The Left's Assault on the Scientific Method
Another pillar of our society is being dismantled by the Woke insurrection
Sometimes things are just not what they seem! When we are dealing with the Left promoting their ideology, that happens more often than not.
Take their attack on the Scientific Method. They say they are against it because it “promotes linear thinking.” Those who do not think critically might be inclined to blithely accept that assertion. The reality is: a) that claim is false, and b) there are several disturbing real reasons why the Left is opposed to the Scientific Method.
a) Their Claim is Wrong —
The Left’s underlying specious, unjustified position is: linear thinking is inferior to lateral (creative) thinking. That claim is highly debatable, e.g., see: here, here, and here. They never make an argument specifically about this, as they have none. They simply throw out the word “linear” in a disparaging way, and expect that non-critically thinking students, parents, teachers, and administrators will accept it. Linear thinking is NOT a bad thing, and it is NOT inferior to lateral thinking. Comparing linear thinking to lateral thinking is like comparing horses to cows.
The second major flaw in their position is that the Scientific Method is not constrained to linear (uncreative) thinking anyway. For example see this citation in The Scientific Method and the Creative Process: Implications for the K-6 Classroom:
“Both the scientific method and the creative process utilize creative problem-solving techniques as well as facilitate higher-order thinking skills. Both of these skills are vital to student success in school and in the workplace (ref: Cornett).”
A different commentary states:
“The scientific method is an iterative process that uses the repeated acquisition and testing of data through experimental procedures to disprove a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of natural phenomena, and after a hypothesis has survived many rounds of testing, it may be accepted as a theory and used to explain the phenomena in question. Thus, the scientific method is NOT a linear process of steps, but rather a method of inductive reasoning.”
Let’s look at the Scientific Method and see if it is a linear or creative process:
Make an observation [This can be about millions of things, so wide open to creativity]
Ask a question [There are innumerable creative questions possible]
Gather background information [This is determined by the creativity of the user]
Create a hypothesis [There are many possibilities, based on the user’s creativity]
Make a prediction [Again, this is only limited by the user’s creativity]
Conduct an appropriate evaluation [Yet again, only limited by the user’s creativity]
Analyze the results and draw a conclusion about the prediction [Conclusion are only limited by the user’s imagination and creativity]
Share the conclusion and decide what to do next [The many choices of what to do next are a function of the user’s creativity]
The closer you look, the more you realize that every step of the Scientific Method involves creativity. It is not just a mechanical “linear” process. It is not a machine where we turn the handle, and new science pops out at the end. Instead, it proceeds through creativity, inspiration, and imagination — and sometimes guesswork and luck. What distinguishes Science from pure speculation however is that you have to then bring those inspirations and guesses back to the Scientific Method and test them.
What about the argument that there is “linearity” in the eight (8) steps that should be followed sequentially? The answer would be to look at the proposed substitute for the Scientific Method and see how it is different. That inspection reveals that the Left’s “alternative” consists of eight (8) steps that need to be followed sequentially!
……………..
So it should be very clear that the Scientific Method is not just linear. However, it’s the teaching of it that can give that misconception. The learning process (esp for children) proceeds from the simple to the more complex. (For example, we start by learning addition, then multiplication, then algebra, then calculus…)
The initial presentation of the Scientific Method is a simplified explanation of the fundamentals of how this powerful, universal, problem-solving method works. In the beginning, simple linear examples are used to demonstrate it.
Once the basic concept is understood, the teacher should proceed to apply the Scientific Method to more elaborate situations. In these cases, creativity and imagination are clearly required. As stated above, creativity is the opposite of linearity.
b) Some of the Real Reasons the Left Hates the Scientific Method—
1 - Applying the Scientific Method exposes the fallacies of many of the key elements of the Left’s ideological program — major matters like Wind Energy, Climate Change, COVID policies, etc.
For example, if we use the Scientific Method and test the hypothesis “wind energy is a net societal benefit” the answer is a hard “No”. Etc. The Left’s response is not to discard wind energy as a net liability (as they should), but rather to try to dismiss the Scientific Method as meaningless.
2 - The Left is adamantly opposed to Critical Thinking citizens, as they want robotic compliance. The Scientific Method is not just a scientific process but rather a universal problem-solving methodology. (Note that the word “Science” doesn’t even appear in the steps of the Scientific Method!)
Due to its universality, it is a key tool in the arsenal of Critical Thinking people. In other words, if the Left can extract the Scientific Method from our K-12 education, they have gone a long way towards diminishing our students’ ability to do Critical Thinking. This is a key objective, and they have been successful so far.
3 - Similarly, the Scientific Method (in combination with Critical Thinking), is an exceptionally powerful tool in enabling citizens to become more self-sufficient, competent, and independent in all aspects of their lives. The Left is strongly opposed to people becoming self-sufficient, competent, and independent, as they want citizens to depend on (and thus be controlled by) the government.
4 - Both the Scientific Method and Critical (rational) Thinking are supposed symbols of “Whiteness.” For example, see here. Additionally, Science itself has been similarly labeled. Public school systems are not likely going to publicly say any of this, but the ideological leaders of the Left believe such nonsense, and they are behind progressive school standards like the NGSS. This is where these three “problems” are dealt with.
5 - If the Left is successful in dumping the Scientific Method, it then allows them an opportunity to fabricate an alternative methodology that incorporates some of their ideological objectives into it. That’s exactly what they are doing.
For example, their NGSS alternative heavily promotes the value of computer models. When citizens have the temerity to ask questions about Wind Energy, Climate Change, COVID policies, etc., the answer is some variation if: we are following what sophisticated computer models and experts say is the best path — who are you to question them? Critical thinking is poo-pooed as a waste of time, and inferior to relying on computers and “experts.” (Defer to authority is their message).
……………..
For additional information about this very important issue, please carefully read Appendix I in my Education Report. In that analysis, I examined the attack on the Scientific Method a bit differently. There I responded to the assertion that the new NGSS concoction is BETTER than the Scientific Method. It is absolutely not!
The bottom line is that the attack on the Scientific Method is a proxy fight about our democratic rights and freedoms versus Leftist ideology. Choose where you stand.
If you are concerned here, PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO YOUR CONTACTS!
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
Dr. Leeman Henry, PhD, Univ. of Edinborough reviews the same issue here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAEAWyfuEWY&t=52s. Of course there is the famed study by Dr. Barbara Starwood, MD, out of Johns Hopkins, finding a couple decades ago that almost a quarter million die every year from medical caused death. https://iatrogenics.org/responsibility/72-societalimpact/280-medical-errors-still-the-third-leading-cause-of-death Famed “left the reservation” Pulitzer-nominated reporter Jon Rappoport’s interview with Starfield here https://newswithviews.com/Rappoport/jon100.htm). That was then? Hardly In 2016, Johns Hopkins calculated https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us over 250,000 patients died each year from medical errors, the third leading cause of death and again in July 2022, the National Institutes of Health concluded death from medical errors as high as 440,000 — and possibly even more because of lack of reporting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430763/
Rancourt also discusses the issue of bad medicine in this interview with Matthew Ehret, Why Medicine is the Most Deadly Profession, https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/why-medicine-is-the-most-deadly-profession?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260045&post_id=117066214&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email And even the BMJ, in an article by David B Ross, associate clinical professor of medicine, in his May 15, 2023 article, The decline of science at the FDA has become unmanageable, https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1061 has outlined the dog’s breakfast the somnolent wokesters have turned our science into.
Mercola brings up the issue of Pierre Kory, who trains doctors, and told him that “his experience has been that, at most, only 10% of doctors were capable of non-algorithmic thinking and real problem-solving — which became quite challenging for him because his job was to train the next generation of ICU doctors. Similarly, he found when he ordered consults, around 90% of specialists (irrespective of the specialty) would repeat a standardized algorithm back to him for the patients he had already seen more times than he could count. Conversely, only 10% could actually think about the case and provide valuable insights that assisted Kory in developing a treatment plan for a challenging patient.”
In fact, Mercola reported June 17, 2022, that “according to a 2011 Health Grades report, http://hg-article-center.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/7b/de/dc25d2c94d25ad88c9e1688c9adc/HealthcareConsumerismHospitalQualityReport2011.pdf the incidence rate of medical harm occurring in the U.S. is estimated to be over 40,000 harmful and/or lethal errors daily; in 2014 10.5% of American doctors admitted they’d made a major medical mistake in the last three months; and in 2016, Dr. Marty Makary published a report showing an estimated 250,000 Americans die from medical mistakes each year — about 1 in 10 patients — making it the third leading cause of death, right after cancer and heart disease.”
Starfield herself died of medical error, reported her husband, also a doctor: Her June 2011, death her husband attributed to the adverse effects of the blood thinner Plavix taken in combination with aspirin. However, her death certificate makes no mention of this possibility. In the August 2012 issue of Archives for Internal Medicine2 her husband, Dr. Neil A. Holtzman, writes, in part: "Writing in sorrow and anger, I express up front my potential conflict of interest in interpreting the facts surrounding the death of my wife, Dr. Barbara Starfield ... Because she died while swimming alone, an autopsy was required. The immediate cause of death was 'pool drowning,' but the underlying condition, 'cerebral hemorrhage,' stunned me ...Barbara started taking low-dose aspirin after coronary insufficiency had been diagnosed three years before her death, and clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix) after her right main coronary artery had been stented six months after the diagnosis. She reported to the cardiologist that she bruised more easily while taking clopidogrel and bled longer following minor cuts. She had no personal or family history of bleeding tendency or hypertension. The autopsy findings and the official lack of feedback prompted me to call attention to deficiencies in medical care and clinical research in the United States reified by Barbara's death and how the deficiencies can be rectified. Ironically, Barbara had written about all of them."
Very good: does a section of the right also do this?