Categories
MB2A

THE RAPE OF SCIENCE

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

THE RAPE OF SCIENCE

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Become a Bill Whittle Member to see backstage content, and participate in the Member forum, Member-written blog and comments.

Listen to the Audio Version

28 replies on “THE RAPE OF SCIENCE”

A question I have been wondering about since the dawn of the ‘scientific’ postulation about climate change.
So we went from global warming to climate change. Why? Because the ‘scientists’ could not scientifically prove that we were going to dry up because of the new heat wave. Regarding climate change…yup it has and continues to happen. It started millions of years ago. How long did it constantly snow to form glaciers a mile thick? Think about it. (We might get a wicked snow storm occasionally/rarely…depending on where you live, that deposits 12″ of snow). There are more than 63,000″ in a mile. That’s a lot of snow to form a glacier. Then it warms up and the glacier starts to melt. How long does it take to melt a mile high pile of ice? As far as I know the archaeologists have not uncovered any ancient SUVs to account for this phenomenon. I’m not a scientist, but I do question them.

“I believe in science”

It really means I believe what the media tells me about what science tells us. And if there’s one thing that’s been proven over and over again, is journalists go into journalism because they are emotionally driven and hate things like … math.

Lo some score and 5 years ago I was a Real Life Scientist™ (did you know there’s not much money in astrophysics, surprising no?). Back then the scientists I worked with were had minimal interest in politics (they were all Democrats but mostly because that’s what professors were supposed to be). They mostly indulged in the feeding of the crocodile in hopes of getting eaten last. None of them believed in quotas, racial equity, or the rest of what then was called PC. They figured that science was pure and above that, but sat idly by as the rot took over the rest of the university. Now it looks like they are about to get eaten too. It is a tragedy for science, but it is hard for me to generate any sympathy for them. Scientists could have stood up against the postmodernist rot. They didn’t and now they’ll pay. I consider it a great stroke of luck that I failed as Real Life Scientist™; I couldn’t stand to work in that environment today.
On a completely different note, the hallmark of True Science™ is uncertainty. Any real scientific claim comes with an error bar, an estimate of how uncertain the result is. If wearing masks reduces the rate at which COVID spreads then what is the reduction in R (the average number of people an infected person is likely to infect) and what’s the uncertainty? Proper science provides both numbers. Climate change? What is the likely increase in average temperature and what is the uncertainty. You can’t just say 4 degrees C in 100 years. You have to say 4 degrees plus or minus something (2, 4, 10?).
Science is based on empirical observation and is inductive. All crows are black is not an accurate scientific statement. No one has observed every crow that ever is or was. If I travel the world and observe one million crows and they are all black, the correct scientific statement is that based on observation less than one in a million crows is black, i.e. black(crow) = 1 +/- .000001. So, when someone tells you it is science, ask for the uncertainty. If you don’t get it, you didn’t get science.

Yeah, the lack of accuracy/reliability figures on any claim is the best dead giveaway that it is not science just a figure pulled out of ass.

Sociology is really a type of Philosophy which means it’s not a science but a humanity. It can be useful and improve lives or harmful and destroy them same as any other philosophy. I find Stoic Philosophy exceedingly helpful and the Philosophy of Intersectional Victimhood exceedingly harmful to the individual, but that’s probably the whole point.

Bill, you are treading in dangerous territory by asking questions. The views of the day are “We speak the truth” questions are not allowed. They may lead to critical thinking. I wonder how long before the question mark ceases to exist on our keyboards…

Reminds me of a discussion I got into with some neighbors of mine some years ago. I’m an electrical engineer. My neighbors were discussing a hot topic in those days, Affirmative Action. My question to my neighbors was: Why is it that we could send multiple missions to the moon and successfully land men there and successfully bring them home using slide rules for calculations, and then a decade later, we can’t keep the Space Shuttle in orbit or safely land it or safely launch it when we have Cray Supercomputers for calculations? My contention was we got to the moon by hiring the best and brightest of our scientists and engineers. After the success that NASA had with that program, the politicians got involved, injected Affirmative Action into the hiring mix and, voila, we now have a mix of some really bright engineers with some engineers who only got there because of Affirmative Action. I was called a racist. Typical accusation by lefties when they can’t successfully argue a topic. I asked them if they were having heart surgery, or an organ transplant, would be prefer to have the best doctor in the world performing the operation, or would they be content with a doctor who made it through medical school because of Affirmative Action? The conversation went downhill from there. What you are discussing in your presentation, Bill, is the outgrowth of science not resisting politics. And that is for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is money – taxpayer dollars to fund their work.

Let me see if I got this: Scientific American is gushing over a historian voicing his approval of the appointment of a sociologist voicing a philosophy of science opinion. Where’s the science, again?

“Sociology: the study that leads to the understanding that people will do what they want, when they want and in the way they want….or maybe not….”
SCIENCE!!!!!

The mantle of science is donned now by anyone who uses data, however erroneously compiled, to score an argumentative political policy point. Data is not a scientific tool and lies supported by data don’t survive scientific analysis, ever. I read Scientific American religiously for decades, even when I could barely afford it, until the advent of their unscientific advocacy of global climate politization. Whatever ensued after that momentous juncture, their reputation as a credible oracle for the scientific community was gone forever. I no longer read their politically derived pseudo-scientific drivel, just as I no longer watch Fox News. The credibility and reputations that they both had were earned over years, the hard way, by adhering to truth. Those reputations obviously can evaporate in a pico-second.

I love this episode and believe that Bill intentionally used the word “equality” in place of the word “equity” at 9:45 and 10:37 to emphasize the left’s focus on outcome instead of opportunity which is the theme of the entire episode. He is so accurate when he speaks of the left making their “belief” in science the litmus test for modern day societal acceptance. Everyone believes in something, I believe I will go for a long walk. Have a great day.

The “rape of science” is but one of many symptoms of a retrograde, devolving mentality.

The fact that so many people subscribe to this rape of science is indicative of how many people now suffer from that retrograde, devolving mentality.

If this sort of thing were not a means to an end, then it would not be advanced by people who ought to know better.

This is deductive proof that the Left, the chief committers of this rape of science, are not the virtuous altruists they would have us believe they are. They do not seek to improve the human condition despite their claims to the contrary. They only care about their own condition and they are willing to slay the giants whose shoulders Sir Isaac Newton stood upon to advance themselves to the detriment of the rest of us.

This is a definition of evil.

Unlike science, philosophy and metaphysics, (concepts like “good” and “evil”) which most certainly are not sciences, should be politicized to combat this evil. It’s the only effective weapon that can be brought to bear.

And this is why evil seeks to portray itself as good.

I have gotten to the point that anytime someone says “the science is settled” I have to work very hard to keep from physical assault. The scientific method by it’s very nature deems that the science is never settled. Or said another way how F=mg becomes F=Gm(s)m(e)/r^2. Science is not a static realm, it is ever evolving because new data invalidates old “knowledge”.

… because when science becomes a static realm. it is no longer science.

Science was my favorite class in school. I loved science class and did well in it.

That said, I have no idea what that formula you posted pertains to. On the other hand, I know perfectly well what scientific principles and the scientific method involve.

As usual, you’re right on all counts. I find your arguments and information very easy to agree with and that’s saying something coming from someone as disagreeable as I am.

I saw an interesting video, or read an article, I can’t remember which, the other day that postulated “science” has become not only a new religion but the new religion. It even has denominations like main stream religions.

This makes some sense to me because the fanatical zealots of “science” are every bit as rabid as the jihadi types I’ve seen on the other side of the world. The main difference that I can see off hand is that the jihadi types are being true to their religion and acknowledge it as a religious faith. Whereas the acolytes of “science” seem to have no clue that they’ve adopted a religion but yet are not true to its foundational tenets.

So, I will do a lousy job of explaining, which is why I am not a teacher.
The first is Newton’s Law of Gravitational Force. It is what Newton supposedly pondered in the apple orchard Bill referenced. What made the apple fall. And, more importantly, can I quantify it, repeat it, calculate and predict. The predict part is really important.
Kepler was looking at the planets and wondering what forces control their movement. When he and his colleagues realized that orbits are not circular they started taking measurements. They came up with the Force between a planet and the sun is a constant (G) times each of their masses m(s) m(e) divided by the distance between them squared. Said distance always changing, because it is an ellipse, not a circle. This work and the follow on work, was the basis of the equations we use that allow us to launch a rocket that will intersect with a comet or planet some time later.
30+ years ago, when standing for my MS in Aerospace Engineering, I had to derive that equation from scratch. I had had one class as a sophomore, but one of my advisers taught that class. Took me awhile and I sweated through my shirt, but I got it.
Couldn’t do it today. Not by a long shot.

Thank you for explaining that. It makes perfect sense now, even though I’m not an aerospace engineer.

I haven’t been one since I finished. Used my degrees for two years. Then admin and bus dev for many things not related to fluid dynamics.

Science is a method, not a belief system.
As to the Chinese virus Science doesn’t care if each one of us triple masks and lives in a bubble or that we all gather in Times Square and dance the Macarena naked.

I’ve come to think that Science is the understanding of how God does His thing. When we get it right, we get closer to Him. When we don’t, we become apart from Him.

That’s an excellent perspective and I think it’s accurate. Science does not disprove or deny The Creator, it simply explains His methods. Anything less is just small thinking, it’s trying to pigeonhole God and God by His very nature and concept is not pigeonhole-able.

I’m not Catholic but I had a very good friend that was a Catholic Nun. We used to have some fascinating discussions along these lines. I sure do miss Sister Carolyn..

Leave a Reply