you cross-posted this.
I don't have the time or energy to rebut all the misleading-to-false statements here, so I'll just do the first two:
> Our country's medical experts rushed:
> to deny the efficacy of cloth masks [link to LA Times artilcle]
From that article: "April 3, 2020: After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic."
Yes, after getting new evidence, the experts changed their minds because of it! This is what scientists are supposed to do!
> before mandating their use,
There was NEVER a mandate for use of cloth masks specifically, and so of course there is no supporting link for this particular statement.
> before admitting their uselessness [link to NYT opinion columnist Bret Stephens] once again.
So an opinion columnist with a degree in political philosophy is now a scientific authority?
>to continue to exaggerate the efficacy of cloth masks and to make continued demands for their use long [link to a New Yorker article] after their relative uselessness had become well established
The New Yorker article explicitly says that it is about "a ragtag coalition of public-health activists". Of course there is dissent throughout science. Citing a popular article about what "a ragtag collection of activists" had to say hardly counts as what "our country's medical experts" are saying.
OK, I'm already exhausted. Very disappointed again that this polemic gets presented as "science". It most definitely is not.
I think it's somewhat meta. Scientist makes assertion we shouldn't trust scientists because everyone is prone to bias. Backs the assertion with Twitter beefs, partisan opinion pieces, and articles showing that medical scientists responded appropriately to new knowledge, thereby proving the assertion to be absolutely correct.
Very nice perspective and heavy on appropriate criticism of the medical profession. To me as a retired pediatric specialist, the greatest error of the majority of physicians in the USA has been the silent deference to the experts who have misled our society in many ways. It is curious to me that the author overlooks the decades of scientific malfeasance within the environmental science community which has gone off the rails in so many ways. The stated principles of science mentioned at the beginning of the piece should be the subject of every introductory course in medical school and graduate schools of science.
The medical establishment's embrace of the outrageous lies of "trans" ideology has done a thousand times more damage to science – and deservedly to the medical profession itself – than COVID, whose invisible bugs are a great deal murkier than the birds and the bees of human sexual dimorphism, which is obvious on a basic level to every sentient human being from an early age.
It’s a reminder, if any is needed, that science is a tool, which can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, subject to the whims of human emotions. Scientists are people just like everyone else.
It nails something I've been investigating namely the psychology of religion and just how religious science has gotten. https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology
Michael: "... how even the atheistic are vulnerable to a religious psychology."
"amen" -- so to speak -- to that. Reminds me of a recent tweet by Andrew Doyle on a comparison of the Woke & The Religious:
"The JK Rowling controversy has exposed one of the most chilling aspects of the woke ideology: the sheer certainty of its adherents.
It never occurs to these people that they might be wrong. That’s why they refuse to debate.
This is zealotry; it needs to be resisted."
https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1208423606977515520
Though a bit depressing that Doyle has apparently seen fit to hide that tweet of his from everyone but his "small circle of friends" ...
But Pascal said pretty much the same thing several hundred years ago:
Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -- 'religious conviction' clearly covering a lot of ground:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/blaise_pascal_133606
Well said. The FreePress did a great mini docu podcast on "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling" which was fantastic if you haven't listened yet. It covers your same points.
With "Phelps-Roper", as I think her name is? Seem to recollect skimming it but not much more than that -- may have to go back & take a closer look.
But too many of us are scientifically illiterate -- Sagan suggested 90% -- which makes us easy marks for the charlatans & grifters. Which includes those peddling "conventional wisdom" and "folk-biology" -- like the view that "sex is immutable!!11!!" 🙄 and that everyone is either male or female -- as gospel truth.
Scott Alexander had a useful insight on that "systemic" problem some years ago:
SA: "Topics here tend to center vaguely around this meta-philosophical idea of how people evaluate arguments for their beliefs, and especially whether this process is spectacularly broken in a way that may or may not doom us all."
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/
"Doomed!! I say doomed!" 😉🙂
ICYMI, Mark Twain had similar perspectives & insights:
Twain: "Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals. ....
And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God."
http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
As another famous philosopher once put it, "we have seen the enemy, and he is us" ... 😉🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
Yep with Phelps Roper. It is frustrating when it feels like the analysis is so thin and there's so much more interesting things to read and study!
Indeed. Whole transgender clusterfuck seems to bear some unfortunate, if illuminating though hardly flattering, similarities with Swift's tale of Lilliputian civil wars over egg (ova) cracking protocols and with Pope's Rape of the Lock (Part Deux).
But in many ways that clusterfuck is where the rubber meets the road, is predicated on a whole raft of principles which too many haven't a flaming clue about or are trying to abrogate, repudiate, bastardize or ride roughshod over.
Periodically wonder if it's hyperbole or understatement to say that western "civilization" hangs in the balance ... 🙂
Hardly. Many others endorse the same conclusions:
Paul Griffiths for example:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless; my emphasis]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Griffiths (PhilPapers): "Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes – one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Mathematician & philosopher Patrick Killeen:
PK: "Strictly speaking it’s the sex that an individual is disposed to develop into that is determined at conception, i.e. the sex that a person will become *if* they develop the ability to produce gametes. This is one of the few contexts where that particular distinction matters."
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039829533392822272
We're not born with that "ability to produce gametes"; it's just something that most of us ACQUIRE at puberty.
Wikipedia: "Sexlessness is the state of being either without sexual activity, or without a biological sex. It may refer to:
Gonadal agenesis, when a male child is born without gonads and consequently develops no testes ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexlessness
LGBTQIA: "The term [sexless] includes intersex people who were born sexless as well as people who became sexless later in life (desired/planned or not) and people who desire to be sexless."
https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sexless
Many others. An increasingly popular perspective ...
Mockery and ridicule is often the only response necessary:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them ...."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/918147/Thomas-Jefferson-Ridicule-is-the-only-weapon-which-can-be-used-against-unintelligible
Many peddling that "everyone has a sex" mantra have yet to tender anything in the way of evidence to justify their "arguments".
I agree with what you say, Steersman, but I wish that you (and many, many others) would be more careful with your rhetoric. I say this because my own field happens to be comparative religion.
Wokism, and other political ideologies are indeed what could be called "secular religions" but only if you refer specifically to fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalism is not traditional religion (although it purports to be traditional). Rather, it's a modern phenomenon--more specifically, a reaction against both modernity in general and secularism in particular. In various ways, so do modern political ideologies. Religious and secular forms of fundamentalism have in common several characteristic features, notably dualism ("us" vs. "them"), consequentialism (the end can justify the means), utopianism (the hope of building a perfect society) and revolutionism (as distinct from reformism). Every ideology since the nineteenth century (notably, in our time, wokism and transgenderism) has relied on intimidation, moreover, to close down debate and thus control discourse.
My point is not that traditional forms of religion have never done so--anyone can point to early precursors of the fundamentalist mentality--but that traditional forms of religion sometimes have indeed done so. For evidence, I would point not only to well-documented debates that theologians and philosophers carried on for generations (without resorting to threats) and to the common admission that "doubt" or ambivalence are part of religion . Much depends on historical context.
Quite agree with your "Religious and secular forms of fundamentalism have in common several characteristic features ..."
Religion, per se, is maybe less a problem than the misuses of it, notably the dogmatic certainty of many of its adherents. A trait which, as you say, many "secular forms" also exhibit. Reminds me of a passage from Dawkins' "The God Delusion":
Dawkins: "... I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic [or panentheistic] God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language.” [pg. 41]
Often takes some effort to separate the nutritious wheat from the often poisonous chaff -- so to speak. But generally rather important to do so.
That's a very fine essay.
This excellent article focuses on medical science. The social sciences are much further along toward sacrificing all their credibility on the altar of political zealotry. Anthropology, my own field, is a lost cause, and indeed a laughingstock. But even psychological research, with its facade of quantitative rigor and "objective" measurement, is full of biases that a careful reading of almost any published paper on a hot-button topic will reveal.
"The solution to all of these problems is simple to understand, though not necessarily simple to implement or to realize. It involves a return to humility."
And courage. I think what's mostly lacking is the guts to stand up and take a bullet for civilization. Western liberal democracy is for those who have the sanity, decency, educated intelligence and courage to defend it every day against the omnipresent forces -- mostly from within -- that never rest in their efforts to destroy it. From all sides! BLM, wokeness, Trumpistry, LGBTQ+ ... all seek to eat civilization alive.
Incredibly well said. Someone should roll this up in the form of a newspaper and smack Hotez and Fauci on their noses until they shrink back into the dark recesses of Democracy’s cavernous butthole, where they belong.
I said what I said.
Status - likes, clicks, money... it has become the ubiquitous pursuit of academics having replaced the previous pursuit of reputation for honest and accurate work to advance their discipline. I live in a university town. The admin and faculty parking lots are filled with Tesla cars and other exotics. The biggest homes and yards in town are occupied by University employees... some retired. Undergrad students have tens of thousands of student debt with a worthless degree from classes taught by professor assistants.
Science is a mess because our industry of higher learning has been corrupted into a wealth-making machine for elites. Science has lost its mission and has become yet another institution we cannot trust.
There is an old quote that goes something like this: What do you get when you cross science and politics? Answer: Politics.
The Covid experiment in mind control clearly shows how utterly effective public witch hunts are. Even a relatively decent human, when faced with losing their jobs, family, friends, etc. (while simultaneously being subjected to public hatred and harassment) may rationally choose to be silent. We also need some “humility” when we consider what scientists have been (and continue to be) subjected to. Everyone is an armchair hero, but in the real world...???
I don’t know how we’re going to get out of this mess. Certainly awareness is needed, but we may need some type of “disruptive event” to get this uniquely heavy and extreme pendulum to start swinging in the opposite direction.
I always keep in mind that at one time, the medical "experts" thought that bleeding patients was effective. Germ theory was also pooh-poohed. And if you were shot, then you were sure to get sepsis with the treatment used: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/dirty-painful-death-president-james-garfield
There is a difference between trusting science and "the science."
Once upon a time, it was the Catholic Church that suppressed scientific advancement. Now, it's the government and even wider society. It's sad, because science is the lifeblood of human advancement. Without STEM--and more importantly, curiosity-- we would still be languishing away in caves, having never discovered weapons or fire or language. To suppress and discourage scientific inquiry, discovery, and facts, just because the truth is considered unpopular or blasphemous is one of the greatest tragedies.
"Once upon a time, it was the Catholic Church that suppressed scientific advancement." — scholarly citations in support of this 'truism' would be welcome. It's a common idea, but I'm not sure it's robustly supported by historical fact. Regarding humility, it seems that certain scientists, such as Stanley Jaki (both a theoretical physicist and theologian), advocate for it while at the same time clinging to a firm belief in supernatural explanation for existence itself. See, for example, https://catholicstand.com/father-stanley-jaki-birth-science/
Galileo, as Steersman also mentioned, was an example of this. Quoting Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' on Galileo's improvement of the Copernican theory: "[T]he Aristotelian professors...united against [Galileo] seeking to persuade the Catholic Church to ban Copernicanism...[T]he Church was afraid of a scandal that might undermine its fight against Protestantism...took responsive measures. It declared Copernicanism 'false and erroneous' in 1616, and commanded Galileo never again 'defend or old' the doctrine. Galileo acquiesced."
Galileo would then try to get the decree revoked, but failed. He did, however, get permission to write a book on the Copernican theory as compared to the older, Catholic-accepted Aristotelian theory.
Continuing to quote Hawking, because Galileo wrote his book, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,' he was later "brought before the Inquisition, who sentenced him to house arrest and commanded him to publicly renounce Copernicanism." Again, Galileo acquiesced, due to him being a devout Catholic.
This is just one example. Copernicus--if my memory serves me correct--actually had to release his theory anonymously.
The point is, suppression of the truth IS historical fact, whether under Catholic rule in the 1600s, a Soviet regime in the 1940s, or even by social media and news outlets in the 2020s.
Kind of think Galileo is proof of the "thesis" -- how long did it take the Catholic Church to admit that -- maybe, just maybe, he was right?
And the whole issue of Darwinism, and -- more recently -- the demand of creationists to "teach the controversy" seems additional proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Generally true, though some congregations are starting to read the writing on the walls:
CLP: "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
Accentuate the positive ...
According to my understanding of intellectual history, the Catholic church both suppressed and facilitated scientific advancement. The examples of suppression--the trial of Galileo, the burning at the stake of Bruno and Vanini--are iconic, but it's too often overlooked that modern science erupted in precisely the part of the world where the Church's power was concentrated. Whatever the forces holding back science elsewhere on Earth did a far better job of it than Catholicism.
It all started with Climate "Science", COVID-19 just made use of all the tools for the manipulation and politicization of Academia and scientific institutions
Climate science has ZERO in common with the issues discussed in this article. Fifty years of data, not to mention basic physics, demonstrate the reality of climate change. If you don't understand that, you are willfully ignorant or a fossil fuel shill.
Actually, it started way earlier than that. Michael Crichton gave a talk back in 2003 titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming" where he traced it back to the Nuclear Winter hullaballoo in the early 80s. (https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf) I read the TTAPS paper, and found it profoundly bad.
I'd agree, but perhaps not in the sense that you mean.
Great quotes. They should be studied in every science program. Galileo is a role model for us to fight this new religion: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-follow-the-science-join-the-resistanc
Lines up with what I've explored as the psychology of religion and how science has become religious. https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology
This is such an important essay from a rare but needed perspective. Thank you.
Thank you
Sadly, it is the author who is engaging in a "betrayal of science" here.
Colin: I'm very disappointed that you cross-posted this.
I don't have the time or energy to rebut all the misleading-to-false statements here, so I'll just do the first two:
> Our country's medical experts rushed:
> to deny the efficacy of cloth masks [link to LA Times artilcle]
From that article: "April 3, 2020: After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic."
Yes, after getting new evidence, the experts changed their minds because of it! This is what scientists are supposed to do!
> before mandating their use,
There was NEVER a mandate for use of cloth masks specifically, and so of course there is no supporting link for this particular statement.
> before admitting their uselessness [link to NYT opinion columnist Bret Stephens] once again.
So an opinion columnist with a degree in political philosophy is now a scientific authority?
>to continue to exaggerate the efficacy of cloth masks and to make continued demands for their use long [link to a New Yorker article] after their relative uselessness had become well established
The New Yorker article explicitly says that it is about "a ragtag coalition of public-health activists". Of course there is dissent throughout science. Citing a popular article about what "a ragtag collection of activists" had to say hardly counts as what "our country's medical experts" are saying.
OK, I'm already exhausted. Very disappointed again that this polemic gets presented as "science". It most definitely is not.
Colin, you really have to do better.
I think it's somewhat meta. Scientist makes assertion we shouldn't trust scientists because everyone is prone to bias. Backs the assertion with Twitter beefs, partisan opinion pieces, and articles showing that medical scientists responded appropriately to new knowledge, thereby proving the assertion to be absolutely correct.
Very nice perspective and heavy on appropriate criticism of the medical profession. To me as a retired pediatric specialist, the greatest error of the majority of physicians in the USA has been the silent deference to the experts who have misled our society in many ways. It is curious to me that the author overlooks the decades of scientific malfeasance within the environmental science community which has gone off the rails in so many ways. The stated principles of science mentioned at the beginning of the piece should be the subject of every introductory course in medical school and graduate schools of science.
The medical establishment's embrace of the outrageous lies of "trans" ideology has done a thousand times more damage to science – and deservedly to the medical profession itself – than COVID, whose invisible bugs are a great deal murkier than the birds and the bees of human sexual dimorphism, which is obvious on a basic level to every sentient human being from an early age.