We Are The Scientists Against A Fascist Government
The Establishment
501

Fear Based Science and the Lack of Objective Scientific Method

Science is a method of attempting to validate the truth based on hypothesis, testing, and reproducibility. REPRODUCIBLE. Science is not a conversation, although a conversation can lead to a methods of proof and hypothesis. A true scientist evangelizes the concept, “As yet there is no disproof of our hypothesis that such and such is the case.” When scientists enter the political arena with statements of fact that are a representation of the ideal they believe in they are using the power of belief in science to sway public opinion much the same as priests traveling the world in the 1700s. Here is a statement made in the article We Are The Scientists Against A Fascist Government by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Sarah Tuttle, and Joseph Osmundson:

As we face threats to humanity ranging from continued violations of Native American sovereignty and anti-Black violence, to anti-refugee policies and the denial of global warming — a phenomenon that promises to displace more and more people — now is the time for scientists to ask:
What is our moral duty as scientists?

This quote is characterized by the prefix anti and the word denial. There is no doubt that policies have been put in place to limit entry from countries that are deemed a threat. This has been stated as an anti-refugee policy which is an interpretation of the effect of the policy. There is no doubt that in terms of execution this is a fumble. Surely it would have been better to quietly reinforce methods that put in place a higher level of scrutiny on those that appeared to pose a threat to our safety. More to the point, is the concept promoted in the article that it is our nations moral imperative to secure the rights of refugees, fund the war against global warming, and protect another nations sovereignty and as such every citizen’s responsibility to fund and manage the problems of the world, both economic and moral. I agree with the notion that we should all help when we can, which is distinctly different than must help because some believe it is our moral imperative ignoring the prerogative to spend the hours of our lives in those pursuits we believe in.

This is actually the nugget that rings most sour in the mouths of believers in our constitutional rights; the right to life, liberty and happiness. These rights do not extend beyond our border for a very good reason, we do not have economic, political, or moral means to impose our belief in what substantiates a right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. If we impose upon every American the responsibility of global peace we starve their families and steal their liberty.

There is a tremendous difference between the belief that there are more important intransigent problems in the United States than the impact of global warming. This is regardless of the cause of global warming. Surely, everyone can see that to substantially impact global warming requires funding and awareness. Funding is part of an economic cycle and more money means more power to change global warming. Creating a robust economy before attacking global warming will improve our chances of being successful. There is something much more substantial argument than the economic argument against global warming and it is the argument concerning what will be the effect of global warming. The power of our computer models to estimate the future of such a complex system are limited and easily questioned. To assume that global warming, sea level changes, weather pattern changes, etc. will devastate the world’s economies is a huge stretch of the scientific method and all scientists claiming they have a handle on the future effects on economies and redistribution of rainfall should be sent back to college for a refresher course in simulation and it’s relevance.

In conclusion, it is fascism with another face that dictates the redistribution of income to fight the war you believe in. In fact, the premise of America is that you have the right to the hours in your life and the money you make and as such can decide where you spend it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.