top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

Follow the science

Here are three stupid statements : "Follow the Science". "Evidence-based decision making". "I believe in Science".


There are a myriad of statements in similar vein all equally stupid.


Credentialed scientists, media designated experts, world leaders and once august organisations use these stupid statements to buttress their very bad arguments.


They are charlatans of the worst kind. They are not just cheating in the argument but invariably are doing so in an attempt to rob you of your money and your freedom. They want bigger government, higher taxes, and less freedom. They invoke Science to their nefarious end.


They dismiss dissenters as deniers, greedies, evil, or some equally abusive personal epithet.


They are bullies.


“I believe the Science” is very stupid. Science is the antithesis of belief. You can believe in witchcraft if you want. To say you believe in science is to place science beside witchcraft.


Science is not concerned with what you believe but what is real. Ideas are tested against reality not canonical belief.


But more than that, science is vigorous in testing and tossing out bad ideas. That's how scientific knowledge grows so dramatically.


Scientists didn't "believe in" Newtonian mechanics but harshly tested it through Eddington's extraordinary journey to Principe to observe the deflection of light by the sun during a solar eclipse. Belief had nothing to do with it.


Someone saying their belief in science somehow makes them and their ideas superior should be dismissed instantly. They are charlatans attempting to claim a fake superiority.


Its the same for evidence-based decision making. There's a mountain of evidence that the sun goes round the earth. Or that Socialism works. But both propositions are false.


Evidence-based decision making is the sifting of evidence to defend an idea. That's the opposite of science. Science is the critical testing of competing ideas against reality. It's the searching out of the evidence that knocks your theory over.


"Follow the Science" is the most fatuous of all. It invariably means follow a scientist. No. Never. The 1660 motto of the Royal Society is "Nullius in verba" - "take nobody's word for it." Its not scientific authority that we should listen to but the facts.


When someone invokes science instead of reason and data, beware. They are attempting to cheat you and rob you.


They should be given less respect than the writer of horoscopes. At least the writer of horoscopes knows its bunk and they're not trying to upend the world.

3,087 views55 comments

55 comentarios


Niget Lawson:- Chancellor of the exchequer under Thatcher. Oxford Degree in Politics and Economics. Became poster boy for Brexit and gave many lectures on the econimic success of leaving the EU trading Bloc.


The UK's economy is now spiraling down with Febuary exports to EU down -40% and world trade down by -19%. Seafood and meat exports are down 90% and hundreds of companies have closed along with decommissioned fishing boats.


Nigel Lawson now lives in France and has applied for French citizenship.

Me gusta

chuckbirdnz
chuckbirdnz
26 mar 2021

This is worth a view.


A Cool Look at Global Warming - Nigel Lawson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0QTkYjwtFA&t=38s

Me gusta

chuckbirdnz
chuckbirdnz
26 mar 2021

I believe that the vast majority of climate scientist believe that human-created CO2 increases the temperature of the climate. However, the issue is how much. The alarmist many of who probably struggled with high school math and physics claim they know how much the temperature will increase depending on the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. They are stupid or dishonest as no one knows.


It makes sense to assume there is a chance that the worse predictions are possible even if unlikely. That means reducing CO2 without wrecking the economy as the crazy left want to do here and elsewhere.

Me gusta
ron
ron
27 mar 2021
Contestando a

So you think because Nigel Lawson perceived the EU to be the basket case that it is and has retired to the S of France that his views on climate change politics should be cancelled?


Me gusta

Hilarious.

"the entire climate change and global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together" - Rodney Hide https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20080902_00000804/hide-rodney-climate-change-emissions-trading-and-renewable


"Science is the critical testing of competing ideas against reality. It's the searching out of the evidence that knocks your theory over."

Tell me Rodney, how long have you spent searching out evidence that knocks over the theory climate change is a hoax? You mentioned the 'hocky stick'. Have you followed the research that followed the 'controversy'?


Sounds to me like the person sifting the evidence to defend an idea is you.

Me gusta
barry.brill
barry.brill
18 abr 2021
Contestando a

You want evidence of a negative hypothesis? Hmm...


Here it is – a peer-reviewed research paper published March 2021:

Po-Chedley, Santer, et al (2021)

Me gusta

larry
larry
04 mar 2021

Hey David Marshall You said:


"Science can't make value judgements for us, and we shouldn't let politicians pretend that the value-judgements are not being made (by them)."


Two things here ( I think) the first one is easy.


(1). No one can rationally think/say that science has all the answers and as you so eloquently confirm.... socio economic and other factors of course come into play dohh!


BUT! ... where science-based issues are at hand, the scientific evidence becomes a huge part (it should never be omitted!) ...of the entirety (socio-economic factors and all) for both legs-the research and opinionated reporting. It is not!/never? usually a one handed argument.


(2). A double negative! "shouldn't"-"not".: Hard therefore to fathom your poi…


Me gusta
bottom of page