Scientific ‘Integrity’

“Trust the science,” say the media.

Polls show that fewer Americans do. There’s good reason for that.

“They don’t trust science because science is increasingly untrustworthy,” says science writer Andrew Follet in my new video. “The only group that trusts science right now is Democrats.”

Sixty-four percent of Democrats have “a great deal” of confidence in the scientific community, compared to 34% of Republicans.

Of course, true science — using the scientific method — is important. But that’s not what much of “science” is these days.

Instead, today government science is misused by progressive politicians.

Example 1: Environmental activists want to limit commercial fishing. They want Congress to pass what they call the “Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.” It claims climate change is the “greatest threat to America’s national security” and offers a dubious solution: close more of the ocean to commercial fishing.

The administration’s deputy director of Climate, Jane Lubchenco, told Congress that a scientific paper concludes that closing more of the ocean can actually increase catches of fish.

Really? That doesn’t seem logical.

It isn’t. The paper was retracted. One scientist called its logic “biologically impossible.”

Also, Lubchenco’s didn’t tell Congress that the paper was written by her brother-in-law! And edited by her!

Did the White House punish Lubchenco for her ethics violations? No. In fact, after her testimony, she was appointed co-head of President Joe Biden’s Scientific Integrity Task Force!

Last week, the National Academy of Sciences banned her for five years. Yet she’s still on the White House’s Scientific Integrity Task Force.

Sadly, much of what’s called science today is simply left-wing advocacy.

“New fields like fat studies, African studies, Latinx studies, queer studies,” says Follet, “are essentially entirely fake.”

Fake? Well, they must be. “Experts” in those fields keep being fooled by people who submit gibberish.

Example 2:

A ridiculous paper, “Embracing Fatness as Self-Care in the Era of Trump,” was accepted by Massey University’s “Fat Studies” conference. The conference then invited the paper’s author, “Sea Matheson,” to speak.

Attendees gave Matheson’s speech rave reviews, praising the paper’s description of Donald Trump’s “fatphobia” and inviting Matheson to review other work submitted to their “scientific” journal, Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society.

But Matheson is no scientist. “She” is actually comedian Steven Crowder, who disguised himself as an overweight woman to expose “ivory tower quackery.”

Crowder is just the latest person to fool today’s so-called science journals. James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose submitted nonsense papers to “grievance studies” journals like Fat Studies, Sexuality & Culture and Sex Roles.

Seven accepted ridiculous papers.

One that took a section of “Mein Kampf” but replaced references to “National Socialism” with “feminism,” was accepted by Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.

Gender, Place and Culture accepted a paper that claimed there is rape culture at dog parks.

Follett blames this perversion of science on government. Its science agencies, like much of America, have been taken over by leftists hungry to promote themselves and their agenda.

In science, the way to promote yourself is to get papers published. That often gets you more funding. Government agencies like the National Science Foundation provide most of that funding.

“Nobody wants to publish something that goes against the paymaster,” says Follett. “You don’t get published unless the NSF likes your results.”

Example 3: The NSF gave nearly half a million dollars to a team that wrote a paper questioning glacier science because it “stems from knowledge created by men.”

Absurdities are pushed by the right, too. Some people still claim that man plays no part in climate change or that the climate isn’t warming at all. Some say vaccines don’t work. But the right’s junk science doesn’t get backed by government funds.

I’m angry that my tax dollars go to support leftist nonsense.

Unfortunately, most Americans don’t care. That’s probably because they don’t know that government throws so much money at ridiculous progressive advocacy.

“We’ll all start caring when the bridges start falling down and the planes start crashing,” says Follet. “That’s the inevitable end result of this.”

Image by Lucas Vasques from Pixabay

8 thoughts on “Scientific ‘Integrity’

  1. Climate has always changed and man plays little part in that. Do your research in history. Medieval warming period, Roman warming period, Maunder Minimum.

  2. Man plays little to no part in “climate change”. Climate models are not “science”. The NOAA’s own data shows that the average temperature of the Earth has risen less than 1°C in the past century. Vaccines do work, but the experimental mRNA injections are not vaccines.

  3. Science is about induction, reasoning from observation, experimentation, etc. to conclusions. Supporting data is expected to be available to all for verification. Debate centers around whether the methodology is applied correctly. If it is, then the conclusions are accepted. If not, conclusions are rejected.

    Liberals want to make science deductive, as in, conclusion oriented. Championed by Stalin’s pet scientist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, the actual decision turns on whether proposed conclusions are acceptable to the liberal ideological outlook.

    If politically correct, conclusions are accepted, and the data is adjusted accordingly. If not, then conclusions are rejected, and their proponents silenced — permanently.

    The former Soviet Union would send dissenting scientists to the Gulag. In the U.S., liberals have to settle for media blackout, deplatforming, character assassination, ruined careers and/or legal harassment.

  4. The latest climate change fairy tale is that hot weather kills many times more people than cold weather. This despite the fact that millenia of human history prove the opposite. And studies to this day show that cold weather kills any where from 2 to 20 times more people than hot. But the climate change mafia continue to lie about it. Likely because their claim of increasing number and severity of hurricanes and other extreme weather has been proven to be false.

  5. Saying mankind cannot change climate or that vaccines are ineffaceous and even dangerous are not absurdities. They are observable scientific facts that have been proven.

  6. The only thing the government wants you trust is the government! That has been the narrative of late. They try to define what climate change is, what a woman is and what a recession is. So when the government defines it is to make them look like the experts with all the scientific data to back their politics. Trust the science or follow the science is synonymous with trust the government.

  7. People do not generally understand that government science is a misnomer. As far as I can recall, government has done nothing creative and new except when the atomic bomb was made in WW2. I appreciate that Trump set up a reward system to incentivise companies to make the Covid vaccine. Still it was private companies that did the work.

    The purpose of thinking is, fundamentally, productive activity. If you limit the options to act, that discourages scientists from pursuing new truths. The various government agencies involving everything from drugs to commerce to science itself all infect scientific progress like a super Covid that is manmade.

  8. The purpose of thinking is, fundamentally, productive activity. If you limit the options to act, that discourages scientists from pursuing new truths. The various government agencies involving everything from drugs to commerce to science itself all infect scientific progress like a super Covid that is manmade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.