Science Skepticism is not Science Denial

.
Scientists are human.  They make mistakes.  They form the institutions of science, and like all human institutions, they are subject to error, and even to corruption.

 

When large numbers of scientists join together to proclaim a finding of fact, they are believed.  They speak, not merely for themselves, not merely for their institutions, but actually, for science itself.

 

Or, do they?

 

Science is a venerated method of understanding the physical world, its basic rules and principles.  Without science, we would have little or none of the magnificent technology that now dominates human civilization.  Medicine, food production, transportation and communications would all be primitive.

 

My edit:  Science, when properly conducted, is all those things.

 

The problem is not science, it is scientists, who are subject to the same temptations and pressures as are you and I.  Scientists have bills to pay, families to support, and retirements for which to plan.  Ideally, scientists put all that aside, and focus only on the rigor and discipline which fact-finding requires.

 

Ideally, yes, but ideals are not always reality.  Scientific fraud exists, and it should surprise no one.  We live in a society in which some schools have forbidden teachers to use tools that detect plagiarism and other forms of academic cheating.  This seems to be a little pebble in the pond, but its pernicious effects, combined with other negative social forces, ripple far and wide through society.

 

The stakes, for scientists, are high.  Government grants in some fields amount to millions of dollars per year.  Tenure at universities, for scientists, can depend on the publication of research results, and there can be no question that “breakthrough” results achieve fame and prestige for scientists.  All of that converts into money, both for the scientist personally, and for his laboratory or university.  There are strong incentives for scientists to enhance the implications of their research, and a lexicon of jargon has evolved to enable those enhancements.  “A startling new study promises to lead the way to a cure for cancer,” might be the title of a science news article, but such a title says really nothing.  What is the relevant scientific definition of “startling?”  How good is the “promise?”  How, specifically, does it “lead the way?”

 

But the words, “cure for cancer” overshadow the ambiguous words, and garners attention.

 

Another unscientific term is, “settled science.”  Science is never settled.  It is an active and continuing investigation into the mysteries of nature.  Science is built upon thousands of what once were “settled” assertions which turned out to be wrong.

 

The danger of accepting the claims of scientists as “settled” is that it tends to stifle further research; it steers funding away from new research, and it stigmatizes scientists who resist the established dogma.

 

Today, the scandal involves mostly the topic of “climate change,” but in the past, it has affected AIDS research, evidence against Darwinian evolution theory, studies of homosexuality and transsexuality, and even Egyptology.

 

Regarding AIDS, it has become heresy to doubt that it involves the HIV virus, not because there is a lack of compelling research which demands further inquiry, but because AIDS has become more than an epidemiology, it has become an industry saturated with money, politics, and civil rights activism that demands for each subgroup a share of the “victimhood” proceeds.   See the website, http://www.rethinkingaids.com/ for detailed information. 

Darwinian evolution has been challenged by both unscientific sources and scientific ones, but the actual scientists who challenge it get little or no coverage in the literature, leading many people to think only religious lunatics dispute Darwin.

 

Regarding homosexuality and gender dysphoria, a great deal of research needs to be done to find causes and cures.  But the very word, “cure,” disqualifies any attempt to research these dysfunctions.  By redefining the abnormal as normal, science is excluded from helping those who suffer.

 

Egyptologists who find evidence against the accepted views of Pharaonic history find themselves locked out of the formal discussion panels, despite a growing body of evidence that a lost, pre-pharaonic civilization built the foundations of the Sphinx.

 

Of all these disputes, climate change is the one which has become the greatest political and economic force, despite its internally contradictory claims and methods.  Its activists proclaim that the only way we can survive climate change is to surrender our rights to an ever-growing structure of government power.  Anyone who presents contrary evidence is not merely rebuked, but demonized, in the popular press.

 

To be sure, there is a great deal of “junk science” out there, but when mainstream science sells out to politics and money, it reduces its ability to counteract it with real science.
.
.