Define: Science

Noun

Definition of "Science"

the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding, an in "the science of medicine"
system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method, a rigorous process of testing a hypothesis to develop a conclusion.
By leftists: Shut up and comply. As used in the phrase, "The science is settled." Similar to Compromise and Unity

Examples of science" include:

"Why are you still arguing about climate change? The science is settled. Get in line and let's destroy capitalizsm."
"OMG, read a science book, you cis-gen hater. There are dozens of genders, and those who claim there's only two (male and female) are Nazis."
"She needs hormone blockers to realize her true identity. Nature gave her a penis, but science will make her female."
"A lot of the attacks on me," said Anthony Fauci, "Are actually attacks on Science" - as if HE is science!

Science Is Never Settled

We often hear, “The science is settled,” over things things like climate change, COVID guidelines, transgenderism and other leftist claptraps. But it bares repeating: the science is NEVER settled. Science cannot be settled, only bought. Settling refers to consensus, which is reached based upon payments and/or coercion (or you’ll never work again).

There’s no better rant on this front than Bill Whittle’s recent “Rape of Science,” though we’ll try to fill it out below. If you’re not able to watch the full video, Bill points out that Biden’s political appointment for Science and Technology have nothing to do with science. Fairness, equality and inclusion are not related to actual science. Plus, social sciences like Sociology are NOT sciences since they spend their time observing the observers, observing culture, which has more to do with elitists, activists and politicians getting along and getting paid.

What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is a series of steps followed by investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves:

Making observations to formulate a specific question about it (Gee, it's warm today)
Formulating a hypothesis, an idea that possibly explains the observation and/or asserts the impact of that observation on a particular variables (It's warm; are we all gonna die? Or, I wonder how focused sun effects these ants)
Conducting scientific experiments (Let's count tree rings and ice density to see if we're all gonna die. Or, I'll direct sunlight through this magnifying glass on this ant hill and watch them squirm)
To reach conclusions, applying rigorous skepticism to the process to make sure there is no observer bias or interacting variables that might skew the results (I burned these ants, so the sun is killing us! Oh wait, the sun is going down; are we all gonna freeze to death?)

If these conclusions are compared to others and we find that that under the same conditions in a variety of tests achieve consistent results, the scientific community calls it a theory. Sometimes, it’s referred to as a fact, but at NO time does the scientific community believe that it’s settled.

Why? Because our human ignorance is vast enough to keep us keen, and human experience is variable enough that some find poisons among our cures. From the literary example of Rappacini’s Daughter by Nathaniel Hawthorne to the real and horrific side effects of thalidomide in the 1960s to the modern anti-vaxxer movement, science must stand ready to reevaluate its assumptions if we’re going to achieve “a more perfect union.”

Plus, there’s this thing about models. Scientists love computer models (especially Global Warming models based on tenuous evidence) because they are visual assumptions that tell them they are right. Then, all they need is for reality to agree with them.

However, as philosopher Thomas Kuhn observed, scientists strive to corroborate their models so much that they will ignore disproving evidence. Their faith (aka NON-science) in models is so strong that the models take on the status of reality itself.

Scientific Peer Review Is Another Name for Politics

Parts of scientific community’s public persona resembles the”assimilation” by Star Trek’s Borg: a lockstep conformity to a bureaucratic “peer review.” Peer review is not a component of the scientific method, but of political leverage. Peer review is a way of filtering out data and conclusions that don’t comport with the political will of those who pay for the science to be conducted.

In many modern cases, we find that scientists are paid to produce “scientific” outcomes that support the political aims of politicians and activists. Instead of testing nature with the widest possible data sets, they filter away tests that don’t support predetermined conclusions and develop computer-generated models based on a slim set of confirming data or fabricated data. These models are then peer reviewed to achieve “consensus” that is propagated to the public as “settled science.”

The best way to discover if your “settled science” is political policy is simply to apply “rigorous skepticism” to it. If the response is not objective data but cries for conformity, you know the rest.

If the political policy remains the same regardless of the kinds of observations applied to it, you know the rest.

The best example of this is now called Climate Change. It was once called global cooling before it was global warming, and now, back to cooling. Warm winters is climate change. Cold winters is climate change. More or fewer tropical storms is climate change. We’re all gonna die in 10 years but expect the goal posts to keep moving.

The purveyors of climate change must believe their science is settled because that’s what payed for their mansions by the shore. But if they really believed it, they wouldn’t build where the waters will rise, and expend more energy than the average small town.

Our Response to Settled Science

Science is not a single thing, but a process, so those who tell you to “trust the science” are really telling you to trust them, their politics, their opinions, and NOT the science. They should not be trusted simply because they use “science” — not as a discussion of options or to clarify findings — but as a magic spell for your compliance.

Like the Emperor with no clothes, the scientist has no pure white lab coat. They can be offended as much as they like. Their offense is as scientific as their datasets: claptrap.

NO, the science is not settled.

Prime example: Following COVID Science

COVID authoritarians like Anthony Fauci say “Follow the science” when what they’re really saying is “Do what I tell you.” Case in point, June 8, 2020:

In case you missed it, Anthony Fauci, after spending several minutes explaining how the science kept changing so he would have to change his approach to the problem at various times, says:

“A lot of what you’re seeing, quite frankly, as attacks on me, are attacks on science.“

But Tony is NOT science, and his arrogant tap dance can’t shake his culpability in a pandemic response he created!

That is what happens when scientific opinion masquerades as “science itself” to dictate public policy. It is both delusional and dangerous. And it violates two of Gandhi’s Seven Social Sins:

“science without humanity”
“politics without principle”

That is, he promoted tenuous scientific data as law without regard for the human consequences. He also failed to recognize that his mandates fell outside of his authority while trying to destroy the careers and social media reach of all his detractors (who turned out to be right).

For more:

Reset the Science

No, we will not build public policy based on the serious expressions on actors’ faces as they stand in white lab coats behind politicians.

No, we won’t submit to an economy-crippling “carbon exchange” run by you and your political cronies, and no, we won’t join your stupid “Accords” whether they’re in Paris or Tokyo. The fact is that China, India, and many other developing countries are the largest “carbon polluters” and they have NO intention of returning to medieval levels of energy use. More on the Climate Hoax here.

NOTE: This does not mean we’re in favor of killing the environment, or polluting rivers, oceans, burying ourselves in garbage and chemicals and all that. We believe in a healthy world. That involves actual science and effective public policy. But you can take your global governance disguised as climate activism and pound sand until the fusion creates new forms of energy. We’re not giving up our oil, and no, your bird-killing windmills can’t replace it.

You say biological sex is fluid but gender is immutable? How stupid do you think we are? No, that’s not science. That’s insanity. And no, men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. Stop mutilating people with mental problems (yes, I said it and I say it even louder here: The sadists of Transgenderism).

You want to talk about a real problem? Drug companies don’t cure diseases is because the money is in treating the symptoms. Take your climate hoax payoffs and solve that problem instead. That is worth the observation and experimentation.