We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Rees and the Royal Society are seeking ever greater roles for science in the political sphere. Politicians, who are suffering from a historic inability to define their purpose, take the authority this lends them with ever more enthusiasm. But this has resulted in a qualitative shift in the character of science. Where once it provided the means to liberate human potential, it now exists to regulate it. Instead of ‘speaking truth to power’, science increasingly speaks official truth for official power. The result is bad politics and bad science.
– Ben Pile of Climate Resistance asks What’s Next for the Royal Society?, the above quote being his concluding paragraph. Linked to by Bishop Hill. Suggested by Michael Jennings, who is on his travels and couldn’t post it himself.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Science is a philosophy. Those who wish to control others will bend any and all philosophies to their own ends. It is not a coincidence that Napoleon was a great supporter of science and the newly conquered territories soon had brigades of scientists.
Science once had a dignity and standing all its own: a sense of dedicated pursuit of insights and frank sharing of errors and criticisms as well as of data. The outrageous promotion of a pretty thin hypothesis about CO2 driving climate, and its vigorous adoption by those who saw advantage in it, has led to a huge amount of damage. The Royal Society made a complete idiot of itself. The Met Office turned into a pantomime run by a WWF fanatic, building on the wishful thinking of a religion-obsessed director intent on revelations of one kind or another. The UN was in its element of superficial posturing, and geographers and climate programmers here and there (mainly UK and USA) saw a massive opportunity for elevation beyond their wildest dreams. A house of cards, but one sufficient to lead to the lunacy of the UK climate legislation. Meanwhile every single substantial, non-trivial, verifiable forecast of the computer models has been contradicted by observations. So, flaky theory, predictions refuted or unverifiable, and a lot of hot air from such as May at the Royal Society. Shameful business. A great deal of harm has been caused worldwide.
So, scientists are rivals with clerics for government! I suppose we saw where that leads with ‘scientific’ communism! I suppose what you need is a Secular Society for Science, with no government funding.
Actually, it was Rob Fisher who suggested it by e-mail to me. I forwarded the email to Brian, for the above mentioned reasons
Yes, its easier to blind people with science than with history.
The latter has to fade a bit before it can re-written.
A lab coat can grant tremendous authority.
“So, scientists are rivals with clerics for government”
Nothing new here. Religion has always got into bed with the civil powers, both sides propping each other up and justifying each others’ actions.
History is replete with such stories; what’s new is the transformation of science – or more accurately the AGW nonsense – into a religion. It may be dragging the rest of science down with it.
Time for a new Reformation.
As for the Royal Society, how about they go back to their original “mission statement” – Nullius in Verba.
I thought the quote could be applied to more than just AGW science, thinking how health research so often ends up as legislation. But perhaps Andrew Duffin is right and this is nothing new. (So few things are in politics, it seems.)
According to the article, Bob May decided the motto meant “respect the facts” instead of “on the words of no one”.
I also liked this bit:
The article also suggests that the Royal Society (and greenies in general?) might regroup and start complaining that the Real Problem is too much population. RS’s call for evidence, with questions like, “What are the best (or worst) examples of how policy has been effective in managing population changes?”, is sinister.
Isn’t science is about setting out specific outcomes; encouraging group assessment; exploring possibilites; and commiting to action?
Is this the same with politics? Are politicans perceived to be the facilitators, or the persons who command the facts? Maybe their is an overlap – remember the Venn diagrams?
What is encouragement though, without any commitment to action?
“Isn’t science is about setting out specific outcomes; encouraging group assessment; exploring possibilites; and commiting to action?”
WTF? But for the succeeding sentences I would have thought this was simply sarcasm. With them I’m unsure. Are you serious?
So now the physical scientists (or rather a nasty politically connected group of them) think their job is to control people.
In short they think “The New Atlantis” by Francis Bacon was a good road.
Perhaps they should be remined that Francis Bacon was as hostile to scientific freedom as he was to all other freedom from state control.
For examble Francis Bacon wanted to forbid teaching of the theory that the Earth went round the Sun.
“But Francis Bacon thought up the experimental method”.
Actually he did not – various Greeks wrote (and worked) on this matter.
He was not even the first man called “Bacon” to stress the experiment and observation in the natural sciences (or to speculate about practical technological applications).
Roger Bacon had done all this (and a lot more) – centuries before.