James Taranto: Scientific authoritarians

Highly complex models that are virtually impossible for anyone outside the field to understand project ahead as far as 2099 in this set of maps. 

I am not a total “denier,” just concerned about huge changes being forced on us by these models that project so far ahead.
These ones were produced in 2007.

Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio came under attack this week for refusing to submit to scientific authority. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said in an interview with Jonathan Karl.

Nonscientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio’s words “undermine his other assertion,” namely “that he is prepared to be president.” Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had “disqualified himself” from the presidency…

[Marcus and Lapidos are using the technique of “appealing to authority.”]

Appeals to authority aren’t necessarily fallacious… As Michael Gerson puts it in the Washington Post: “Our intuitions are useless here. The only possible answers come from science. And for non-scientists, this requires a modicum of trust in the scientific enterprise.”

Keep reading…

* * *
Note that many scientists flatly refuse to consider human biodiversity at all–despite it being far, far easier for a layman to understand–even going to far as to call it the new racism.

An unknown number of these scientists are worried about losing their jobs and careers.

This has happened to more than one person: there was also the case of Larry Summers stepping down at Havard after causing a firestorm discussing differences in men’s and women’s innate abilities, although there were other contributing issues.  He was nonetheless forced to issue a grovelling apology despite mountains of evidence on this subject confirming his remarks.

Such scientists and their followers are mockingly called Liberal Creationists.  So the world of science is not as simple as saying, “Yes, I will believe you just because you have a PhD in this subject and I don’t.”

Science as a whole has badly undercut its reputation by refusing to consider “politically incorrect” ideas.  The general public may be forgiven for a degree of mistrust, to say the least.  The situation with hbd has degenerating into, “Who are you going to believe: me or your lyin’ eyes?”

Share