Every new scientific hypothesis is wrong until proved otherwise, except, of course, for those of environmental greenies.
Begin with the expectation that 99% of all “scientific” findings are the product of spurious statistical manipulation, or are just quests for large-scale government research payola.
A fundamental tenet of science is that all hypotheses are to be tested by scientific peers. Even long-established ideas routinely become revealed as incorrect, or are modified by later research findings.
But, as Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) famously observed, the normal pattern in the scientific community, since scientists are as human as the rest of us, is to fight tooth and nail against anything that challenges their orthodoxy. After all, their academic standings and their research grants depend upon it.
Resistance to re-evaluation, however, is particularly bitter when science is employed to promote secular, pagan religion, as in the case of the greenhouse gas hypothesis of global warming. Anyone questioning the validity of such a popular liberal-progressive article of faith must be pilloried in the public square and ostracized as a heretic.
John Tierney’s Global-Warming Payola? in the March 6 edition of the New York Times science section describes the anti-scientific close-mindedness of liberal-progressives.
Their attitudes, both within the scientific community and among liberal-progressives in general, make clear why most “scientific” hypotheses are to be received with skepticism.
Back to summary...
