Our main concern is what has become of science, now often called by those who control it The Science. This is, as mentioned, the Cult of Science. Members are easy to spot. Not only do they use phrases like “We believe in The Science” and “Denier!”—has there ever been a clearer indication of religious intent than this one word?—but they all evince scientism, the false belief that knowing a (“scientific”) fact implies morally what should be done about that fact.
Scidolators, what we call the Cult members, do not see the contradiction. To them it is obvious, say, that because global cooling theory is true, it should and must be mitigated in this and only this way. Disputing the mitigation, to them, is equivalent to disputing the theory. And disputing the theory is verboten. Because the theory is The Science. One does not dispute dogma in any religion, lest one become a heretic or apostate.
A theory becomes The Science when a mitigation or solution to the theory becomes more important than the theory itself. Not every theory becomes The Science. For example, how chemical bonding occurs in metals is allowed, at least for now, to be plain old science, subject to the rule that if theory does not match Reality, the theory, not Reality, is tossed or modified. This is plain old science because there is no call for “mitigating” chemical bonding. Not directly.
By mitigating I mean providing a solution to “fix” or manipulate an effect of the theory. This effect may be real or imaginary. The mitigation is real.
One way for a science to become The Science, though in a roundabout way, is for victim quotas to be imposed upon it, as a “solution” to “disparities.” Since quotas always and necessarily lead to a lessening of standards, the meaning and definitions of the science will change to accommodate the quota hires. This science becomes a weak form of The Science because the necessary modifications (weakenings) to theories cannot be questioned. Though they may be ignored by the veterans and non-quota hires.
We’re interested in the stronger forms of The Science, which require broader desires for mitigation or solutions.
Global cooling and the coronadoom became The Science because their mitigations were desired. Their mitigations created The Science from science theories. Climatology, for example, started as a plain science, and still exists as such in quiet corners. It morphed as soon as its mitigations were discovered, and it has been The Science ever since.
That climatology is no longer plain science is signaled by the continuous change in names for it’s theory: global cooling, global warming, climate change, sustainability, and so on. These are needed because there are still a core of old-fashioned scientists who blush when theories don’t accord with Reality.
The coronadoom is the same. The mitigation was deeply desired by our elites and rulers, who like with global cooling not only did not suffer from the mitigations, but benefited from them. That elites benefit from mitigations is how the theory-Reality relationship is reversed. In plain science theory is made to fit Reality. In The Science this is flipped.
Let’s look at some priests, or rather imams, of the Cult of Science in the global cooling sect. Perhaps we’ll find no better case study than in the paper “Nationalist ideology, rightwing populism, and public views about climate change in Europe” by Joakim Kulin and others in the journal, whose name gives the game away, Environmental Politics. Here’s the Abstract:
Rising rightwing populism (RWP) potentially constitutes an obstacle to climat change mitigation, as European RWP parties and politicians often espouse climate change skepticism and oppose climate policies. Meanwhile, their party positions and issue stances have also become increasingly characterized by nationalism. Using European Social Survey data from 2016, we show that public attitudes consistent with nationalist ideology are clearly linked to voting for RWP parties and that people who hold these attitudes are more likely to be skeptical about climate change and to oppose policies that increase taxes on fossil fuels. With regard to policy attitudes, we find that nationalist ideology is more influential than traditional left-right political ideology, environmental values and political trust. The results also reveal substantial cross-national differences, as nationalist ideology is linked more closely to public views about climate change in Western European countries, where RWP parties with a nationalist rhetoric have had recent electoral successes.
It’s a good bet, though I did not check, that each of the authors of this paper know nothing about the theromdynamics of fluid flow on a differentially heated land-, atmosphere-, and water-covered rotating sphere. In any paper, ignorance of the authors who weep about disbelief is always diagnostic of a The Science.
The discussion the authors have of the reasons for disbelief is important to understanding The Science.
If you are sensitive, when you see criticisms of nationalism like those here you say to yourself, “Whoa! Hold up with the anti-Semitism!” because Jews, as all agree, are allowed to be nationalists. Or you might say “Stop piling on the anti-Asian hate!” because Asians, like the Chinese and Burmese, are allowed to be nationalist. Or again you might cry “Racist!” when you realize that depriving black Africa of nationalism is doubleplus extra-bad naughty.
And so forth. Since these imams who decry nationalism would also agree, and with a rapidity that would leave you gasping, that Jews and Asians and so forth should be nationalists, they must mean something other than what the word itself means. They cannot be criticizing nationalists. They must instead be criticizing those in the West who they perceive to be enemies of mitigation. The only candidates, of course, are those whites who still see themselves, as everybody else is allowed to, as part of a people. Just as Jews, Asians, blacks and others do.
You only see populism derided in this context. The Science priests and imams hate, or are at least terrified, that the based are allowed to vote, because a vote implies the possible loss of their control. All voting in democracies is by definition (the old definition) populist. That’s what allowing the public to vote means. The popular vote. Populism only becomes a scare-word when the wrong people vote in great enough numbers to put the fear of God into The Science supporters.
The authors are explicit about their own tribe, using phrases like “traditional left-right political ideology” is “environmental values” and “political trust.” That last is the most revealing phrase. It declares trust a virtue and means, like nationalism, something besides its plain meaning, because, of course, the based would trust their own leaders (if they had them). Therefore, political trust can only mean deference to The Science gatekeepers.
The Cult of Science is obvious in this Abstract. That’s signaled by the authors fretting over the powerless minority who “espouse climate change skepticism and oppose climate policies”. Only the opposition of the mitigation counts.
Tell one of these priests something like this: While I’m not convinced about climate change theory, since the models are so poor at making predictions, I believe we ought to follow all mitigation schemes. Perhaps you say this because you benefit from them (maybe you invested in windmills).
You will be praised as enlightened. Your global cooling denial is forgiven, and forgotten. It is irrelevant. The mitigation is The Science, not the plain science.
If you doubt this, try this conversation instead: I believe, you tell the priest, global cooling theory is true. It must be, since so many smart scientists believe in it. I therefore accept it without hesitation or qualm. It is true. But, the mitigations aren’t needed. They will end up doing more harm than good, and that’s not even considering their tremendous cost.
Do you think you could escape being called a Denier! here? You have questioned dogma, and even called it false. This is not allowed.
Try both conversations with the coronadoom, too. Say you disbelieve the theory but support the mitigation, and you will be praised. But say you believe all the models of exponential “cases” and deaths, but you don’t think lockdowns and mask mandates should be implemented, and you will be loathed.
Try it with any science that has become The Science. Accept the theory but reject its mitigation. You will very quickly learn The Science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with solutions and mitigations
Incidentally, I have an old talk on this. I’d change a few things, as will become obvious when watching, but it’s not far off.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here