Real Science vs. Political Science: Truth or Consequences

John Droz talks about real science versus the political science we're using today to develop policies as if they represented truth.

Guest Post from John Droz, Jr. at Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues.

I was going to write about this before, but Life repeatedly intervened.

A while back I saw this thoughtful commentary about the troubling Mann v Steyn trial, posted by a person who does not identify as right-leaning: Helping Mann be a Mensch: Have Scientific Institutions (And the Rest of Us) Let Him Down?

The author made some fine points, like: scientists should be able to have civilized discussions with people who disagree with them. That said, her good commentary missed two key facts about what is currently societally going on.

Real Science is all about better understanding the truths of our existence.

The point she did not make is that people like Mann have migrated from Real Science to Political Science — which instead is all about making policies.

When scientists disagree about Truths, they can go back and look at what the evidence says. Whoever makes the stronger evidentiary argument wins…

On the other hand, when scientists disagree about Policies, the proponents’ response is quite different: appeal to authority (consensus, etc.). The evidence (aka Truth) is a minor player when it comes to political Policies.

This situation is made even worse by the profound changes in our value system. Through the last several centuries we relied on a Judeo-Christian set of moral standards (like the Ten Commandments). That reinforced the time-honored tradition of scientists constructively debating with other scientists about the evidence.

Maybe one scientist concluded that the other missed the point. Maybe one thought the other was misinformed. In any case, they both tried to come up with stronger, honest evidence — or some ally who could present the evidence in a better way.

No one was ever sued about such disagreements!

However, Relativism has simultaneously blossomed (not accidentally!) along with the switch from Real Science to political science. This philosophy states that there is no such thing as Truth (only relative, personal truths). These new value standards include such problematic memes as the end justifies the means.

That is exactly how most climate alarmists act: scorched earth policy against anyone who has the temerity to question their political policies to "save the world from pending extinction." Since they have contrived a cataclysmic “end,” that grants them the “right” to justify almost anything, including blatant lies.

As I was wrapping up my commentary, I happened to see this:

Good stuff! Hopefully, it should be clear that there are exceptionally adverse consequences when we allow Relativism to replace Judeo-Christian standards, and political science to replace Real Science.

#Droz #Relativism #CriticalThinking #PoliticalScience #Science #Truth #Policies #ClimateAlarmism