20 Comments

You have touched upon an often forgotten method of fallacious reasoning - the process of creating false implications. Often performed subtly, it creeps into the recipients brain like a worm that can only be surgically removed. You examples illustrate this precisely.

1- Using Consensus to imply Correctness

2- Using Peer Review to imply Accuracy

3- Using Scientists to imply Scientificness (or professional credibility)

4- Using Computer Models to imply Reality

5- Using Correlation to imply Causality

6- Using Selective Data to imply Actuality

My Addition: Using Acronyms to imply importance and/or special knowledge.

Expand full comment

Chris: TY for making that good connection.

Expand full comment

Our children are not being taught anything close to the scientific method. See why and how they are being duped.

Expand full comment

JLW: Yes, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. For example, and much worse, they are being taught the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinking: conformity.

Expand full comment

Let's get in touch - email info@ipak-edu.org, I'd like to chat!

Expand full comment

"Currently, 49 States have gone off the rails regarding their K-12 Science Standards! Unless we fix this — quickly — our future will be severely compromised."

While our schools are teaching that boys can be girls (and vice versa), and students ought to hate each other, hate their families -- especially their parents, and hate their country, third graders in China are learning multi-variate calculus. This cannot end well.

Expand full comment

"... more children (minors) are being given the authority to make major medical decisions."

I served for 25 years on committees to standardize computer programming languages. The secretary of one would not tolerate nonsense. A new attendee, not yet a member, had gone off the rails. Stan interrupted and said "Quick! Somebody hire him while he still knows everything!" He turned out to be a quick learner, a brilliant young man, who became a valuable contributor to the committee, and a professor at the NYU Courant Institute, one of America's leading schools of mathematics. Sadly, he and Stan are both deceased.

Unfortunately, Greta Thunberg still knows everything.

Expand full comment

McKibben's agrarian agenda is at the opposite pole from Democrats' apparent current agenda: Stack-and-pack housing in dense cities. No suburbs. No private single-family homes. Public transport only. No automobiles. But they both shout the same mantra as Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb," and the Club of Rome says the same thing:

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

George Bernard Shaw insisted that every adult ought to appear every five years before a board that would decide whether that individual could continue to live. Of course, such a board would not examine HIM. He wished for "a painless gas." Adolph Hitler heard his message, loud and clear.

Leftists carefully avoid noticing that prosperity reduces fertility. The entire civilized world, and even Russia, have fertility rates below replacement. Twice as many deaths as births occurred in Japan last year. For the first time in their recorded history, Japan is accepting legal permanent resident immigrants, mostly from China and Korea, on one condition: They must become farmers.

And yet, after declaring there are too many people, Democrats insist on unlimited illegal immigration, and insist that the poor must remain poor (and fertile and promiscuous) and dependent upon them.

Expand full comment

The mistake of thinking that a "complex" physical system is a "non-complex" physical system is commonly made by people who vote for liberal politicians but uncommonly made by people who vote for conservative politicians. According to the professor of clinical psychology Mattias Desmet his book entitled "The Psychology of Totalitarianism," the people who vote for liberal politicians have a mechanistic-materialistic world view while the people who vote for conservative politicians have a realistic world view.

Expand full comment

Terry: Thank you for adding that interesting perspective. Another example is that wind energy promoters say it's very simple: wind is free, clean, and green. Although none of those things are true, it makes a good sound bite for those looking for simple ideas.

Expand full comment

Wind and solar advocates never do any system analysis -- only single component analysis. When I confront one, I insist he ought to go to a junkyard, buy a used motor, dump it in his driveway, and pretend he has a car. Here's a shameless plug: My new book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" examines the entire energy landscape using a comprehensive system analysis.

Expand full comment

The motto of science used to be, de omnibus dubitandum, and since so much of science has abandoned it, I’ve claimed it and made it my own, and those ten rules are the touchstones for minds that are willing to question everything. Simple and yet comprehensive.…….Excellent! In tomorrow’s edition.

Expand full comment

Rich: Thank you for your support.

Expand full comment

Decentralization is the rebellion.

Decentralize academia (home school)

Decentralize Media (Substack, podcasts, videos)

Decentralize money (Bitcoin)

Decentralize food (shop local and grow and raise your own)

Next up:

Decentralize medicine, science. And government.

Decentralize everything:

https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/decentralize-everything-in-1776-america?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

SPS: There is some merit to decentralization. Not sure exactly how that would work with Science.

Expand full comment

I allege that if you look at those in the administrative structure of the National Academies, they are dominated by humanities majors. The same is true of universities and colleges.

The assault on science comes from the humanities. I saw it when I was a professor. Those in the humanities were jealous because those in STEM could buy time off teaching through grants to do research. The humanities were subordinate to those in STEM. That is not true anymore.

You can trace this contempt for science to the poet William Blake, who referred to Newton’s discoveries as Newton’s sleep.

The assault on the Constitution has to do with its formulation more along the lines of a scientific theory of managing governance and social behavior. It is also evident in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident……. It is formulated according to postulates like Euclid's plane geometry.

It's no accident since Jefferson was a scientist of sorts.

For those in the humanities there is no objective truth or cause and effect. Their fields of research are riddled with storytelling and nonsense.

That is what we are fighting. 83% of college/university graduates major in the humanities. They fundamentally practice pseudo-science by using a narrative to dismiss facts that contradict their narrative. It's the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Expand full comment

I like those insights and will be using them as discussion points in articles in the future. Thanks!

Expand full comment

John: Thank you for your thoughtful observations — which appear to have merit.

Expand full comment

I think you are overlooking a basic thing. The LORD GOD created everything. If "science" does not give HIM and HIS Word credit, then science is a nothing Burger. You use the term Neanderthal man which is a bogus thing created by "science" just as "dinosaurs" are. Read and pray for understanding of the Bible. Your "science" created "climate change, global warming, the green deal, green house gases, population control, etc, etc, etc. "Science" was prevalent in the tower of Bable prior to Noah building the ark and the great flood. "Science" created the medical industry as well as big pharma. If "science" was so great in creating all of this "progress" why were they not able to create viable ways to dispose of the very bad waste created from those "progressive" discoveries. And your derisive term about rural life is extremely insulting. IF people in these United States would follow GOD'S law and personally change then HE and HE alone will heal our land. But as did Israel, we refuse. We want the easy way out. Keep doing what we want, when we want and worshipping what and who we want. Expecting to vote change in without us changing our personal ways.

Expand full comment

Carolyn: I understand your concerns, but I thinbk you've missed the message of point #3: confusing the distinction between Science and scientists.

For example, Science did NOT create climate change — wayward scientists did. That is an exceptionally important distinction. And, regretfully, watward scientists are one of the biggest threats to Science.

Expand full comment