Let’s face it – there are few things more annoying than Science. We conservatives need to take a firm stand against Science in all its forms. In fact, Science sucks.
But let’s not confuse “Science” with “science.” The regular, boring, old lower-case “science” has to do with applying the scientific method
to observed phenomena in order to expand our knowledge of the universe. It requires a rigorous analysis of empirical evidence and the testing of hypotheses without preconceived, concrete, politicized notions of what the truth must be. In contrast, “Science” is a ration of pseudo-plausible horseshit asserted by liberals who try to occupy the intellectual high ground and then shut you up by basically saying you are too dumb to express an opinion.
[youtube 2IlHgbOWj4o nolink]
Liberal "Science" is a bludgeon that superficially looks like what we understand to be science, but bears no more than a casual relationship to it. It is a way of trying to end the debate before it begins – or, more precisely, before you
begin. That leaves the liberals’ nonsense as the first and last word on the subject. And then they win.
It’s a nice trick – if you let them get away with it. So don’t.
Call them Scientistians – liberal doofs who try to wrap themselves in the white lab coat of objective reason for only as long as it supports their particular pinko policy prescription du jour
Just remember that when a Scientistian deploys “Science” it’s a way not just to blind you to the truth but to render you mute. When a liberal says that he is on the side of “Science,” it is really a desperate ploy to keep your voice from being heard – while simultaneously stroking the egos of fellow liberals by reinforcing the assumption that they are smarter, better educated and generally less likely to sit on the porch strummin’ a banjo than us conservatives, what with our hatred of fancy book learnin’ and such.
We’ve been hearing a lot about Science lately in the context of the GOP nomination. There’s the now-viral footage of some creepy lib mom pushing her poor kid into questioning Rick Perry about evolution
that’s caused the Scientistians no end of consternation. It doesn’t matter that his religious beliefs would have absolutely zero impact on how he would govern our Nation – this isn’t about science. It’s about cultural affinity. To liberals, Perry is Other, and these guardians of tolerance must destroy all who are not like them in every way.
Beliefs about evolution simply make no difference when it comes to being the president. Other beliefs do matter – for example, right now, I’d just be happy for a president who believes in capitalism.
It’s interesting that Scientistians extrapolate from Perry’s failure to embrace Science on the narrow subject of evolution to be a rejection of all
science. That must be news to Perry, who flew Air Force planes. We can only assume he must have believed that his C-130 was carried aloft on the wings of angels.
We can also assume that the high-tech companies flooding into the Lone Star State from Scientistian strongholds like California and New York have somehow made peace with the fact that its governor has beliefs that some of them presumably do not precisely share. Imagine that – all sorts of diverse people holding diverse views and subscribing to diverse religious beliefs, all living in one diverse place. Didn’t liberals used to have a word for that concept? And didn’t they once like it?
The Scientistians also get into a high dudgeon over the global warming scan. Of course, by labeling the global warming scam the “global warming scam,” I have set myself outside the Scientistian community forever, proving myself beyond all doubt an ignorant, uneducated clown who probably wonders how magnets work
Oh, wait, it’s not only knuckle-dragging right-wingers who refuse to kneel at the pagan altar of the Great God Global Warming. Dr. Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, just resigned from the American Physical Society (APS)
. It seems the APS’s official position is that "the evidence is inconvertible." Dr. Giaever’s resignation email took exception:
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? ... The claim ... is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.
Ouch. The machinations of politicized Scientistians in supporting the global warming scam demosntrate that Science and science are such distant relations that if one was a girl and the other Jerry Lee Lewis, there’d be no romantic chemistry.
Now, in dealing with a Scientistian, remember your job is not to change his mind. You want to either support our side
and/or gather the wavering
to our cause. Don’t waste time trying to school a Scientistian – he can’t be talked out of his faith with things like “reason” and “facts” and “evidence.”
So make them look like fools. One fun thing to do with the global warming nimrods is to ask them what piece of evidence, if true, would negate their belief in the global warming scam. Step back, because the tap dancing will begin.
Now, if you want to, say, negate Newton’s Third Law
, all you have to do is show that for a certain action there is not an equal and opposite reaction. Simple. That would disprove it. Now for global warming, if the scientific method applied, you could falsify the hypothesis by offering some sort of evidence that shows global warming is not occurring. You know, like the fact that global warming is not occurring.
Well, that’s not a problem for Scientistians – you just make “global warming” into “climate change” and – voila! – everything
supports your hypothesis! Hotter? Climate change! Colder? Climate change? More hurricanes? Climate change! Fewer hurricanes? Climate change! Obama’s utter failure to turn around the economy? Climate change, along with tsunamis, the Arab Spring and the Tea Party.
So, when you point out the inconvenient truth that something that can't be falsified can't be scientific, watch for the pivot to “But 99.99999999% of scientists believe in climate change!” Of course, as badass conservative Derek Hunter
of the Daily Caller
and Big Government
has asked, since when is science subject to a majority vote?
Let's leave Dr. Giaever aside for a moment. What’s funny is that I
believe in climate change. You
believe in climate change. The climate changes all the time, sometimes warmer, sometimes colder – hell, the Scientistians were howling about the coming Ice Age back in the 70s – although over recent times it is stable. But even changes over time would not compel the conclusion that it’s a problem, much less that it’s a problem that requires us to spend trillions and hand over huge chunks of our national sovereignty and personal autonomy to a bunch of transnational liberal fascist busybodies who want to jet around the globe telling me I have to pedal a bike to work like a common hippie or ride on some government bus with derelicts, losers and other Democrat constituents instead of cruising there in the comfort of my gas guzzling sedan.
We’re supposed to become serfs to an international leftwing climate dictatorship based on weather predictions for about five decades from now when meteorologists can’t tell you with any certainty greater than you’d get from flipping a coin whether it’ll be raining a week from today. Pass.
Note carefully the subtle intermixing of phenomena and policy prescription in the presentation of the global warming scam. The Scientistian just assumes that any change in the climate implies the immediate acquiescence of all right-thinking individuals to the greatest power grab in the history of liberalism. I suspect a lot less than 99.99999999% of scientists would agree that climate change means Al Gore and his climate change cronies can keep living in castles and traveling in caravans of SUVs while the rest of us shiver in “green” tenements eating locally-sourced radishes.
We’re supposed to buy that the Science is peer-reviewed, so it’s infallible. Peer-reviewed Scientific journals are certainly free to publish any challenge to any idea that challenges the Scientistian position. In that way, they can ensure a wide range of views that are all exactly the same. Of course, all dissenters must be suppressed
in the name of Science.
You see, when it’s inconvenient, a Scientistian will show the same level of loyalty to the scientific method as Jon Huntsman does to the Republican Party
Let’s get real. Scientistians are just liberal fascists in lab coats who don’t care about science any more than they care about any of the other causes liberals embrace. Women’s rights, civil rights, free speech – liberals are all for them right until it’s more useful to be against them. The same is true of science. The liberals have about as much devotion to real science as Charlie Sheen does to his coterie of hookers. They use it, and when they’re done they leave a few bucks on the nightstand and show it the door.
Liberal Science is simply another tiresome pose by the moral illiterates of the left. It’s a gambit that is effective, but only if you let it be. These people aren’t smarter than you, and they’re certainly not wiser. Liberals are people who believe socialism can succeed and that a great way to fix the economy is to pay people not to work. The only way these clowns can teach us conservatives anything is by serving as a cautionary example. So liberals, you can take your Science and shove it.