Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the pack. It should be noted that this week’s March for Science is strange. And it is that marches are usually carried out to defend something that is in danger.
There is no doubt that the mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day denotes what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted it from the beginning, although they are now busy trying to cover the event with scientific camouflage.
If the past is a prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on the catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this statement is to silence skeptical non-scientists. And not everyone can study climate sciences. But since politics often disguises itself as science, we need a way to distinguish one from the other.
Politics Disguised
“Consensus”, according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in feelings and beliefs”. That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and solid logic, or on social pressure and group thinking?
Certainly, anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many misconceptions once enjoyed consensus. In fact, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their point of view.
In this situation, questions arise as well as, how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?”
Without a doubt, your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. It should be noted that there are signs that may be sufficient to pause. If they begin to accumulate, then it is prudent to be suspicious.
Source: Jay Richards | The Stream
No comments:
Post a Comment