In IPI’s PolicyByte our friend Dr. Merrill Matthews wrote: “…Al Gore is a frustrated man because no one’s listening to him, so much so he’s out with another movie, An Inconvenient Sequel, hoping to finally convince the public that we’re all gonna die!
“The problem is that the public has become increasingly immune to doom-and-gloomers who assure us “the science is clear that (fill in the blank).” And then we discover a few years later that the experts were wrong—even as they assure us they’re right now.”
Matthews reminded that “In the early 1970s, the climate scientists assured us that we were heading for a prolonged cold spell—perhaps a mini-ice age. By the late 1980s, and ever since, they’ve assured us we’re headed for a fiery doom.”
“It’s not about being “anti-science” as so many sneer. It’s more about being “anti-fake science,” or maybe “anti-fad science.” Fads come and go, just like many of the alleged threats facing us. … But people have become increasingly skeptical of science when its focus is public policy, especially from the “experts” who benefit from making wild claims and whose only solution is more government restrictions and spending. And of the media that breathlessly and unquestioningly cover their claims. The wilder the claims the more coverage the experts receive,” Matthews points out.
Many, maybe a majority, of American glom onto unsupported claims with the word science or study attached like they wolf down foods called low fat or light without ever using the basic critical thinking skill of asking “lower or lighter than what?”
Science is not a conclusion or consensus but a process designed to counter bias to find truth. But scientists are just as politically and personally driven by bias as anyone and many have joined the trend of changing data to fit their bias as opposed to letting the data lead them to truth, whether welcome or not in a personal manner.
Is “science” being ruined?
Robert Pratt
In IPI’s PolicyByte our friend Dr. Merrill Matthews wrote: “…Al Gore is a frustrated man because no one’s listening to him, so much so he’s out with another movie, An Inconvenient Sequel, hoping to finally convince the public that we’re all gonna die!
“The problem is that the public has become increasingly immune to doom-and-gloomers who assure us “the science is clear that (fill in the blank).” And then we discover a few years later that the experts were wrong—even as they assure us they’re right now.”
Matthews reminded that “In the early 1970s, the climate scientists assured us that we were heading for a prolonged cold spell—perhaps a mini-ice age. By the late 1980s, and ever since, they’ve assured us we’re headed for a fiery doom.”
“It’s not about being “anti-science” as so many sneer. It’s more about being “anti-fake science,” or maybe “anti-fad science.” Fads come and go, just like many of the alleged threats facing us. … But people have become increasingly skeptical of science when its focus is public policy, especially from the “experts” who benefit from making wild claims and whose only solution is more government restrictions and spending. And of the media that breathlessly and unquestioningly cover their claims. The wilder the claims the more coverage the experts receive,” Matthews points out.
Many, maybe a majority, of American glom onto unsupported claims with the word science or study attached like they wolf down foods called low fat or light without ever using the basic critical thinking skill of asking “lower or lighter than what?”
Science is not a conclusion or consensus but a process designed to counter bias to find truth. But scientists are just as politically and personally driven by bias as anyone and many have joined the trend of changing data to fit their bias as opposed to letting the data lead them to truth, whether welcome or not in a personal manner.