As a kid, I remember being taught some basic science and led to believe science was the pursuit of truth and understanding. Like most children, I accepted this as a reality in itself, but times have changed. We see in today’s world that science and politics have blended together and if you disagree with the politics, you are called names. They can be simple names like “science denier”/ “climate fanatic,” or rude names like “deplorable”/ “Karen,” or vicious names like “homophobe” and “racist.” Once the name-calling begins all reasonable conversation ends.
As I look at people who call themselves scientists, I realize they can only exist if someone is paying for the science. I think that has almost always been the case. It was no different when I was a young boy, it was just the teachers never wanted to point this reality out. Leonardo DaVinci was a brilliant man, but without sponsors, he would have ended up an unknown beggar. If we look at the scope of his work we can see the brilliance of his mind, but every once in a while, he had to do something to make a living. That could have been painting the Mona Lisa, or designing a battle tank.
Galileo and Copernicus studied the stars, and taught at universities, but without sponsorship would we know of their work? What happened when the Catholic Church, took issue with their findings? It took a generation of more discovery before the Church was willing to alter their position, during that time they were both condemned as heretics, although Copernicus had died before the Church could hold him accountable for his sin. In 15th Century Europe who had the power to tell the Church, they were wrong?
The same thing holds true today. Who has the power to tell the government they are wrong about the science they’ve paid so much for, or more importantly what scientist is willing to question the science and risk their future research because of the people who pay for that research question his loyalty? Are the inquisitions of today any different than the inquisitions of the 15th century?
For the past 50 years, the world’s scientists have been warning us of the devastation of Climate Change. Anyone who questioned those predictions was condemned for denying science. First, we were to enter an ice age, then we discovered global warming. The oceans would rise as the ice caps melted, the polar bears would die, the coastal cities would flood, there would be world famine and nuclear war. Over ten years ago Psychologists were predicting everyone would become so depressed by the crisis that mass suicides were likely. Al Gore gave us until 2010 before the end of the age of man, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is planning on 2030, unless of course, we change our path and abandon fossil fuels and spend a lot more money on something painted green. NASA, NOAA, and even the DOD have jumped on the bandwagon telling us the end of the world is near. So, it must be true. I kind of miss the days when you got these kinds of warnings from some long-haired, wild-eyed dude on the corner.
Now we have the science of the Wuhan Virus, which for political purposes can’t be called by where it originated, so it is COVID-19. We were told the world population would be devastated if we didn’t listen to all the policies all the politicians put into place at the recommendation of all the government experts who know exactly how this virus will perform. We’ve gone through lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, vaccines, boosters, and huge economic impacts yet still the virus continues to kill thousands despite all the assurances that if we only do all the things “some” of the experts say we will be okay. Unfortunately, those experts don’t take kindly to other “experts” suggesting alternative strategies. So once again the political opinion media gets called in to assure those who listen to only one side that the other side is responsible for all the bad stuff happening.
As far as I can tell neither side is really willing to look at the data to see what strategies are effective, and which ones only give the illusion of help. We have people who wear masks 24/7 to protect themselves and we have those who refuse to be vaccinated because they fear their DNA will be altered and they will wake in the morning with a strong desire for a banana and a branch to hang on. Of course, our political elites and their media friends all have their opinions, which as far as I can tell are based solely on which government official they like.
Then again we have the fringe “social scientists” who believe basic biology is passe and that a six-year-old should be able to decide what gender they should be, based I assume, on its lifetime of experience.
Finally, just before the age of Trump, we developed “internet fact-checkers” who were supposed to research all the internet rumors and tell us what was real and what was false. Unfortunately, those same “fact-checkers” have been proven themselves to be political town criers who offer little more than the approved government taking points/opinions, as long as the government is controlled by those they agree with.
I guess it is safe to say I will never view science and those who claim to be scientists with the same idealist view my 10th-grade chemistry teacher tried to instill in me.
2 comments:
John...have you researched and read alternatives to the main "narrative"?
I don't think your statement "As far as I can tell neither side is really willing to look at the data to see what strategies are effective, and which ones only give the illusion of help." would stand up to scrutiny.
Granted, there are fewer "on the other side" as they have to pay heavy costs for being willing to question the status quo. They get lied about, smeared and censored, have their livelihoods threatened etc. You have to go hard looking for some of them. However, there are knowledgable and effective understandings being promoted and enacted that are focused on what will and does help.
Your depiction of reasons people chose not to get vaccinated seems cartoonish and demeaning and no where near the full orb of concerns. It detracts from your otherwise serious challenge to the sloppy paradigms we are being asked to choke down.
You otherwise make some valid points, and I can certainly identify with your loss of idealism. Imagine being a MD and a medical ethicists, as well as a researcher and pragmatic data user...I can think of one such man who too is suffering, as the laws and ideals thought to be operational are crushed by the unholy unions we see in charge these days...
Jeannette, I appreciate your comments, and allow me to cover your main points. When I say neither side is really willing to look at the data I've reviewed alternatives to the narrative but until both sides are willing to find room to reach a common agreement, laypeople such as you and I are caught in the middle where it becomes a matter of just which narrative (there is always more than one) do you trust and why do you trust that over an alternative?
I agree my depiction of why people choose not to be vaccinated is cartoonish, and it is inserted not for rational debate, just as my depiction of people who are afraid of the virus wear their masks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Both are examples of the stereotype arguments we have come to expect. The purpose of this blog was not to say which side was right or wrong, it was to reflect on the fact we can no longer trust our scientists to be seeking the truth.
Thanks for your comment and your continued support. V/R John
Post a Comment