When Science! … is NOT Science

It should be noted:

– Just because a scientist does something, that doesn’t necessarily mean what he’s doing is science.

Even if he calls it “Science.” Science is just systematized research, exploration and investigation. The system involves a “method” — the Scientific Method — which any scientist, or any person, can more or less rigorously follow in his pursuit of knowledge. The less rigorously he follows the method, one can surmise, the less valid the findings from his “science.”

If, for example, any one or more of the following is true, then the conclusions of the “science” in question are worthless:

  1. If the scientist follows the system badly, carelessly, dishonestly or corruptly.
  2. If the scientist allows his politics to influence his adherence to the Scientific Method.
  3. If the scientist excludes from his consideration the results of others’ work that dissents from his findings.
  4. If the scientist attempts to marshall outside forces to exclude views and findings that differ from his own.

More to the point not everything that a scientist does is actually  science. Even when he says it is. If a scientist does any of the above-mentioned things, then he is consciously not engaging in science. Call it what you want — fraud, corruption, laziness, dishonesty — the thing that it’s not is: science.

And we have a couple of useful terms for the findings from those tainted endeavors: “Pseudo-science.” Also: “Junk Science.” There’s a whole lot of it out there, too. Sometime, you should look up the life story of one of the most celebrated “scientists” in Soviet history: Trofim Lysenko. and the “science” named for him: Lysenkoism.

I used to be a very good baseball player, and a pretty good basketball player — because I’m pretty tall. When I went out on the basketball court and tossed the basketball through the hoop, if I’d claimed to be playing baseball, people would have, correctly, laughed at me.

But, why? As an acknowledged expert on baseball in that group, wouldn’t I have the necessary credibility to prevail, and to say that my tossing of the basketball through the hoop was, indeed, baseball? Couldn’t I, say, “identify” what I was doing as “baseball?” After all, I was once a professional baseball player, and they were not! Who are they to question me?!?

What if the great guitarist Tommy Emmanuel were to bring a tin can outside, and start banging it with a rock, calling it music? Who are you, who am I, to say he’s wrong?

Tommy’s an acknowledged master of his craft; one of the greatest guitarists who’ve ever lived. Shouldn’t you and I just shut up and acknowledge that Tommy’s “Can-Rock” music is, indeed, music? That my tossing of the basketball through the hoop is indeed baseball? Why not?

Answer: Easy: I could be the greatest baseball player in history, but that doesn’t mean that everything I do is baeball… even if I say it is. Same with Tommy. He could be the greatest guitarist in the world (and he just might be), but that doesn’t mean that everything he does is music… even if he says it is. And, we can all hope that you’d, quite correctly, tell me to stuff it (Get it? Stuff it? Heh heh heh), and you’d tell Tommy to go back to his guitar.

Scientists too, just like Tommy and me, are merely people. People prone to all the same temptations as any other people. And some of those temptations just might be to allow something like, say, money, or prestige, or politics, or power, to influence what they do, how they do it, and what they say about what they’re doing.

Nowadays, it’s entirely possible that the vast majority of what we’re seeing called “Science” is really just Pseudo-science or Junk Science. Seriously:
(1) Can you point me to the science that suggests that a man can be a woman, and vice versa, just on his or her claim at the moment?
(2) Environmentalism has been aggressively excluding dissenting findings and viewpoints for decades (Item #2, above).
(3) About 20 years ago or so, the American Psychological Association quietly re-defined homosexuality as perfectly normal, but never cited any science to support the decision.

(My disclaimer: I do view homosexuality as abnormal, but I view all my imperfections as abnormal too. Homosexuality just doesn’t happen to be one of mine. I have many gay friends, who look past my many imperfections as I look past theirs, of which homosexuality is only one of many.)

In the case of the above three instances of “science,” most are aware of the political and social pressures that one will encounter if one suggests that he even slightly questions those scientific “findings.”

Much that is accepted “science” today is likely nothing more than politically- or socially-pressured findings that have sat around so long that they’re just accepted as received wisdom now. I suspect that’s what the environmental movement frauds are hoping. As well as the trans scolds. The gay movement appears to have achieved that end already.

— xPraetorius

2 thoughts on “When Science! … is NOT Science

  1. All that can easily go the other way as well…

    * If “science” impedes on my perception of individual freedom then it’s (obviously) junk science.

    *If “science” obstructs my political opinions or my view on how the world should be, then it’s junk science.

    *If there’s 50 scientists that support a scientific conclusion and 51 scientists who do not support the same scientific conclusion, then those in support are (obviously) following the result of junk science.

    *If the Liberal media supports the science, then it’s junk science.

    * If Trump proclaims it is so (like cancer causing windmills and windmill blades killing flocks of migrating birds, Sharpiegate weather predictions, Covid is just the flu, bad fireproofing made the towers collapse on 9/11, etc., etc., etc.) then all other is junk science automatically.

    1. All of those “points” are nonsensical, and your opening assertion is, obviously, false.

      I used the four points because I intended to use those four points. If your other nonsensical points applied, I’d have used them too.

      They don’t. I didn’t.


      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s