Monday, December 7, 2020

Briefly Noted: Settled Science

Naturally, I'm like everyone else--I find myself obsessively reading about all the ins and outs of the election challenges, the legal developments, the fraud investigations, etc. At the same time, it's impossible to for one person to keep up with it all in written summary form--the attempt, moreover, would detract from what I see as bigger picture issues that we need to keep before us. After all, the election played out--and the election challenge is playing out--in the bigger picture context of the Left's attempted implementation of their Great Reset. That context, of course, includes the disruptive presidency of Donald Trump, who upset the applecart of Leftist designs. The Left's resistance to Trump has featured determined efforts at thought control and attempts to mold public perception through a succession of hoaxes. 

The Global Warming/Climate Change Hoax was a preview of what to expect from the Left--the subversion of science to transform science into a loyal supporter of the Great Reset--trading off the social prestige of science and technology in this new Digital Age. By contrast, the Russia Hoax was almost purely reactive--a political hoax engendered by the existential shock to the Left posed by Trump's election on a revisionist platform: MAGA being the antithesis of the Globalist vision of the Great Reset. Of course, the Russia Hoax also attempted to trade on public perceptions of the Russian Red Menace, but Leftists found--to their dismay--that Conservatives (despite media attempts at reeducation) still retained a more sophisticated understanding of history than Leftist hubris credited them with. With the collapse of the Russia Hoax (and its subsidiary hoaxes, such as the Ukraine Hoax) in the Fake Impeachment (itself a legal and constitutional hoax), the Left fortuitously found itself presented with a possibility of returning to a scientific hoax that they could weaponize against Trump--the Covid Hoax.

A few days ago we were discussing a side effect of the Covid Hoax's lockdown of higher education--the decimation of liberal arts faculties at many universities. In that context we also got involved in a discussion of the ideologization of the STEM departments at universities. So, this morning, while catching up on accounts of growing public unrest over the latest permutations of the Covid Hoax--its patent implementation for social control, its devastation of small businesses and personal freedom, its spreading of blatantly unscientific hoax 'news'--I came across an article at American Thinker (Santelli vs. Sorkin: A perfect microcosm of Left vs. Right) that contained a reference to the concept of "settled science".

As many of you know, my undergraduate major was philosophy. In those long ago days I had a particular interest in epistemology, including the philosophy of science. With such interests, you can imagine how nonplussed I am to hear, even from family, about "settled science"--a distinctly unscientific concept--and the use this bogus concept is put to in suppressing dissent from Left approved views (including much to do with the Covid Hoax). Since the previous post attracted a fair amount of reader interest, I'm including below some excerpts from the article I was linked to this morning. The article focuses on the uses to which the notion of "settled science"--the far from harmless ideological motives behind its widespread use in our current age of hoaxes. 

The author uses the interesting concept of "the collectivization of consciousness," which we see widely employed by the Big Media companies. This has been especially apparent during the past election season. The coordination of narratives and the coordinated efforts to suppress all dissenting voices has been unmistakable, and fits readily into the author's conceptual framework.

How Socialist Dogma Replaces Real Science with "Settled Science"


Allen Gindler

Over the past hundred years, evolutionary socialism has slowly but steadily taken root in the fabric of American society. This is especially noticeable in the economic sphere, because evolutionary socialism uses the mandatory redistribution of wealth as one of the methods to achieve its ultimate goal. ...

However, one should not forget that evolutionary socialism simultaneously uses the collectivization of consciousness and the redistribution of wealth. Moreover, an analysis of the existing flavors of socialist movements, especially those that have been able to materialize in practice, shows that the subjugation of individualism by collective thinking is an even more effective path to building a socialist society than the redistribution of wealth. Totalitarianism is the end result of the collectivization of consciousness, characterized by the complete suppression of free will and thoughts, the subordination of everything and everyone to the volition of the state apparatus, and the rule of one ideology under the leadership of one party. Politics, culture, art, morality, ethics, and aesthetics have to be unquestioningly obeyed across the ideological line, and dissent is severely punished.

One of the consequences of the collectivization of consciousness is that science is restructured from an institution of free thought ... into a servant to the ideological dogmas of the ruling regime. Socialism is very concerned with ideological purity and like-mindedness; therefore, science is used as a means of collectivizing consciousness, and is itself subjected to oppression by the coercive state apparatus. The exceptional features of science under socialism are the emergence of openly pseudoscientific trends and the accusation of dissenting thoughts as unscientific and harmful to society. The most striking examples of the transformation of science into an ideologically dependent and suppressed institution were provided by the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany.

[Discussion of science in the USSR and Nazi Germany.]

What about science in the United States, mainly promoted by left-leaning academia? If one looks closely, it's evident that evolutionary socialism has penetrated deeply into the educational and scientific fields. Only the lazy would not write about the American academy’s predominantly leftist orientation and the fact that the education system has turned into a machine of compulsory indoctrination in leftist ideas. However, I want to draw attention to another aspect of American science that clearly points to its socialization. As with the previously described totalitarian socialist regimes, American science has begun to be divided into what is ideologically correct and what requires public censure. For example, modern leftist political doctrine holds global warming to be one of the main threats to the existence of human civilization. Climatology and ecology have turned from objective sciences into undersigners of party science. Instead of scientific debate, doomsday advocates hysterically accuse political opponents of denying scientific facts and general ignorance.

These dogmatic beliefs were refuted not only from a theoretical point of view but also after the gloomy predictions did not come true: the ocean did not flood the cities, and polar bears did not die out. But the emerging facts of manipulation in temperature measurements, data processing, and data interpretation have only led to a change in the Left's terminology. Instead of global warming, now we are dealing with climate change due to human activity. Scholars who question harmful carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate get ridiculed and silenced. Luckily, the Left still falls short of prosecuting dissident scientists. Nevertheless, leftists clearly understand that peddling climate change and recruiting more believers will bring them long-lasting political success. The Green New Deal, which is presented as a means to save humanity from the consequences of climate change and is based on the false premises of socialist climatology, is as stupid as the fight against sparrows in China during the Cultural Revolution. It is a political declaration of the pseudoscience and an attempt to implement its provisions on par with Lysenko’s Michurin method.

... the subordination of the individual to the collective is accompanied by the depletion of the intellectual potential of society and leads to decadence in science, education, culture, and morality.


  1. I don't doubt for a moment the serial hoaxes align with leftist ideologies, including the political use of 'settled science', but I can't exclude the possibility that the hoaxes are also a massive criminal coverup of immense criminal activities conducted by various elements of the Deep State.

    Mrs Clinton may or may not have said to Donna Brazile in an October 2016 email: "If that f-----’ bastard wins, we’re all going to hang from nooses – You better fix this s---!"

    But the sentiment is compelling.

  2. These things are pretty easily fixed by the prioritization of having an actual problem.

    If that sounds simplistically stupid it's like Reagan saying how fast the world would get its $hit together if we were faced with a alien threat.

    The US and most developed worlds don't actually know what a problem is anymore so we invent them on the fly.

    If we're hoping we some magic bullet or great awakening history says this pretty much goes off the obvious cliff while the two sides argue about what the "bridge out ahead" sign actually meant.

    It's become a problem of religion over science! I feel so therefore I believe so therefore I only seek the proof that furthers my beliefs and damn anything else that goes against it.

    Edward Bernays on steroids.

  3. Admiral Giroir, of the President’s Covid task force, has broken ranks. Fox News reporting that he says the science does not support the banning of outdoor dining. A big issue right now…

    Here is online report. Video of interview with Adm. Giroir leads off. In this he says it is “counterproductive” to go beyond the restrictive measures that science supports and further says that the date to support banning outdoor dining and bars just isn’t there. He also says that if social distancing is observed, in those restaurants where they have installed plexiglass shields and taken other safety measures, the approach should be “more nuanced”. In other words, they should not be closed down.

  4. Replies
    1. Thanks, Michael. As SWC says, it's all speculation on his part but it does seem to me that this is the soundest speculation I've seen so far. I believe the Dem House is fully capable of poking the SCOTUS in the eye on this. Nevertheless, there are complications. I'll do a brief blog on this.

  5. Powell case thrown out in Georgia. No standing, not timely and filed in wrong court-should be in state court for state election. Other than that, a big win. I am not sure what the attorneys will say about this but I will be interested to hear.

    1. That decision is basically mirroring Roberts' decision in the 4-4 pre-election case in PA. The counter argument is that the presidential election is NOT simply a state election. It is governed by federal law and the Constitution.

  6. Replies
    1. See me comment above. I'm sure she more or less expected this. Recall that in the 4-4 decision Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were outspoken in wanting to decide the case on its merits, and Alito and Thomas were also on board. It was Roberts who said it was a state election, leading to this chaotic situation. Maybe Roberts will repent.

  7. I have said for years that global warming / climate change were no longer science, they had become a religion. Michael Mann and his hockey stick were proved to be false and the prime acolyte was a C student politician by the name of Al Gore. This has all the hallmarks of the old traveling preachers.

  8. Even well tested scientific theories are held to be only "provisionally" true, pending a refuting or contradictory observation or data. They are never proven true in the metaphysical certitude sense, as Popper suggested under his falsification paradigm.

    1. Furthermore, that which is "settled science" is, by definition, incapable of falsification.

      But Karl Popper teaches us that to be a scientific theory, the theory must be amenable to potential falsification -- that is, there must in principle be some observation or data which, if it occurs, would contradict and refute the theory. This is the defining characteristic of a scientific theory.

      But if "settle science" is incapable of falsification even in principle (by definition of "settled,") then "settled science" is unscientific, by Popper's definition of "scientific."


      "Settled science," therefore, to the extent such things exists, do not exist in the halls of science. They are oxymoronic creatures, banished to the outer darkness of Philosophy or Religious Studies Departments.

      Ergo, to the extent Anthropogenic Climate Change is considered "settled science" it is unscientific, and has more in common with a religious beliefs than it has with scientific propositions.

  9. Mark - you're far more well versed in all this than I am.

    So I'll simply quote Chesterton: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

  10. In the so-called “settled science” one should include Evolution.
    Neo-Darwinism is the settled science in academia and mass media.

    However, the website “The Third Way” ( list scores (hundreds?) of impeccably qualified sciences who subscribe to neither Neo-Darwinism or Creationism (to include “Intelligent Design).

    From the sites introduction

    “The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity.

    “One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator.

    “The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation.

    “Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.

    “Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

    “The Third Way web site provides a vehicle for new voices to be heard in evolution debates. It will be a forum for accessing empirical data on areas that have been glossed over by Neo-Darwinian viewpoints. The goal is to focus attention on the molecular and cellular processes which produce novelty without divine interventions or sheer luck.

  11. It seems SCOTUS denied injunction relief for this case, without explanation (the order is one line). Incredibly unfortunate, but it still leaves the new case brought by Texas. Source: