So the Brit paper The Telegraph had the idea of polling 200 scientists at British universities and asking whether or not they were science deniers.
Sit down, dear reader. I don’t want you falling over from the shock. A full 42 percent of scientists were inveterate science deniers, or were too cowardly to say whether they supported science or not.
Perhaps “science denier” is not the best term. Especially considering Regime scientists insist that whatever they call science is The Science. And no Regime scientists is a The Science denier. Indeed, each must swear to The Science as condition of entry.
Let’s use “truth denier” instead.
Now you won’t believe it, but the specific truth they denied was sex. They denied sexual reproduction. Can you imagine any of these truth-denying scientists going to their parents and saying “You scientifically had nothing to do with me”? Imagine it you must, because it’s a distinct possibility once you deny sexual reproduction.
Some details. The paper said “Less than a third (29 per cent) agreed with the statement” that sexual reproduction is how animals are recreated, “while one in eight people (13 per cent) had no views or preferred not to answer.”
Ignorance or cowardice explains the last two categories.
Ignorance can be a perfectly reasonable excuse for a non-scientist member of the public. After all, look at the “education” they receive. They majority of the time is spent saying things like “There is no such thing as race, which is why the white race is racist”. Very little science can be learned this way.
Yet scientists who have glommed onto university appointments have no such excuse. They should at least have an opinion, no matter how ill informed. Which makes us wonder whether the entire 13 percent were cowards.
Cowardice is much easier to understand. We are surrounded by it. Seeped in it. Imagine the lonely real scientist suffering through yet another departmental meeting, when some lady chirps up, “I don’t believe in sexual reproduction!”
He could say, “Neither does any man who sees you.” But he won’t. He will sit silent and let the missed opportunity gnaw at his guts. He won’t be alone, but he will think he might be. He won’t know who to trust. The other cowards keep quiet, too. The shriekers win by default.
That leaves the 29 percent who openly deny the truth of sexual reproduction. These are all Regime scientists, by definition. Almost a third. That’s a lot. Still, it isn’t a majority. But it’s close, especially as they get the cowards and ignorant by default.
This is important because a large amount of science that is done by a vote. Consider publishing, grant giving, and hiring. All votes. Let’s think about what that means.
The majority still holds with sexual reproduction, which is good. But these scientists are to a large degree still polite people who want to get along with their hostile shrieking colleagues. So they will cast at least some votes to the deniers. This allows the deniers to grow in strength. The damage is asymmetric, because the deniers will never vote in favor of Reality.
Which means that if trends hold, the deniers will soon form the majority, which means the truth tellers will never or rarely get any votes. None will be hired, few will win any grants, and their papers will suffer the ignominies of peer review.
The revolution will be complete.
Or, rather, that one facet of it will be. The revolutionaries will not be content with their victory, as the Reality sayers would. That’s because there is a fundamental inequality between truth tellers and revolutionares.
Once you hit Reality you have to stop. There is nowhere left to go. There it is, the Truth, and you have seen it and you have spoken it. Best you can do is fill in little gaps here and there.
But not so for the revolutionary. His vision is infinite. Since he is driven by fantasy, such as “gender fluidity”, an absolutely meaningless term with no basis in Reality, his work is never finished. Because new fervid dreams can always be had. New realms of the imagination he can insist are realer than Reality.
Thus we see in science what we see in culture in general. Leftist spirals into lunacy, with the destruction and horror that follows in its wake, followed by restorations of sanity. But not for some time to come.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
“He could say, “Neither does any man who sees you.” But he won’t. ”
Think of it as Irish Democracy. We will rise, but we will not shine. Think of it as establishing the preconditions for a preference cascade, like the fall of the Ceau?escus.
Sex is binary. Insanities are potentially infinite.
Political power is strong. Money speaks louder than truth.
Well that’s nice to know as we’re on the cusp of doubling the age of the universe.
We needed Webb like we needed a hole in the head we’ve got more pressing problems
as you have so clearly illustrated.
Professor Briggs, I believe you intended this blog post to run on April 1st?
No? Well, then this is just further evidence in support of my contention that just about the worst way to find out something about people is to ask them. If the survey wasn’t anonymous, or if the participants had any doubts that it was anonymous, then the participants answered as to minimize any potential impacts to themselves, because c’mon, who really gives a shite about this survey anyway? If the participants were confident in their anonymity, then, well, the the same sort of reasoning applies, as a significant percentage of humans prefer to lie when there’s no price to pay (me included, at least when I’m answering inane survey questions).
If you asked the same set of scientists if their hand would grow back if it was whacked off, I’m convinced you would get five or ten percent who would answer yes or unsure. If it was understood that this theory would be tested on them, you’d get a different answer. Skin in the game makes all the difference.
This would take us from the ditch right off the cliff:
Biden asking for $7,300,000,000,000 in his 2025 budget
Biden unveils sweeping budget blueprint for next term
BY ARIS FOLLEY AND JULIA MUELLER – 03/11/24 12:10 PM ET
https://thehill.com/business/budget/4523960-biden-unveils-sweeping-budget-blueprint-for-next-term/
“Less than a third (29 per cent) agreed with the statement” that sexual reproduction is how animals are recreated, “while one in eight people (13 per cent) had no views or preferred not to answer.”
“That leaves the 29 percent who openly deny the truth of sexual reproduction. ”
If 29 percent agree that sexual reproduction is how animals are recreated, and 13 percent abstain from answering, then 58 percent must openly deny the truth of sexual reproduction.
To state reality is to deny.
To refer to someone by her real gender is to misgender.
I remember something like that from my childhood reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World,
and from my adolescent reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four.
@Milton Hathaway: you reminded me: once upon a time, some scientists wanted to get to the bottom of the sex-partner disparity between men and women. So first they asked women the usual survey on the number of sexual partners they had and got the usual result: too few to make sense. So then they hooked them up to a poligraph and asked the same survey again and, lo and behold! They had as many sex partners as men did. Which was the obvious and only mathematically possible answer.
“To refer to someone by her real gender is to misgender.”
Except that ‘gender’ isn’t real, unless it is used as a term in grammar. So the truth is “To refer to someone as being of her sex gender is to misgender.”
I read one to two dozen articles a day every day of the year. Many get recommended on my blog’s recommended reading list. This is a very rare article where I have no idea what the author is talking about. It seems like an April 1 prank but it’s not April 1.
Since I am not drunk, I have to conclude the author was drunk when writing this strange article.
Maybe this will make more sense if I face away from my computer, hold up a mirror, and read the article from another direction? Or maybe I can buy a Briggs decoder ring?.
Richard Greene
DRCS (Don Rickles Charm School graduate)
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
As Cary Cotterman has already noted, the quotes, as Briggs repeats them actually indicate the opposite of what he says they indicate.
The quote, ““Less than a third (29 per cent) agreed with the statement” that sexual reproduction is how animals are recreated, “while one in eight people (13 per cent) had no views or preferred not to answer.” That means, as Cary said, that “58 percent must openly deny the truth of sexual reproduction.”
But, in fact (as far as I can tell), that’s not an accurate quote…though I can’t access the Telegraph article. The NYPost reports this differently: “58% said they believe sex is binary, except in rare instances involving ?intersex individuals, those born with both male and female biological traits. Less than a third, 29%, agreed with the statement “Sex is not binary,” while 13% had no views or preferred not to answer.” In other words, 58% believe in truth. This is rational, of course, and evidence-obvious, so it is somewhat reassuring that 116 of 200 so-called ‘scientists’ recognize and agree with reality.
But 84 of the 200 are idiots AND WORSE, recognized as Scientists. THAT is highly disturbing.
The article in the Post does provide some minimal explanation for the idiocy: “More than half the polled scientists have doctorates, with 18% belonging to the faculty of social sciences, 13% in medicine and 12% in life sciences.” But that does not inspire much faith in Scientists, regardless.
Also of note, “64%, said gender was fluid.”
Gender, of course, is a empty concept, having been bent & warped by a generation or two of ‘Gender Activists’ away from its actual meaning as a grammatical subclass into a weird little niche to indicate an individual’s general sexual desires & proclivities. Like saying ‘appetite is fluid’ — it means nothing other than a recognition of the painfully obvious fact that some people like chicken and other prefer beef and still others like tofu (not to mention all the sub-genders who like tofu but eat ice-cream….who like beef but only when it’s well-done, et al.)
Saddest of all, the entire notion that our acceptance of reality as REALITY is somehow dependent upon a Vote of Experts.
If I hit you in the head with a hammer, will it hurt?
I don’t know, I’m waiting for a poll of 200 Scientists (many of whom are holding degrees in Silliness) to tell me.
OUCH!
Did that hurt?
I’m not sure. Until my ouch is validated by vote, I really can’t say.
OUCH!!!!
Reality can do that all day long. Sooner or later even those idiots will tell us it hurt.
B Davis
Thanks for an explanation
Leftists are hard to understand
I think they should all be sedated and given lobotomies. Or deported to Cuba, or to
Cubanada, under Fidel TrueDope
The real import of the study is flawed at least partially because “18% belonging to the faculty of social sciences.” I.e. they are not actual scientists but economists, sociologists, etc.