The left likes to describe the right as being "anti science". But what I have noticed is that in many/most cases, when they say "anti science", what they really mean is "anti authority". (thread).
It doesn't matter how decorated & qualified a scientist is; how well qualified they are to comment; and how compelling the substantive scientific arguments made are, if the conclusions go against the proclamations of a authoritative body, they will be deemed "anti science".
Where the left has a point is that in many cases, the consensus is right, and the fringe views of dissenting thinkers might be consistent with a less rigorous process; dubious incentives; or outright conspiracy mongering. However...
Where the left is often wrong is they overlook that institutional/authoritative bodies often have misaligned incentives and are prone to politicization and corruption. Appointments are often political, & the orgs are run by ppl that politiked their way into leadership positions.
In addition, institutions are captured by their employees and usually run for their own benefit- job and benefit perpetuation/inflation. Proclamations are therefore usually driven first and foremost by what is considered politically acceptable and less likely to be controversial.
Consequently, the proclamations of authoritative bodies are - much more often than most people realize - susceptible to bias/politicization and are often wrong.
Conflating "science" with "authority" is therefore a dangerous & damaging tendency, and it's creating many problems.
Conflating "science" with "authority" is therefore a dangerous & damaging tendency, and it's creating many problems.
That does not mean that any dissenting view is substantive. Much is quackery. But their ought to be a healthy degree of skepticism about authoritative proclamations, and a willingness to listen to contrary arguments from credible dissidents with relevant qualifications/expertise.
Too seldom is that allowed to happen. The world is dangerously quick to condemn such people are peddlers of misinformation for violating authoritative consensus, and put them in the same category as quacks no matter how illustrious their track record & cogency of their arguments.
This is a trend I have warned about many times in the past - i.e. that the effort to suppress "misinformation" would lead to contrary voices being silenced, no matter how informed, because people would always default to authoritative proclamations as the determinate of truth.
Without a check on institutionalized corruption/politicization/bias from free thinkers, our society will continue to drift into ever more extreme ideological bubbles decoupled from empirical evidence, w increasingly poor decision making & negative consequences for human welfare.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
