Tools: "Science Deniers"

Dear Josiah, 15 February 2024

Do not be afraid to be a “Science Denier.” Science has, from the very beginning in classical times until now, only been advanced by “Deniers.”

What?

Scientific knowledge is akin to theological or philosophical disciplines. These are often hi-jacked to advance quite different ideological agendas.

Start with a grand idea, or theory, which is accepted as true in order to provide a “starting place” for study, thought, and experimentation. Unfortunately, the originator of the theory gradually becomes a pre-eminent authority; to challenge is to be a heretic. Shunned. Until enough evidence accumulates among independent scholars, to topple it (by factual evidence). Kuhn [1] calls these theories “paradigms.”

Theories persist because they can have tremendous explanatory power. As their power wanes, they must be “embroidered” to fit the evidence.

To disrespect the reigning paradigm is to be excommunicated from the academy. In modern terms, to be denied tenure, denied publication, scorned.

Adherents’ careers and reputations are dependent on the paradigm. Thus they must attack evidence which would topple it. When new facts emerge which challenge the paradigm, it must be enhanced with new ideas, not often founded in reality, which would explain the troublesome facts which are contrary to the original.

Sorry for the complexity here. A concrete example or two will help; let’s start with geo-centricity versus helio-centricity.

Many ancients were fully aware that the earth is in orbit around the sun. Arthur Koestler (yes, the “Darkness at Noon” Koestler) wrote a wonderful account of the Copernican Revolution. [2] Because Aristotle was so esteemed as the “Father of Science,” it took astronomy nearly two millenia to challenge his assertion that the earth was immovable, and all the heavens revolved around it. Aristotle accepted Plato’s assertion that the sun, the moon, and the planets had perfectly circular orbits; they were embedded in concentric crystal spheres with the earth at the center.

Of course, observation refuted the circularity of celestial orbits. But Plato’s authority so dictated. By adding “orbits within orbits” the divergence of observation from theory could be greatly diminished. (But not entirely so! Nagging incongruities persisted)

A morally coward Copernicus publicly accepted the 48 epicycles required to make the 7 observed orbits fit the paradigm, despite having the proof of Tycho Brahe’s precise observations and the benefit of Kepler as an assistant.

But the ideology of Plato and his pupil Aristotle held back truth for 1500 years.

Ideology is currently responsible for suppressing dissenting data in several academic disciplines. Among these are Climate, Evolution, and Economics. Briefly:

The scientists behind the 1st IPCC report found the complexities of the subject could not be overcome sufficiently to determine the actual effects of CO2, but the political ideologues who re-wrote the executive summary disregarded the uncertainties and unambiguously declared CO2 the primary factor in global warming.

Darwin, theorizing that evolution was caused by the beneficial consequences of random mutations, stated that his theory would be disproved if the fossil record failed to provide evidence of transitions to more advanced organisms. Lamentably for him, the fossil record shows long periods of stasis, punctuated by abrupt extinctions, followed by an emergence of many new life forms.

Economics has several “iron-clad” premises: (1) You will get more of what you subsidize, (2) you will get less of what you Tax, and (3) Price controls create shortages. Yet, public policy continues to ignore the inevitable consequences.

Future letters will explore all of these topics in greater detail. I know you just can’t wait, but be patient...

Loving you, Jo

Grampa Jeff