The Tyranny of Consensus Science
Something we often hear about in discussions of science is consensus. While that can be useful in some situations, it is not helpful in science. In fact, consensus is used to censor evidence that is contrary to the view of the majority. Anti-creationists often claim that microbes-to-materialist evolution is "settled science" and appeal to a consensus (as do other people with an agenda), as if that settles the matter under discussion.
Climate change alarmists really take the rag off the bush by appealing to their selected authorities and becoming irate when contrary scientific evidence is presented. (Indeed, I have been called a "science denier" and a "bigot" for presenting refutations.) Global warming alarmists have been proven wrong repeatedly, such as in this article about the prediction that the Maldives and other areas would be under water by now.
Some jaspers will exclaim, "Weather is not climate!", then post news about heat waves as evidence of climate change — while ignoring news of record low temperatures from a few weeks back. Some even assert that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. Whatever you say, Hoss.
Embryonic stem cells were all the rage a few years ago and a spurious "consensus" was used to support abortion for this research. Today, adult stem cells are more beneficial as well as ethical.
Fun facts: a flat earth was never consensus science, nor is it taught in the Bible.
"Consensus science" is actually a means of furthering political agendas, and its adherents are often tyrannical. They have particular antipathy toward biblical creationists, pro-lifers, and climate change skeptics. Evidence and rational arguments they dislike are suppressed, and those who disagree tend to be quirted until they get in line with the majority. This is not the spirit of scientific inquiry, old son, but a means of maintaining the status quo of those with the money, power, and majority. The article featured below is from 2009 but is just as relevant today — if not more so.
 |
| Credit: Unsplash / Pedro Lima |
Some jaspers will exclaim, "Weather is not climate!", then post news about heat waves as evidence of climate change — while ignoring news of record low temperatures from a few weeks back. Some even assert that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. Whatever you say, Hoss.
Embryonic stem cells were all the rage a few years ago and a spurious "consensus" was used to support abortion for this research. Today, adult stem cells are more beneficial as well as ethical.
Fun facts: a flat earth was never consensus science, nor is it taught in the Bible.
"Consensus science" is actually a means of furthering political agendas, and its adherents are often tyrannical. They have particular antipathy toward biblical creationists, pro-lifers, and climate change skeptics. Evidence and rational arguments they dislike are suppressed, and those who disagree tend to be quirted until they get in line with the majority. This is not the spirit of scientific inquiry, old son, but a means of maintaining the status quo of those with the money, power, and majority. The article featured below is from 2009 but is just as relevant today — if not more so.
In battle, one clever military tactic is to focus enemy troops' attention on a spectacular frontal assault so they will overlook a deadly side attack. This approach works in other arenas, as well.To read the entire article, click on "Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite". Also worth your time is "Why consensus science is anti-science".
On March 9 [2009], President Barack Obama ordered that federal tax money be used to promote medical research through harvesting the stem cells of, and thus destroying, human embryos. There has been much discussion about the medical ethics of this order and the government's increased power to destroy human life for "scientific" progress, but in reality these debates, while important, drew attention away from a serious analysis of the words of the president's speech. His order was actually a directive for "restoring scientific integrity," and stem cells served as the needed pretext.
. . . preserving "scientific integrity" would not mean keeping the scientific process from going awry, but keeping scientific outcomes in line with policy.
How? By empowering an atheist scientific elite who will decree--without debate and by consensus opinion only--the scientific validity of all bioethical issues, not just the killing of embryos for research. In doing this, Mr. Obama has capitalized on two trends in the scientific community: the rise of "consensus science," and the dominance of atheism among the scientific elite.