Consensus Intervention and Indoctrination

As we have seen numerous times, secularists are thrilled that the number of people are believing in minerals-to-microscopist evolution is increasing. At the same time, they increase their indoctrination efforts. We saw what their bleak worldview does to young people.

When a person is under the control of drugs or alcohol, in a cult, exhibiting harmful behavior, etc., friends and family may stage an intervention. A wake-up call, if you will, in an effort to correct the situation. The secular science industry does not want "consensus" science questioned, and some sidewinders want to have interventions to make people agree.

Good sheep obey the consensus, image used: Jo-Anne McArthur at Unsplash

According to the United Nations, "We own the science." That should tell you a great deal right there. Many creationists, including myself, encourage people to use critical thinking and spot logical fallacies. This is especially useful when someone is attempting to deceive or manipulate us.

Secularists, especially leftists, do not want serious discussion about various subjects. They are the elite and must not be questioned. Facts that may cause problems for consensus science are not allowed, so they are suppressed. People who have contrary views must be convinced of the error of their ways. Some even use true statements which use logical fallacies. It becomes manipulation when the façade of reason is infused with other fallacies in order to convince people of what is necessary for the good of the secular science industry.

The Big Science Cartel (BSC) as J. Scott Turner labels it (19 Aug 2022) is alarmed that so many people question their authority. There are, of course, wacko views and conspiracy theories out there. Historically, those have been dealt with by debate and exposure: i.e., more speech, not less. Victorian philosophers like John Stuart Mill respected people enough to believe they would judge scientific explanations rightly based on who presented the best evidence.

The leftist materialists and evolutionists after Darwin were among the strongest voices for freedom to explore non-traditional views. Once they got power after the Scopes Trial, though, their mood quickly changed. It was time to squash their opponents.

To read the inconvenient truths in the rest of the article, click on "Big Science Intensifying Indoctrination." Be sure to come back for how supporters of obeying the consensus get...truly bizarre.

Once again, I failed to avoid giving attention to an atheopath. (This "millennial atheist" can't even be honest about being a millennial, since he's in his sixties.) Anyway, his irrational retort below fits the subject quite nicely. I had shared "The Wisdom of Doubting Scientific Consensus" on The Question Evolution Project, and the modus operandi for types like this is to share things for the sake of ridicule. This tinhorn makes foolish comments to go with the shared content, one of which I shall reproduce from the source after the screenshot:

Click for full size (used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)

Now, he's not the only one who believes in following the consensus, not by a long shot. Some folks claim it is a valuable part of the scientific process. Some things seem nailed down pretty well, and it takes trained scientists to challenge a belief. That does not mean us reg'lar folks need to be sheeple and blindly follow what scientists say in all things.

So, do you listen to your doctor, or do you "doubt the scientific consensus"? Do you not smoke because it's bad for your health, or do you "doubt the scientific consensus"? Do you think the sun is at the center of the solar system? Or do you "doubt the scientific consensus"? Do you prepare when bad weather is forecast? Or do you "doubt the scientific consensus"? Do you truly doubt the scientific consensus all the time? Or do you just doubt it when the scientific consensus conflicts with your religious beliefs?

Some of his claims are not about actual "scientific consensus", and many are just plain silly. The part about doubting when it conflicts with religious beliefs is a straw man. The consensus, the scientific "facts", have been spectacularly wrong many times:

• Piltdown Man was enthusiastically accepted as an evolutionary missing link for over forty years, but was a fraud
• The reason stuff burned was because it contained phlogiston
• Earth was the center of the universe with the sun and everything else revolving around it
• For a very long time, ether occupied space because it was necessary for the travel of light
• J. Harlan Bretz was ridiculed for proposing the Channeled Scablands were caused by a flood, but eventually scientists realized he was right

There are many more, including medical "facts" that were disproven in later years, but there's no need to keep going.

One reason to be suspicious of a consensus is when contrary evidence offered is rejected by scientists because of political views, not from examining evidence.. After all, climate change, evolution, and other things are darlings of political leftists and their allies in the secular science industry. Instead of discussing things like rational people, information is suppressed. Call the Intervention Squad, we have a consensus doubter here with facts that we must ridicule! If you study on it, people like the one quoted above as well as those who try to force obedience with the consensus are actually anti-science. That is because science thrives on challenge and development, old son.

“The Conversation” website is normally a parade of science professors espousing far-left, evolutionary beliefs. This past week they posted an essay by a philosophy of science professor. He agrees there are many reasons not to trust what science says. But then he tries to explain why we should trust science anyway.

Why should we trust science? Because it doesn’t trust itself  (The Conversation, 18 Sept 2022). John Wright bills himself as an Adjunct Research Fellow in Philosophy at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia and “a philosopher with a focus on the philosophy of science.” His quizzical headline does not suggest much confidence in what he is about to prove: ‘we should trust science because it doesn’t trust itself.’ Say a chap calls to you as you stand poised on a dock, deciding whether to jump into a lake. “Go ahead!” he says. “Trust me. I don’t trust myself.” Would you take the plunge?

See why this tinhorn tries to prop up following consensus science but ends up refuting himself at "Philosopher Tries to Defend the Big Science Consensus." You'll thank me later.