Monday, September 17, 2007

[science] the debunking of

I'm absolutely delighted that the Devil's Kitchen has moseyed on over to debunk the scientists because he saved me a job. For months I've been at it and to apply his own words to myself:
I have written thousands of words, highlighted huge numbers of studies, and I cannot be arsed to do it again: it seems to go in one ear and out the other anyway.
Here are some examples:

# Ian Appleby wrote on insufferable scientific arrogance.

# I wrote this on scientific ethics. And these:

# On science being used to prove rather than test, in direct contravention of Sherlock Holmes' maxim, from Wisteria Lodge:

I have not all my facts yet but I do not think there are any insuperable difficulties. Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You find yourself insensibly twisting them round to fit your theories.

# Further, on suspect scientific motivation, which DK also comments on in his excellent prion article:

Or, if we are being truthful, at all; however, that hasn't stopped a great many scientists making Doomsday proclamations with an ever-increasing desperation in order to secure vast amounts of public money.

Scandalously—and despite the consistent non-fulfillment of the dire death toll predictions, and the lack of success in replicating the infection path—this has not stopped the prion theory becoming the "consensus" amongst politicians and scientists either too ignorant to know or too greedy to care.

# On scientific veracity itself.

# Devil's Kitchen therefore concluded, about scientists:

You are quite correct: the opinions of those people count for nothing.
# Lord Nazh agreed but perhaps for different reasons. Referring to evidence of warming, DK went on to say:

Crap. As we now know, NASA's chief warming guy, James Hansen, was caught fiddling the figures. Actually, 1934 was the warmest year last century, and the four hottest years of last century all occurred in the 30s and not in the 90s, as previously claimed. I have a lot more to say, and a lot of links to insert but, you see, I just cannot be bothered.

Which is an interesting statement because I have a scientific answer to every argument DK could possibly bring up against climate change. The sceptic lobbies could then wade in with their 500 "eminent" scientists to counter my 500 "eminent" scientists.

So to Consensus

Scientists clearly can't agree. You see where this thing is headed, of course. Both sides are scrambling for the high moral ground and as the vast majority say there is consensus, then someone like Scott Burgess has to quote someone who says there's not. Lord Nazh, who says there's no climate change, is of course against the scientific community's consensus:

Consensus - you may just want to strike that word from your blog as it means NOTHING in science to have more people wrong than the other guy? :)

Now that Science is debunked

I'll always remember the girl at school who'd been force-fed pseudo-scientific rubbish by godless PC teachers and stated, as the gospel truth:

It's been scientifically proven that G-d doesn't exist.

Accepting that the scientists don't know what they're saying, are falsifying results, killing off wildlife and wasting billions of dollars, then the scientific consensus in schools and colleges against Intelligent Design becomes equally ludicrous - there is just no definitive proof of evolution occurring, at odds with the biblical version of events, which, by the way, was written much closer to the time. As DK says, in his usual inimitable way:

The most that we can say is that we just don't fucking know.

DK has come to the rescue at just the right time, it seems. As he says, if we can't trust scientists any more and the New Religion of Science therefore falls to the floor, then what is left? Well the other version of events of course, unchanged by fads and fashions, by renaissances, by reformations, by Darwinism, Marxism or any other -ism.

The simple assertion, backed up by countless fragments of evidence over the millennia, that there really is a Maker after all, no matter how much the irrational western Rationalists, in their cold, pitiless, indifferent world, try to snuff the idea out by taking over education, the arts and the organs of state power.

Scientific theory may come, scientific theory may go but the Lord keeps on truckin'.


Wolfie said...

There are many within science who attempt to elevate the scientific method to the position of religion which in itself is a dishonest practice. Science is nothing more than an intellectual tool and can only offer support to philosophical enquiry but there are many who believe, in their nihilist delusion that it can supplant philosophy.

The power of belief can be astounding, but one should be discerning in whatever you believe and belief can and will define your personal reality. Its up to you whether you create a heaven or a hell.

Lord Nazh© said...

In school, my 2 favorite subjects were science and math. Because both were absolutes, in either subject you could simply prove your answer to be correct :) [of course science, up through chemistry is absolute, but I didn't study 'theoretical' science]

Good piece James, but the first attribute to me was actually Thaiphoon at my site

Pantheist Mom said...

I'm an atmospheric scientist, and one paid by the US government at that - so I am well aware that I am wading into a pool of sharks as evil incarnate. :-)

I just had to say something about this comment though:
"Or, if we are being truthful, at all; however, that hasn't stopped a great many scientists making Doomsday proclamations with an ever-increasing desperation in order to secure vast amounts of public money."

Seriously? Vast amounts of public money? For whatever you think of scientists and especially we "evil" atmospheric/climate scientists, I can guarantee you that those paid under the public sector are not in it for the $$, either personal salaries or research dollar availability. I could increase my salary and research dollars several times if I were to go work for private industry (especially if I were to come out as a global warming skeptic, but now I'm wading into this pool too deeply)

Now that I'm here, I'll also point out that the scientists I work with are very intelligent, grounded, and very reasonable folks - none of whom are looking for the high moral ground or predicting doomsday scenarios. It's when scientific results or projections are taken by the media and fringe groups (either pro or con "environmentalism") that you get these hysterics that are bandied about.

Wolfie said...

Well said Jen!

Mopsa said...

"No definitive proof of evolution"? Did I doze off and miss something? Did I sleep for seven days and find that from gas and air we had a planetary system and lifeforms? If I doze for another week perhaps we can un-evolve some of the nasties in life...I wonder what that would leave us with?

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

So are you really saying you want creationism or whatever it's called taught in schools? Personally, I see no reason why there couldn't be God AND evolution. Or do we have to interpret the Bible fundamentally?
I'm with DK - "we don't effing know".

Crushed by Ingsoc said...

Believing Evolution isn't incompatible with belief in God.

I'm a Catholic, but believe FIRMLY in evolution.
I think you can be a Catholic and believe Marx too.

I think they are all different angles of viewing the truth.

jmb said...

I have no trouble believing in God and evolution, thanks in part to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Goodness me James, what were you drinking last night?

Gracchi said...

James you have made a category error here. Firstly scientific method is simply the idea that if you have a hypothesis about the world you then test it in an experiment, nothing more nothing less. Therefore secondly that cannot prove or disprove anything you say about a supernatural event or person because obviously that isn't testable.

Philosophically you can derive certain conclusions from the scientific facts but science itself won't get you far into a debate about whether there is or isn't a God.

Whihc is why ID isn't a scientific theory, its a theological theory. Evolution is a scientific theory- it doesn't say that it itself cannot have been designed, it just describes what happened. As soon as you discuss what has or hasn't been designed you are into philosophy or theology- and you can tell that by the fact that the best refutation of intelligent design isn't by a scientist at all, but by a philosopher- don't look to Darwin but to David Hume.

Dr. James P. Holdren said...

Crushed - your logic needs a more detailed response which is on the drawing board to do.

JMB - thanks you.

Welsh - no I'm not calling for "creationism or whatever it's called" to be taught - jsut good old Christian values of love and tolerance in the way that teachers of decency used to teach.

The majority of them weren't particularly committed Christians but still they taught the values and weren't mealy-mouthed and mean-spirited enough to deny their origin.

What they were doing, in fact, was teaching the nation's heritage.

Tiberius - it was not I but those who latch onto labels who created the non-argument but I didn't state that clearly enough.

Dr. James P. Holdren said...

Too much here to let go by. As you'll see from my site, I'm currently into the Them series but will come back to this one, hopefully this evening.

Thanks for all your comments so far.