Analysts say authoritarians and their students fear science in part because its feats — unlocking the universe, ending plagues, saving millions of lives — can form bonds of public trust that rival or exceed their own.
“Science is a source of social power,” said Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It always poses a potential threat.”
ADDED: Note that we've got historians purporting to see something in present-day politics. Their topic is science and politics, but are they being scientific? What is the science of historians seeing patterns that yield useful fuel to political arguments? Perhaps it's true that "Despots want science that has practical results." But don't they also want history that has practical results?
Scroll down one post to see a photo of a crane on whose head you can see the head of a goose. One can "see" a lot of things. There are patterns everywhere. But the pattern I've seen the most in all my studies, scientific and imaginative, is that people see what they want to see.
पोस्ट्स
१०३ टिप्पण्या:
If you were scared by high school physics, does that make you a Nazi?
The science of gender affirming care?
How about the scientific consensus about climate change? Lobotomies? Or that cigarettes are good for you?
Just another Leftist attack on Trump.
People generate fiction-genre results that there's an audience for.
Is it a fetus or feature of science, politics, social justice, economics, DEIsm, religion, lust, indemnity, what?
Cappy said...
If you were scared by high school physics, does that make you a Nazi?
I taught high school physics for decades. All of the best labs and demonstrations were fun and scary. We called those the twin virtues.
If I click on the link,will I find the part where Trump has outlawed basic knowledge? Interestingly enough, the C.D.C. has a webpage that speaks to the issue. Weaning from Breastfeeding.
All of this stuff is projection. All of it. Trump terrifies them because he is a man of the people, and the people are to be manipulated, tricked into sending their sons to fight wars, or whatever. They are to be treated like cattle, the ones you don't milk, you send off to be slaughtered. Since Trump opposes these noble goals, he must be branded an authoritarian, because the first thing an authoritarian does when doing something that people of good conscience would otherwise find objectionable, is accuse the target of whatever you are doing.
Experts see...Historians see...
I'm reminded of the sayings about how it can take a lifetime to build a reputation and an instant to destroy it.
I trained as a scientist, and the experts have earned the distrust they are getting.
"Daniel Treisman, a political scientist..."
"Political science" is to science as "social justice" is to justice.
"Historians See Autocratic Playbook in Trump’s Attacks on Science/Authoritarians have long feared and suppressed science as a rival for social influence. Experts see President Trump as borrowing some of their tactics"
LOL!
We all see what he is doing of course. They are all trying to project on Trump what they have been doing since World War II.
"Science" has been taken over by a Government/Corporate alliance for the last several decades pushing all manner of evil diet and health "solutions" on us.
Dreams of Herr Mengele? Human rites? DEIsm? Science!
Remember, these same historians will tell you that men can get pregnant.
It's good that the New York Times has zero influence on thought in our country any more.
Another academic historian embarrasses himself. It's politics all the way down. Party schools has taken on new meaning.
"Analysts say authoritarians and their students fear science in part because its feats — unlocking the universe, ending plagues, saving millions of lives — can form bonds of public trust that rival or exceed their own."
"Analysts say". Seriously? Analyze the last five years and get back to us.
Perhaps the worst outcome of the covid debacle was the public health profession throwing the public's trust in the trash.
Only when Government and Corporations ally could you try to convince a credulous population that Men can have babies and then with a straight face calling the man shutting that down a fascist.
All power corrects. Absolute power corrects absolutely.
Obsolete power corrupts obsoletely.
Inflammatory diets with crystalline scapegoats. High glucose diets and metabolic dysfunction. Veggies without the beef. Throw another baby... fetus on the barbie, it's over.
HIV in the rectum? Pathogenic toxicity in friends with "benefits"? Haters.
The Green blight in low density, climate dependent, local/regional forcing, environmentally corrupting, intermittent energy converters? Water vapor in blue skies is a primary radiative "greenhouse" gas.
Just MSM Bullshit. Authoritarian is the new Leftwing cant word. Used only against people they don't like. Objectively Biden was the most "Authoritarian" POTUS since FDR. He tried to put his political opposition in jail. You can't get more "Authoritarian" than that.
Fauci and the government experts were more despotic than anything I've seen in my lifetime .
With university research grants and government institutions, we are spending an order of magnitude more than $45 billion on research. What breakthroughs are we getting?
To pick one example, it's tick season. Annually, it costs a few hundred dollars to take my dog to the vet for a wellness check so I can get a prescription to buy the once-per-month anti-tick pills. Since there is no anti-tick medicine for me, I have been bitten twice this year. There is no Lyme disease vaccine.
Yes, there are scientific advances, but much of it doesn't relate to any topics that could make life better.
Utterly incoherent. The 'feats of science' that impact people the most are 'practical results', aka engineering. The simultaneous desire for and fear of engineering solutions sounds a lot more like the way the Left wants to circumscribe how certain problems are solved than the effective Abundance Agenda of the Right.
Its impossible to care what the MSM and Leftists say because everything is just lies and propaganda. They LOVE authoritarian behavior, putting J6ers in jail, trying to destroy and Jail trump, hate speech laws, etc.
BUt then when the other side is in power, they shriek about the danger of authoritarianism. You constantly have to cut through their lies and bullshit just to talk about the real issues. They control the microphone. We need a real press in the USA. Not American Pravda.
Can anyone point to a scientific breakthrough that threatened the establishment consensus in the last few decades in a way that didn’t centralize power?
The Left has always used "Science" to justify their political beliefs ever since Marx and Freud. Today only gullible rubes believe those clowns.
Seems a lot less about fixing problems and more about burning it all down - erasing institutions that can compete with political power. The CDC, NOAA, NIH, even the Department of Education—each one is being targeted not for reform but for dismantling. That looks a lot like the Project 2025 playbook, where inconvenient science isn’t trimmed but stripped away.
Maybe the deeper and uglier pattern is that dictators don’t just want “useful science.” They want no science—or history—that can outlast them.
You only need to look at tarriffs and climate change.
Migratory, persistent instructions enclosed in a sanctuary envelope with pathogenic properties.
Authoritarian Science is to use a hypothesis that humans using fossil fuels raises the temperature of the planet and will turn the planet into Venus if the people don't give unelected government bureaucrats control over CO2 and Methane emissions which is literally breathing and farting.
Historians who spend their time predicting the future typically are political pundits first and historians last. Historians true to their craft remain grounded in the true methodology of the search for piecing together the past with as little extrapolation as possible. That was the type of historian I was taught to be.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Seems a lot less about fixing problems and more about burning it all down - erasing institutions that can compete with political power. The CDC, NOAA, NIH, even the Department of Education—each one is being targeted not for reform but for dismantling. That looks a lot like the Project 2025 playbook, where inconvenient science isn’t trimmed but stripped away.
The fact you cannot understand the partisan nature of each of these institutions you mentioned highlights your stupidity.
The People that voted for Trump view every one of those institutions and members of a political opposition that is oriented around a government corporate alliance to control us.
The fact that you are politically allied with those institutions should open your eyes to the core problem. But you have no idea what the scientific method is or how it is supposed to work.
You support the blacklisting of any scientist that does not support the global warming cult. You don't believe a single word you say.
Political scientists want political science that yields practical results.
“ Maybe the deeper and uglier pattern is that dictators don’t just want “useful science.” They want no science—or history—that can outlast them.”
That is why the DEI fascists in the history field undermine established history and elevate the smallest of elements well above their true impact on history. They are activists bent on destroying western civilization and its accomplishments.
I'm reminded of a short story 'The Cold Equations' every time someone brings up politics and science. The left want empathy and being 'nice' but physics gets in the way every time.
(the story has critics, but as seen time and time again, no matter how you try and accommodate 'feelings' as the whole point of life, the universe is still trying to kill you).
Change the word "science" to "liberal religion" and you can see what they are up to.
If you are a scientist and you are even minimally skeptical of the theory we will turn the Earth into Venus without cap and trade your career is ended and you get no more federal grants for research.
That is the definition of authoritarian science.
There is an awful lot of interesting science going on these days. A lot of instruments are floating around up there, like the James Webb Space Telescope. Theres now a lot of astrophysics, and physics, that needs revisions. And more gear is on the way.
Its all about the gear really, the words are crap.
“Maybe the deeper and uglier pattern is that dictators don’t just want “useful science.” They want no science—or history—that can outlast them.”
Indeed yes.
Fortunately the needs wants desires of what Democrats need to have happen…such concerns are less relevant…and that’s a very good thing…
Did any of the signatories ever disagree with the consensus on Covid? They’re sheep, not scientists. They blacklisted the real scientists like Jay Bhattacharya when they should have engaged with and debated him.
My wife just had covid and asked me if the 6 foot rule was still sound scientifically.
I shared that it was a number picked out of a hat by public health officials, based upon an early random assessment of how far large, exhaled particles could travel and was not adopted throughout the world with little differences in contagion spread rates (i.e. many places chose 1 meter, or 1.5 meters). So no, it was not and is not today based upon sound scientific evidence. But it was used to dictate public transit, store, crowd-size limits, and social gathering considerations for a long time. For no good scientific reason.
That's the state of government + science today - and has been for quite some time.
See: Fats are bad for you. The Food Pyramid. And so much more.
To me the most damning thing today is that vaccines and antibiotics - just those 2 classes of medicine - have extended and improved the quality of human life at scale more than any other medicinal developments in centuries. And today vaccines are viewed skeptically, as if all classes of vaccine ever developed are suddenly to be suspected.
That to me is the true damage done in the last 5 years. That is both the cost of the previous administration/government policy and stances, and the price we are now paying today as the right fully embraces good health policy because the left so abused their power. We'll just see more death and public health distrust as this continues to play out.
The Althouse post theme of the day is ‘What is irrelevant to the progress of humanity, Alex?’
Achilles, et al., we could do our back and forth but there’s a pattern here worth noticing.
Isolation: Hitler controlled the radio, Jones locked down his compound, today it’s “fake news” and “enemy of the people.”
Fear: Hitler painted Weimar as corrupt, Jones warned the government was coming for his church, today it’s “the deep state” and corrupt agencies.
And in every case—one charismatic leader who could do no wrong.
Does any of that look familiar? The other two didn’t end well. Why should this time be different?
The other two didn’t end well. Why should this time be different?
This one has already ended once, in a highly suspicious "loss" to all-time vote-getter Biden-from-his-basement, and power was handed over. It has already been different.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Achilles, et al., we could do our back and forth but there’s a pattern here worth noticing.
Isolation: Hitler controlled the radio, Jones locked down his compound, today it’s “fake news” and “enemy of the people.”
Fear: Hitler painted Weimar as corrupt, Jones warned the government was coming for his church, today it’s “the deep state” and corrupt agencies.
And in every case—one charismatic leader who could do no wrong.
Does any of that look familiar? The other two didn’t end well. Why should this time be different?
Thank you for describing Obama.
Now you can try to deal with what I said or you can do your usual intellectual cowardice.
I agree with buwaya (nothing new there).
After embracing the textbooks of Howard Zinn, historians have forfeited all right to be regarded as disinterested seekers of the truth. Though it’s possible that Paul R. Josephson is reasonably correct — as soon as he realizes that the despots who corrupted our scientific institutions were named Obama and Biden.
Achilles said...
Ronald J. Ward said...
Seems a lot less about fixing problems and more about burning it all down - erasing institutions that can compete with political power. The CDC, NOAA, NIH, even the Department of Education—each one is being targeted not for reform but for dismantling. That looks a lot like the Project 2025 playbook, where inconvenient science isn’t trimmed but stripped away.
The fact you cannot understand the partisan nature of each of these institutions you mentioned highlights your stupidity.
The People that voted for Trump view every one of those institutions and members of a political opposition that is oriented around a government corporate alliance to control us.
The fact that you are politically allied with those institutions should open your eyes to the core problem. But you have no idea what the scientific method is or how it is supposed to work.
You support the blacklisting of any scientist that does not support the global warming cult. You don't believe a single word you say.
9/1/25, 9:04 AM
You’re assigning me positions I haven’t stated. I haven’t expressed support for any particular policy or labeled any scientist “good” or “bad.” My point was about the pattern of dismantling institutions like CDC, NOAA, and NIH—not about who voted for whom. Whether you agree or not, the observable actions—budget cuts, term limits, leadership purges—don’t just reform agencies, they strip them of independence. That’s the phenomenon I’m talking about.
All of the best labs and demonstrations were fun and scary.
The demonstration of conservation of gravitational potential energy, with a heavy pendulum swinging to within an inch of the teacher's nose, was always entertaining.
Awkward question: didn't the Nazis have pretty good science, in some ways best in the world, certainly better than the Commies? They had rockets by 1945, and as I understand it, they came within an inch of having nukes. They had persecuted Jews, and in other ways driven out top physicists, who ended up at Los Alamos. The "Americans" figured out they could skip the heavy water phase, Heisenberg in Germany, without a strong team with him, failed to make that step. Pharmaceuticals, good and bad.
The CDC lied repeatedly about Covid. The NIH kept funding only one stream of research for years on dementia, which turned out to be complete bullshit. No Team B approach, no serious questioning of whether they were on the right track, field scientists getting government jobs, supporting themselves and their friends in their tunnel vision, controlling the allegedly scientific journals. I think Bobby K is bad, but there is a legitimate backlash against the Swamp.
I'm not interested in any "scientific" opinion from anyone who supported the authoritarian Covid lockdown, but then urged crowds to swarm the streets in protest when a worthless violent thug overdosed on Fentanyl in police custody. They can all go to hell. I'm glad they lost their jobs.
Ronald J. Ward said...
You’re assigning me positions I haven’t stated. I haven’t expressed support for any particular policy or labeled any scientist “good” or “bad.” My point was about the pattern of dismantling institutions like CDC, NOAA, and NIH—not about who voted for whom. Whether you agree or not, the observable actions—budget cuts, term limits, leadership purges—don’t just reform agencies, they strip them of independence. That’s the phenomenon I’m talking about.
Every one of these institutions is a democrat institution. All of the employees overwhelmingly donate to democrats and are registered as democrat voters.
Further every one of these institutions corrupted their efforts to support partisan efforts. For example The CDC spent much of it's budget "researching" the "disease" of "gun violence."
People are questioning why the hepatitis B vaccine, which lasts for 6-7 years, is given to newborns. It makes no sense yet the fascists at the CDC want to make sure the drug companies make more money.
The leadership and staffing of these institutions is inherently partisan and corrupt. Trump dismantling these institutions is the result of partisan corruption, not any authoritarian impulses Trump may have.
as I understand it, they came within an inch of having nukes.
If not for the valiant Norwegian resistance, who sabotaged the Nazi heavy-water plant in Telemark in one of the most daring and consequential commando operations in history, they might indeed have got there first. The amazing story of that operation should be taught to every schoolboy.
You’re right—capable science can exist even under authoritarian regimes. The Nazis produced rockets and other advances, but their broader system was corrupt, oppressive, and ultimately destructive. The pattern I’m pointing to isn’t about scientific talent—it’s about how power structures manipulate, isolate, and control knowledge. Whether it’s the CDC, NIH, or historical examples, the danger comes when institutions are dismantled or constrained to serve political ends rather than public benefit.
Ronald J. Ward said...
You’re right—capable science can exist even under authoritarian regimes. The Nazis produced rockets and other advances, but their broader system was corrupt, oppressive, and ultimately destructive. The pattern I’m pointing to isn’t about scientific talent—it’s about how power structures manipulate, isolate, and control knowledge. Whether it’s the CDC, NIH, or historical examples, the danger comes when institutions are dismantled or constrained to serve political ends rather than public benefit.
The CDC and NIH are institutions that gave grants to scientists that provided research that supported what they desired, and blacklists scientists that produced research they didn't like.
Dismantling these organizations and purging their corrupt authoritarian bureaucracies is the opposite of authoritarian.
Trump is eliminating government/corporate oppression and the corruption of science for fascist ends.
Attacks on the data Inga posted are a case of inverse appeal to authority. I am far from an Inga fan, having chastised her many times for her poor logic and false information, but just like appeals to authority, were you use a source as the reason to accept the evidence, you are all risking your own credibility as contributors by rejecting a source. Inga was challenged to prove her point and she responded with data. Others have not countered with data but instead attacked the person presenting it. To quote the hostess: Do better.
Facts as I see them are that certain societies (Mennonite, which are, as I understand it, anti-vax Regardless of Kennedy) plus the importation of cases from immigrants. One side imported cases, the other failed to protect themselves. Vaccination skepticism is fine, but know your risks. Measles is dangerous, and you are taking huge risks with you children by not getting that protection. For many years unvaccinated communities were protected by the herd immunity, but when the disease is imported, that protection goes away.
And that’s the question Achilles- is it actually a purge or a clean-up? Stripping agencies of budget, leadership independence, and expert input doesn’t sound like reform to me. Can we at least agree there’s the appearance of government concentration of authority? Patterns matter more than labels.
"[The Nazis] had rockets by 1945, and as I understand it, they came within an inch of having nukes."
Rockets, yes, but they were nowhere near designing, much less building, the bomb.
How about science that "works"? Some of my Fauci loving "we believe in science" friends never came to understand that much of the scientific method consists of challenging the "consensus".
You start with either "that's wrong" or "something hasn't been determined" and go from there. And that's how scientific knowledge is advanced. The underlying principle of it all is "The consensus is wrong".
Science? Seriously? The handy science that gives us global warming, er, climate change? Or enables transgenderism? Or refuses to acknowledge the embryological axiom that life begins at conception? Or gave us the COVID gaslighting?
Randomizer: " it costs a few hundred dollars to take my dog to the vet for a wellness check so I can get a prescription to buy the once-per-month anti-tick pills. Since there is no anti-tick medicine for me, I have been bitten twice this year. "
Hm, what's the main difference between veterinary medicine and people medicine? Could it be....regulation? Insurance? RR, JSM
Without reading other comments - doesn't EVERY public policy-maker want science that produces practical results? I mean, the policy-maker may be personally more or less interested in the pure pursuit of knowledge, but the JOB is to harness knowledge of whatever kind in service of the populace. Isn't it?
Why is it bad to have elected officials and their appointed proxies who want to focus on science that produces useful outcomes for people?
Richard Feynman predicting the government and the medical community response to Covid.
"Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true."
Richard P. Feynman
In the 60s and 70s the left led the way in criticism of "value free" science, pointing out the scientists and administrators brought their own prejudices, interests, and desires into their research and its conclusions. The left seems to have done a complete 180 on this, probably because they have come to control the universities.
And the right? Or whatever the rest of us are called? Did we do a u-turn? No, some skepticism about "The Science" was there all along, but we also learned from the left's skepticism and conspiracy theories.
Oh my god! How will our institutions ever function without these hyper-partisan zealots who seem to have little interest in anything remotely scientific?
So when the scientific establishment sought to smother the lab leak hypothesis, was it being authoritarian?
Isolation: Hitler controlled the radio, Jones locked down his compound, today it’s “fake news” and “enemy of the people.”
Fear: Hitler painted Weimar as corrupt, Jones warned the government was coming for his church, today it’s “the deep state” and corrupt agencies.
And in every case—one charismatic leader who could do no wrong.
Isolation: Trump doesn't control communications nor tries to. The Biden administration sought to, and in many cases, succeeded.
Fear: we all saw for ourselves that (a) there assuredly is a "deep state," an unelected bureaucratic class that will do anything to protect its entrenched power; Trump was clearly a victim of its machinations. He didn't need to engender fear in anyone; the anger (not fear) that do many of us feel springs from their actual actions . And (b) we also all saw for ourselves how willing these agencies were to whore themselves out for the preferred result.
Charismatic leader who can do no wrong: you mean the guy regularly referred to as a moron, a cretin, a fat tub of goo, oh and of course Hitler? If he were a despot in control of communication and aiming to silence different, half the country would must surely not be able to describe him in these terms without consequences. Gotten that knock at your door yet?
In short: once you start from your premise that Trump is a would-be dictator, without evidence, as they say, then all your follow-on conclusions fall apart.
Ronald J. Ward said...
And that’s the question Achilles- is it actually a purge or a clean-up? Stripping agencies of budget, leadership independence, and expert input doesn’t sound like reform to me. Can we at least agree there’s the appearance of government concentration of authority? Patterns matter more than labels.
We can absolutely agree that democrats tried to force all scientific research in the country to serve the interests of the Democrat Party and their Corporate allies through these government institutions.
We can also agree that Trump is dismantling the fascist apparatus the democrats and corporations allied to build up using taxpayer dollars.
“ hawkeyedjb said...
"Daniel Treisman, a political scientist..."
"Political science" is to science as "social justice" is to justice.”
Political science is and will always be an oxymoron. Politics is about acquiring and using power to enrich yourself and your cronies. Politics is inherently corrupt, as are the people who pursue it. When you mix politics with anything, all you get is politics. That’s no different from mixing sewage with something else.
Science has been politicized, much to its detriment. What passes as science has been corrupted to the point where little of it has been validated and a growing portion is fraudulent. The pressure of publish or perish is part of the reason. Another part is the overwhelming desire to publish the results the government wants in order to win additional funding.
"don’t just reform agencies, they strip them of independence."
What in the Constitution permits independent agencies? What's more authoritarian than people running an agency that answers to no one?
"Science is the belief in the fallibility of experts."
- some ignoramus named R. Feynman.
TreeJoe said...
To me the most damning thing today is that vaccines and antibiotics - just those 2 classes of medicine - have extended and improved the quality of human life at scale more than any other medicinal developments in centuries. And today vaccines are viewed skeptically, as if all classes of vaccine ever developed are suddenly to be suspected.
Vaccine skepticism started well before the covidiocy- and was a liberal thing. It's now primarily a conservative thing- due solely to covidiocy lies. The mRNA covid shots didn't stop you from getting covid, didn't stop the spread of covid, didn't reduce your symptoms when you got it, and didn't save your life if you contracted covid. I'm 70- haven't had a fly shot (nor has my wife) since the beginning of the covidiocy. No URIs since then.
As far as medical experts and agencies go, I've completely lost faith in them. Why specifically? Vitamin D. The internet has opened up the world of research papers to everyone. And allows any one person to review all that's been researched and published. And seems all Vitamin D studies show the same thing- from zero to 50 ng/ml, and increased blood level of Vitamin D results in better outcomes for ANY URI- including TB. Emphasis on the ANY - which includes our recent covidiocy experience. Early on it was reported that no one could be found with a Vitamin D level at the higher levels who died from covid. Numerous studies show that a significant proportion of the population is deficient in Vitamin D- as in below 20 ng/ml- so well below what appears to be optimum levels. And the current advice from federal "health" agencies? Vitamin D levels shouldn't be routinely monitored, and only done if a patient is showing clinical signs of Vitamin D deficiency. Which means they are really sick. Now- how much healthier would the general population be if we did this one thing- monitored everyone routinely for Vitamin D levels and recommended supplements to get the general population blood level up to 50 ng/ml?
Now I can get to that sweet spot with 2000 IU daily over and above what's in my milk and daily multivitamin. Others report taking 10,000 IU and up daily are needed to get them there. No real data- but a whole lot of anecdotal evidence from people- like me- who've started monitoring their levels and getting them up there. Who report being healthier since doing so.
So why aren't the "experts" on board with this? After all, Vitamin D is cheap. The tests are inexpensive compared to, well, any other routine blood test. Odds are, with widespread testing, it could be even cheaper. And there are no apparent downsides. And with the evidence available, if you're not proactively doing this for yourself- why not? Don't you care about your health? Or are you relying on "the experts?
Jan 3, 2017 · “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
But yeah, there's no deep state...
And why the hell did no one ask the obvious question: " does that 'you' include you and the congressional oversight committees"?
As far as I can tell, the COVID vax worked as advertised on the variant it was designed for. The idea is to make each COVID case infect less than an average of 1.0 other people, and then the virus dies out. A math fact that maybe is only obvious to math people. But they started giving it in November 2020 and by May 2021 there were essentially no new cases in Ohio. I was watching that number so I know.
It doesn't keep you from getting COVID and it doesn't keep you from passing it on, it just makes it less likely, enough so that each case infects less than 1.0 others on the average.
So it was actually a great success. Delta variant was just getting started at that time, and the Omega cases hadn't started yet. The vax wasn't designed for those and didn't work on those. But the original was great.
The authorities on science are decrying authoritarian science?
Do I have that right?
"It doesn't keep you from getting COVID and it doesn't keep you from passing it on, it just makes it less likely, enough so that each case infects less than 1.0 others on the average."
Doesn't this happen with nearly all epidemics with or without a vaccine? If not, we likely would not be here.
…and now the historians join the leftie ‘scientists’ who claim an equivalence of science and leftie political policy solutions. You don’t agree with the leftie policy solution equals you don’t agree with science. Remind me which logic fallacies are involved in that?
Wince said...
"Can anyone point to a scientific breakthrough that threatened the establishment consensus in the last few decades in a way that didn’t centralize power?"
***********
Sure. The Internet. The WorldWideWeb. Starlink. iPhones. Twitter. Facebook.
You can argue that they are practical engineering arising from science, but they certainly don't help despots centralize their power. On the contrary, they've given the entire planet access to information and a voice.
True, Biden tried to subvert Twitter and Facebook, but he was found out.
Then there's CRISPR , "a revolutionary gene-editing technology that allows scientists to make precise changes to DNA. Think of it as molecular scissors combined with a GPS system for genes." A VERY big deal, with applications in genomics, medicine, agriculture and biotech.
But not much help to despots.
Doesn't this happen with nearly all epidemics with or without a vaccine? If not, we likely would not be here.
…that was a regular Weinstein contribution to the conversation. From an evolutionary standpoint the thing can’t kill all the hosts or it dies with them. Butchered a bit you get the gist…
Various studies have claimed to show that roughly half of all published scientific papers cannot be replicated, with preclinical cancer papers being the worst (20-25% replicable), followed by Pychology papers (39% replicable).
A 2016 article in "Nature" by Monya Baker "surveyed over 1,500 scientists across disciplines. Over half (52%) said there was a reproducibility crisis, more than 70% had tried unsuccessfully to reproduce colleagues' experiments, and over half had failed to reproduce their own work."
---all data from AI Claude.
Sloppy results like these undermine the public's trust in "science" itself. You can't blame them on the evil despot DJT.
“Science is a source of social power,”
You're doing it wrong.
VonBraun wasn't a scientist. He was a rocket engineer. Goddard was a scientist. A rocket scientist.
I commented on some post on FB regarding "climate change" that the climate has always been changing for thousands of years. My example was that the exact spot, a drumlin, on which I'm living here in Wisconsin was once covered by a glacier. A pro "climate change" commenter called me an idiot and a science denier. (???)
PJMedia posted an article on one of the issues with modern science a few days ago: https://pjmedia.com/jamie-wilson/2025/08/29/the-collapse-of-intellectual-courage-why-scientists-stopped-asking-the-questions-that-matter-n4943127
I think what upset that guy was that so many people were agreeing with me.
"I commented on some post on FB..."
That's the problem right there. Full disclosure: BTDT myself. You could say water is wet on FB and somebody would argue with you.
"Despots want science that has practical results."
Actually, I think that most people want science that has practical results.
If you want something that has impractical results, you should be looking at art, not science.
Oh no, not practical results.
Observable, reproducible, consistent. Science is a philosophy and practice in the near domain.
Despots want science that has practical results.
"Not unlike my L-band globular clusters work."
Do you see a dog, a woman's face or a blob of ink? How about all three or none of the above? I see a crane's head with goose like characteristics...
"The Nazis produced rockets and other advances, but their broader system was corrupt, oppressive, and ultimately destructive."
Assuming we're talking about science, that describes the Commies not the Nazis.
Von Braun was also a scientist. He had a PHD in physics. Groves the head of the Manhattan project was an engineer.
Anyway, I don't believe despots are against curing cancer and heart disease.
Whether you agree or not, the observable actions—budget cuts, term limits, leadership purges—don’t just reform agencies, they strip them of independence. That’s the phenomenon I’m talking about.
Where in the Constitution do these "independent agencies" find their sanction?
How do the citizens burdened with both the costs and the tyrannies engendered by these agencies exercise control of them?
"Where in the Constitution do these "independent agencies" find their sanction?"
I asked the same question this morning.
I would suggest that those advocating for independent agencies would have a change of heart about that independence, should those agencies be purged of Democrats and their positions either eliminated or filled by MAGA supporters.
Anybody disagree?
The Party of Science (POS for short) believes:
The last 6 inches of the birth canal transforms a clump of cells into a human baby
That biological men have NO physical advantages in sports over biological women
That a $37 TRILLION platinum coin sitting in a vault makes the national debt irrelevant
That (simultaneously) the Covid jab can keep you from getting or spreading the virus, but if you DON'T get the jab we're all going to die
That gatherings in a small church can be a Covid super spreader event but thousands of BLM marchers is A-OK.
That morbidly obese people do not have health issues
That wind and solar are an adequate source of electricity in a modern (let alone industrial) society
That providing tents, food and other perks will solve the homeless problem
That high speed rail in California will not only be built, but will be helpful in fighting AGW
That a series of models can predict with accuracy the outcome of a system (the climate) involving hundreds of variables with unknown interactions and speculated "tipping points" is an existential threat
And on and on....
AA said it right: people see what they want to see. There's a potential epigraph for this blog.
The catch is that some people actually want to see the truth, and some people only want to see a "truth" that makes them feel good.
"The Party of Science (POS for short) believes:
The last 6 inches of the birth canal transforms a clump of cells into a human baby"
What they believe is that whether or not it's a baby depends on what's convenient for their purposes.
bagoh20 said...
"It doesn't keep you from getting COVID and it doesn't keep you from passing it on, it just makes it less likely, enough so that each case infects less than 1.0 others on the average."
Doesn't this happen with nearly all epidemics with or without a vaccine? If not, we likely would not be here.
But we have so much more cancer now.
RCOCEAN II said...
"Von Braun was also a scientist. He had a PHD in physics. Groves the head of the Manhattan project was an engineer."
And when question as to where he got his ideas from he referred to RHG. He was astounded that we had no rocket program of our own. Goddard did all the science.
Foucault? Power/Knowledge? Science lost its innocence and scientists lost public trust a long time ago.
Interesting thing about NOAA. It's a federal uniformed service, like the six branches of the military and the public health service. But whose idea was it to name the water and weather agency after Noah?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.