. . .it can say enough.
“Consensus Science” Isn’t. Science, That Is
Whenever I see or hear someone refer to “SettledScience®” or “consensus science” I think of the late 19th century when the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) here in the United States expressed concerns about the potential for the end of knowledge. Sadly, this is not a rare phenomenon in science, just a slight twist on the “We know it all; don’t bother us with anything new or contradictory” bent of “SettledScience®.”
Settled science or consensus science ain’t science. Settled science is a classic example of the kind of UNnatural stupidity that causes enormous harm. The most nefarious (and, I fear, widespread) form of stupidity is WILLFUL ignorance, and, due to conceptual and even pre-conceptual bias and the tendency among many to simply confirm their biases with “research,” this nefarious form of stupidity has always ALSO infected science.
In the public square, this frequently translates into “Scientism,” is a cultic adulation of “science” by fanbois who worship at the feet of “SettledScience®,” “scientific consensus” or other anti-scientific belief systems. And yes, the cult is, sadly, VERY widespread in our society.
Most people, let alone “Scientism” cultists, do not have the first clue about the scientific process and if asked about the value of falsification of a hypothesis versus replication and verification of a hypothesis (or any other aspect of the scientific process) would have no response but “Science!”
And unnaturally stupid self-made morons both abound and are the backbone of the electorate. No wonder the Framers sought to curb democratic impulses. Sadly. . . *sigh*
“Against Stupidity. . . “
“. . .the gods themselves contend in vain.” – Schiller,
- Maid of Orleans.
A frequent subliterate “Dunning-Krugerand” ploy when confronted with an argument they cannot counter is to accuse their interlocutor of throwing up incoherent word salad found by (virtually?) thumbing through a thesaurus and picking “big words” to confuse the issue. Of course, all that means is that the subliterate “Dunning-Krugerand” can’t comprehend clear, plain English that is composed of words outside his pathetically small vocabulary. It also means that the subliterate “Dunning-Krugerand” (probably) cannot conceive of an expanded vocabulary that does not issue from abusing a thesaurus.
Those of use who grew up reading dictionaries for fun just laugh. Then we may, if sufficiently provoked, raucously mock them. Without end, until they slink away dragging their lobotomized Bonobo Chimpanzee ghost writer with them.