We believe the science. The science tells us what to believe. And on like that.
Found through William M. Briggs is this story about Durham academic Peter Vickers and his plan to assess the truth of scientific theories through broad consensus.
“Humanity has never had a way to measure reliably the opinion of the scientific community,” explained Professor Vickers, who claimed efforts to do so have been “small scale” and reliant on fewer than 2,000 responses. “We need a way to access scientific opinion on a large scale and internationally,” he added of the proposed Institute for Ascertaining Scientific Consensus.
I'd say this process sounds corruptible, but in all likelihood it is absolutely corrupt from the outset. We've had more than sufficient evidence over the past few years of how the role of experts is to tell the government what it wants to hear, and how experts who don't comply suddenly find themselves not experts anymore. The odds of this committee producing anything as beautiful and useful as a camel are nil.
This kind of easy and streamlined process for arriving at scientific consensus will produce a lot of definitive answers that―rightly―no one out side of a well-placed clique will believe. So why even bother with it? Patronage, I'd bet.
2 comments:
As Briggs quipped, 'It’s hard not to laugh, so don’t try holding it in'. My first thought was they keep coming up with clever names for the Ministry of Truth these days.
Now we have agenda driven 'science' I think anything that comes out of any place with 'facts' in it's name is just meant to discredit actual facts that don't fit official narratives. Remember when everyone agreed Copernicus was wrong and how that worked out? Besides, who could prove it wasn't the scientist's idiot nephew who voted T or F?.. and mightn't that be equally valid?
Yep, patronage is usually the correct answer.
ps: You may enjoy this bit from the Oxford Union Debates: Konstantin Kisin - This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far.
Indeed. Their chief complaint about 1984 would seem to be that Orwell didn't do a good enough job at marketing the Ministry of Truth. So, "misinformation" it is.
There seems to be a slippery slope leading from scientists banding together on the basis of their political convictions and scientists--or the scientifically adjacent--deciding what's true on the basis of politics. Of course they may think their political beliefs are also informed by pure scientific rigor, but that's delusional for just about anyone.
You can get pretty far searching for the truth if you follow the money, although there may be other factors at play too.
KIsin's well-spoken and persuasive on what could be a very alarming subject.
Post a Comment