The View From 1776

-----------------
Scientists are as human as the rest of us.  But they like to put on airs of “above it all” superiority.  This is simply a definition of hypocrisy.

We can accept human failings, but climb down off your high horses, guys, and admit that science, in the competition for multi-billions of Federal research grants, is just one of many special-interest groups.

You’re out there manufacturing panics in order to grab personal fame and fortune.  The grab for funding against meteorite destruction of the earth flopped.  Maybe you can make a bundle off the overblown Asian flu pandemic. 

The technique is always the same.  Discover a theoretical threat of global proportions, feed it to the patsies in the New York Times, and voila: you’ve got instant fame; you appear before anxious Congressional committees to testify; then settle back with your research grants, and you’re fixed for life, qualified to appear on NPR and PBS philosophizing on politics, economics, and social issues, because you are now a “respected authority.” Anyone raising questions about your competence or your hypotheses is an “extremist,” a “radical conservative,” or the worst of all possible damnations, a “fundamentalist religious nut.”

Given this media-hyped, super-charged fantasia, it’s not surprising that scandals of faked research and manipulated data have plagued science in recent decades in the same way that prize-winning “news” reporters at the Washington Post and the New York Times have been unmasked as writers of fiction.

Particularly obnoxious in that regard is the readiness of “scientists” to sell out to the UN in support of the latest crack-pot socialist causes for world-embracing regulations to implement the Utopian designs of Marxist economists.  It’s an open scandal that many of the “scientists” signing such UN reports have credentials unrelated to the scientific field that is the subject of the report.  Psychologists’ names, for example, will appear as signatories on reports related to changing atmospheric conditions.

Remember that, in the 1960s, UN scientists were solemnly assuring us that a new ice age was at hand and reviving the Malthusian thesis that the world was about to starve, because population growth was outstripping the world’s capacity to produce food.  Today they’re flacking global warming as a way to bring all industrial production under the regulatory control of a single world regulatory body, to be located either at the UN in New York or EU headquarters in Brussels.

In an article published on the TechCentralStation website last March, Roy Spencer described the phenomenon:

“Historically, science has a notorious habit of taking short term changes and relationships and extrapolating them into the future. An infamous example is the global cooling trend from the 1940’s through the 1970’s, which brought scientific predictions that a new ice age was just around the corner. (Another ice age is still widely expected…just not anytime soon). While the scientist might defensively respond, “well, we have to base decisions on science understanding at the time”, I would retort, “OK, how well has that strategy worked in the past?”

“Thomas Malthus in 1798 provided one of the most famous early examples of scientific thought and the failure of long term predictions in his “Essay on the Principle of Population”. Malthus’ central theme was that, since population increases faster than our ability to grow food, a lack of food would limit population growth, with mass starvation a real possibility. In modern times, Paul R. Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb") resurrected this basic theme, predicting global calamities by the 1990’s that were ultimately tied to overpopulation. History has shown, however, the opposite. While population has indeed grown exponentially, per capita food production has grown even faster. Global per capita food and raw materials costs have fallen. High birth rates in poverty-stricken countries are falling as these countries’ economies strengthen, and global population growth is slowing, and predicted to stagnate even further in the next century.

“One of the central reasons for the failure of long-term predictions lies in the fact that metrics like population and food production are part of a nonlinear dynamical system with myriad interconnections. The whole system readjusts based upon meeting society’s needs with human ingenuity. This has certain similarities to global warming theory.”

**********

It should be noted in passing that long-term predictions are part of the foundation of what Freidrich Hayek called scientism, as opposed to science.  The first of these was the thesis of Henri de Saint-Simon and his pupil and colleague Auguste Comte, followed by Karl Marx, between 1800 and 1848, that history was driven by an internal logic or law discernible only to intellectuals, which enabled them to predict that the world was entering a new “scientific” age of socialism.

Equally bad is science’s close-minded refusal to consider any challenge to speculative hypotheses like evolution.  They will hear no challenge to their atheistic belief, despite all evidence to the contrary, that life MUST have originated purely by chance via secular and material agencies. 

If a new hypothesis conflicts with an already accepted, fully-funded hypothesis from which scientists have garnered millions of dollars of research funding and personal acclaim, the odds are that the truth will not triumph.  “Scientists” devoted to the old orthodoxy face the loss of fame, respect, research grants, and influence among their peers.  They will fight to the bitter end against every challenge.

An example appeared in two Washington Times news articles published on the same day, one stating research conclusions that are at least entitled to an open-minded hearing, the other recounting “scientists” demands that a lecture by the Dali Lama on the same subject be cancelled because it isn’t “scientific” and because the Dali Lama is known to look with favor upon the idea that God is more powerful than the minds of socialistic theorists.

The first article opens:

Personal values can serve as tonic to relieve stress
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 8, 2005

Thoughts about God, deep personal convictions and social values—it does a body good. Literally.

    "Reflecting on meaningful values provides biological and psychological protection from the adverse effects of stress,” states a report released yesterday by psychologists at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

    "Our study shows that reflection on personal values can buffer people from the effects of stress,” said Shelley E. Taylor, a psychology professor who led the research, which was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.

The second article begins as follows:

Scientists protest Dalai Lama meditation talk
By Shepherd Pittman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 8, 2005

More than 900 scientists have signed a petition to prevent the Dalai Lama from presenting a lecture today in Washington.

    The exiled leader of Tibet is scheduled to speak about the neurological effects of meditation at a three-day conference presented by the Mind and Life Institute. His talk will draw on his extensive participation in research on intense meditation, such as that practiced by Buddhist monks.

    Some researchers suggest that meditation can contribute to physical and mental well-being and lead to a heightening of traits such as compassion and altruism.

    Many scientists who signed the petition said that inviting a religious leader to speak at a scientific assembly sends a damaging message about the role of faith in science.

    The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Georgetown University Medical School are co-sponsors of the Science and Clinical Applications of Meditation conference.

Visit MoveOff Network Members