The Church of Science

How Science Lost the Public’s Trust

From climate to Covid, politics and hubris have disconnected scientific institutions from the philosophy and method that ought to guide them.

“Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as [the physicist Richard] Feynman put it.” Mr. Ridley reserves his bluntest criticism for “science as a profession,” which he says has become “rather off-puttingly arrogant and political, permeated by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.” Increasing numbers of scientists “seem to fall prey to groupthink, and the process of peer-reviewing and publishing allows dogmatic gate-keeping to get in the way of new ideas and open-minded challenge.”

30 Replies to “The Church of Science”

  1. Regarding all the scientific research into “gain of function” …

    I’m old enough to remember when science, medicine, and technology were dedicated to SAVING, and EXTENDING life … not devising ways to kill us.

    It’s obvious that when mankind “plays god” … we’re all in big trouble.

  2. Government science. Like government cheese, housing projects, road repair.

    Either follow the government line, the political line, or get a job in the dreaded private sector.

  3. Science has from the get go been driven by power and control.
    Just reread Francis Bacon.
    As for the enlightenment, and the arising of natural philosophers and gowned pastors with larger curiosity, some were merely trying to see beyond religious paradigms.
    They were a quaint exception to the rule.
    You know, thanks for deep time, and geology, etc.
    Then came the chemists…..
    Later, most science was driven by more efficient ways to win wars, yielding such offshoot benefits like duct tape and TV dinners.
    Onward! Science! Science!

  4. Money. It’s always about the money. If it’s the difference between driving a late model Audi and vacationing in Cancun or a ’75 Volvo and hiking in the Appalachians, you just have to know where they’re going to go.
    “Show me the dough and I’ll tell you what you want to hear.”
    If prostitution is the oldest profession in the world…they have to be a close second.

    1. Not quite.

      For many it is about ego. Beyond a certain point, money and the things that money brings are just another way of keeping score.

      This is why people whose tenure and income are both guaranteed AND sufficient to enjoy their preferred lifestyle, will still resist so fiercely the need to admit that they were wrong.

      If you assume that it is only and always about money, you will cut yourself off from some of the greatest insights into human motivation.

    2. Money. It’s always about the money.

      Yup. I noticed that while I was a grad student. I became academic poison in my department because I dared to be original and investigate a subject of my choice, but one which didn’t happen to have a lot of free grant money attached to it.

      Oh, and don’t bring your own money to the show. The university wants its cut and if you provide all of your funding, the institution can’t control you.

      And, Peter, it’s not just about ego. It’s about status and bragging rights. I’ve heard stories about how certain people were pushed aside because there were prestigious prizes at stake.

  5. Old science, gender:
    Males – XY chromosomes, testosterone, narrow pelvis.
    Females – XX chromosome, estrogen, wider pelvis.

    New science, gender:
    It’s a social construct……….

    We all lose when science is made to lose.

    1. There is no ‘New Science’ only ‘Science’ and ‘Politics’ which politics in some people amounts to ‘Religion’.

  6. Yeah, actually, public trust in science and in scientists is just fine, thanks: pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/ft_2020-02-12_aaasroundup_04/

    Just because you’re anti-science doesn’t mean general society is.

    1. Science is fine.

      It’s the people – like you – who consider institutions and people more important than knowledge, who are bringing it into disrepute.
      We aren’t anti-science. We are opposed to the adulteration of science in pursuit of egos and agendas.

      Your inability to be honest about our motivation is an obvious example.

      1. “We are opposed to the adulteration of science in pursuit of egos and agendas.”

        Uh huh. And it just so happens that you all share an ability to correctly make this determination unilaterally. And it also just so happens that your collective and infallible “science BS” meter invariably lines up with a certain avowed set of political and ideological positions.

        Imagine that.

        1. Science is science.
          But we can see when the salesman is calling the Chevette a Corvette.

        2. Science is subject to incentives and constraints just like any other occupation. Though in science the incentive structure is such that those with the most exaggerated and therefore wrong predictions will receive the attention and funding from politicians and the ear of the media. And why wouldn’t they exaggerate, when the true facts materialize and the planet didn’t warm by 4 degree or 2.2 million American didn’t die from covid there is no accountability but only moving onto the next doomsday prediction. So there is no constraint for science to be accurate and factual. As an example in 1976 in school I learned that mankind is doomed cause of the coming ice age and only 10 years later the very same scientists like Steven Schneider told us about global warming.

        3. ” And it also just so happens that your collective and infallible “science BS” meter invariably lines up with a certain avowed set of political and ideological positions.”

          Right back at ya.

        4. . “And it also just so happens that your collective and infallible “science BS” meter invariably lines up with a certain avowed set of political and ideological positions.”.

          One of the things that trips my “BS Meter” is responses like yours.
          Not addressing the point.
          Not following the data.

          There are two ideologies.
          Mine says that when your theory doesn’t fit the evidence, you change your theory.
          The other is that when the evidence doesn’t fit your theory, you change the evidence. When that is your MO, don’t be surprised when people think you a fraud.

  7. Science.
    Depends on defining your terms.
    What does you mean ,when you says “Science”?
    For “believing in the science” is another way of saying”Ignoring the scientific method”.
    One can follow the leads nature throw out for us,as inquiring minds want to know.
    Or one can “know” and ignore the knowledge we know nothing.
    Believing is a quaint way of ignoring the obvious..
    And those who most loudly “Believe in The science” seem also able to see those lovely clothes their Emperor is “Wearing”..
    The painful process of sorting reality from supposition makes most humans crazy..Or are most humans crazy and mental effort just highlights the madness?
    Most herd beasties want certainty.
    Let somebody else do that thinking,we know nothing,we shall conform..to the norm..
    Faith trumps uncertainty everyday.
    And using the Scientific Method,means you had better be very comfortable with uncertainty.
    Look at our “Intellectuals”,think these fine specimen are comfortable stating the most obvious????
    “I do not know”..
    Not on your government payroll.

  8. Science:
    1. Make a hypothesis.
    2. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
    3. Do a bunch of experiments to see if they hypothesis has merit.
    4. If the hypothesis passes (3), then now you have a scientific theory, like evolution.
    5. Repeat step (3) and (4) many times.
    Not science:
    Everything else.

    Multiverse theories and superstring theories are still science, climate change is not.

        1. Smart and hilarious! But I would insert a “falsifiable” clause so that we may find a way out of the lather-rinse-and repeat loop of steps 3 and 4. And then there is that “evolution” thingy: I it makes total sense, but, darn! we cannot go back to the past to check our hypothesis. I find it philosophically fascinating! I am aware of experiments demonstrating natural selection, and the “Wuhan flu virus variants” are an interesting examples. But these mutants are not distinct organisms yet. Again, in Spok’s voice: “fascinating”.

      1. Actually you started out by arguing it is all about what the plebs think. Anything else, apparently, is “anti-science.” Which is telling…

      2. You’re missing a crucial step. ALL DATA COUNTS , not just the cherry picking data sets that support FEAR FACTOR 101.
        The selective disclosure of some data, that misses crucial associated facts, has been the MO of the media, government, and their Frankensteins in the medical field.
        Yes, those of us with educations can read, investigate, compare, review the comments and presentations across the spectrum, discover and call out the holes in the Official Narrative/Propaganda , that you can drive a truck through.
        So yes, after thorough investigation, I don’t trust the mRNA gene therapy, it is not as presented.
        I don’t trust Trudeau or anything associated with that abortion of a government, it’s hacks, it’s mouthpieces, or its leftwing lapdogs.
        I don’t trust the media, whatsoever. Lying and distortion is their mandate.
        I don’t trust Fauxci or any of his minions.
        I don’t trust BonBon, or any apparatchik of the NDP.
        I don’t trust any medical hacks associated with the BC NDP, or any of their Frankensteins in the medical establishment.
        There have been so many lies, distortions, obfuscations and omissions from public discussions, one that can rationally think, with common sense, comes to this conclusion:
        WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?
        Government apparatchiks and their minions are not acting in YOUR best interests…….
        Question everything they say and do!

    1. Or also honesty, which is the problem with much of “science” today. A lot of todays science follows an ideology, not facts.

  9. Science lost me when it became the science of consensus and feels, rather than , hypothesis, theory, experimentation and observation.

  10. “Environment Canada’s Science”,with a straight face..
    “The Science”.
    “The Cause”.
    Power hungry people will use any tool .
    The attempt to be objective while examining our world,is a set of tools,very difficult to apply.
    For the first person we fool is usually ourselves.
    “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! ”
    I read this regularly.
    I snicker still over the rats in the maze…
    Science ,of course.

  11. The quote in the article is something like “I believe in in the science. Donald Trump doesn’t. It’s that simple folks”.

    As Trump my counter would have been – “I believe in the science. Joe believes in the scientitsts. It’s that simple folks”.

  12. The “Enlightenment” is over.
    We are back to justifying our nastiness.
    Policy based evidence manufacturing,which always results in massive waste, death and destruction.
    Rather than evidence based policy making,which requires honest ,honourable men,in your civil service..
    Naturally the current Blob of Parasitic Overload ,much prefers the former,for policy based evidence manufacturing ,ensures you always get the “right answers”.
    “The Science” is State Religion.

    We need more Guillotine..
    For help such as we have been treated to,through out this Dread Covid Theatre,cannot go un rewarded.

Navigation