Fake Science and a Consensus of Bullies
Tue, September 26, 2017 | Author: Rod Taylor | Volume 24 Issue 39
History is replete with controversy and clashing opinions about science. Merriam-Webster defines science as: “Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.” True science uses methods of experimentation and observation of nature and the physical world to determine what is true about the interaction of the components of the physical universe, including living beings.
When CBC complains that “43 percent of Canadians believe that science is a matter of opinion” (based on a recent survey) (PDF), what they really mean is that 43 percent of Canadians are not convinced that the opinions of CBC and other mainstream media regarding various issues have been conclusively proven by the scientific method.
In a recent CBC article, Canadians are confused about science vs. opinion, poll suggests, author Emily Chung postulates that because 43% of Canadians do not agree with the conclusions drawn by CBC’s chosen scientists, therefore they must not trust science. She lists three topics about which Canadians are divided and she puts science on the side of the CBC-compliant majority. The topics she lists are: CO2-driven climate change, the safety of GMO (genetically-modified organism) food crops, and the questionable safety of today’s vaccine regimen. She could have named many more: the origin and age of the earth, the origin of species, the incidence of breast cancer among women who have had abortions, the question as to whether homosexuality is a pre-determined genetic trait or a choice influenced by the culture, whether the acceptance of alternative sexual practices are healthy for our society, etc. All those questions have their supporters and detractors among scientists as well as among the general population.
There are several things wrong with the article and the assumptions put forward by the CBC’s Ms. Chung; they portray an attitude that pre-judges the intellect of nearly half of our fellow citizens based on their response to media’s support of various assertions of some (not all) scientists:
- The article assumes that the scientific method has been flawlessly applied, without bias or self-serving motivation on questions of climate change, etc. We know this is not the case. Even if the climate trends were universally accepted—which they are not—there is no consensus that CO2 is the culprit. Solar flares, man-caused cloud cover generated by jet trails and a myriad of other factors are at play but only CO2 is given widespread media coverage and citizens who do not rejoice over carbon taxes are maligned as “deniers.”
- It creates a special class of human beings (“scientists”) who have access to information and intuitive discovery not available to the rest of mankind. The fact that a lay person without a university degree may discover a scientific principle is not even considered. The fact that a “scientist” may use faulty data, draw faulty conclusions or conduct research designed to produce a desired outcome is not even acknowledged.
- It ignores biblical statements of truth that we believe are supported by true scientific observation. In the case of gender issues, Jesus’ declared that “in the beginning, God made them male and female.” Real science acknowledges this as fact. The scientific study of genetics and chromosomes bears this out. But in CBC’s fantasy world, “science” is not welcome in the discussion of gender.
- It assumes that “scientific consensus” always reflects absolute truth. There was a time when doctors did not wash their hands when going from a diseased cadaver to assisting in a childbirth. Many women died as a result. Scientific consensus at the time did not accept the “germ theory,” which later became the norm and governs medical practice today. There was a time when the “scientific consensus” clung to the now-disgraced notion of “spontaneous generation.” The scientific method ultimately proved this false.
- It sides with multinational corporations like Monsanto and the multi-faceted Big Pharma. When large corporations leverage their power through universities by applying financial incentives and threats, the “scientific data” generated by research at those universities is suspect. When discussing GMO safety, Monsanto’s motivation to force GMO acceptance to further sales of its glyphosate herbicides is not even mentioned. Even if the crop itself were safe, the possible danger of ingesting chemical poisons is not even mentioned.
- Likewise in reference to vaccine safety, the article makes an oblique reference to one study it claims was discredited. Thousands of documented cases of vaccine-induced autism and multiple studies exploring the use of mercury in vaccines, multiple vaccine effects on infants, etc. are not given any attention.
It’s clear that the CBC and many other mainstream news sources have chosen to cherry-pick the scientific data with which they agree and to discredit scientists and ordinary citizens who question the validity of the process—not because they don’t like science—but because they don’t like being bullied by corporate interests and media strongmen intent on preserving the status quo and enforcing non-questioning compliance.
The Christian Heritage Party of Canada supports true science and open inquiry. We reject narrow and self-serving media narratives and bully tactics. To help us create a more open debate on issues that matter, join CHP.
Other Commentary by Rod Taylor:
- A Pipeline Flowing With Red Ink
- What’s In Your Pipeline?
- When Governments Kill Their Citizens, God Removes His Blessing
- Gunsmoke and Mirrors
- Generation Xi
- All Things Being Equal . . . They’re Not
- A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian . . . Really?
- The Role of Conscience and the Rule of Law
- Bullies in the Classroom
- Distracted Driving on the Road of Life
- Hapless, Hopeless and Helpless
- The UN: It’s Not Working