Settled science? Let’s settle the argument

"Science" in the phrase "science is settled" is a misuse of the word.  Science is a methodology – it is not a theory, nor is it a conclusion or result.  Example: It would be an accurate statement to say the following: "many scientists agree that industrialized human culture is causing changes in climate" – this statement, although accurate, is not generally conclusive with regard to the question about human causation of climatic change.

The leftists are masterful at manipulating language in order to seem morally superior, and to quell any potential arguments against their narratives – "climate change" being one of their favorites.  In reading the above statement, anyone who is predisposed to think human beings (especially Western industrialized human culture) are intrinsically harmful to the Earth would take that statement to be conclusive – to believe in a truly nonsensical way that "science is settled" on the matter.

The primary explanation for how and why the leftists are successful at manipulating massive numbers of people is that a very small percentage of the population is inclined to use critical thinking (logic) when presented with a narrative that "sounds" high-minded and of a higher level of morality.

There are myriad explanations for why so many people become irrevocably attached to the false narrative of "anthropomorphic causation of climate change."  Some are lazy; others simply have a very low threshold for logical thinking and simply want to be told how and what to think.  Either way, it adds up to a condition known as "willful ignorance."  Most folks want to think of themselves as intelligent and moral souls and measure their own sense of self-worth against other people in a very generalized way.  The fact of human sentience means we all have a constantly flowing internal dialogue.  We are always and forever measuring, comparing, questioning, doubting, compensating, excusing, reinforcing, fearing, regretting, hoping, dreaming, but most of all searching for conclusiveness – an affirmation that we are extraordinary and at least a little bit above the rest of the crowd with our powers of insight, morality, intelligence.

Simply put, wishful thinking is much more of a driving force in our individual lives than we like to believe it is.  Once a person has latched onto an idea that affirms his inflated sense of superiority, he is loath to let it go.  The question then becomes how we change their minds on the matter.  The answer is that we appeal to their sense of self-worth.  Rather than proverbially and literally beating them over the head, we present the facts arrived at with the use of "scientific method" while acknowledging their motivations as being worthy and of great value.

We must become good teachers who have mastered the art of allowing a struggling student to save face – we don't infer ignorance or stupidity while instructing.  We guide them to the logical answers (arrived upon with scientific methodology) and congratulate them for being smart and wise for analyzing the problem correctly in the first place and then being smart enough to arrive at the correct solution.  This requires patience, but most of all it requires us to set aside our own impulses to project and to internalize an inflated sense of superiority.  Not an easy thing to do, but we cannot logically or morally ask of others that which we ourselves are not willing to do.

"Science" in the phrase "science is settled" is a misuse of the word.  Science is a methodology – it is not a theory, nor is it a conclusion or result.  Example: It would be an accurate statement to say the following: "many scientists agree that industrialized human culture is causing changes in climate" – this statement, although accurate, is not generally conclusive with regard to the question about human causation of climatic change.

The leftists are masterful at manipulating language in order to seem morally superior, and to quell any potential arguments against their narratives – "climate change" being one of their favorites.  In reading the above statement, anyone who is predisposed to think human beings (especially Western industrialized human culture) are intrinsically harmful to the Earth would take that statement to be conclusive – to believe in a truly nonsensical way that "science is settled" on the matter.

The primary explanation for how and why the leftists are successful at manipulating massive numbers of people is that a very small percentage of the population is inclined to use critical thinking (logic) when presented with a narrative that "sounds" high-minded and of a higher level of morality.

There are myriad explanations for why so many people become irrevocably attached to the false narrative of "anthropomorphic causation of climate change."  Some are lazy; others simply have a very low threshold for logical thinking and simply want to be told how and what to think.  Either way, it adds up to a condition known as "willful ignorance."  Most folks want to think of themselves as intelligent and moral souls and measure their own sense of self-worth against other people in a very generalized way.  The fact of human sentience means we all have a constantly flowing internal dialogue.  We are always and forever measuring, comparing, questioning, doubting, compensating, excusing, reinforcing, fearing, regretting, hoping, dreaming, but most of all searching for conclusiveness – an affirmation that we are extraordinary and at least a little bit above the rest of the crowd with our powers of insight, morality, intelligence.

Simply put, wishful thinking is much more of a driving force in our individual lives than we like to believe it is.  Once a person has latched onto an idea that affirms his inflated sense of superiority, he is loath to let it go.  The question then becomes how we change their minds on the matter.  The answer is that we appeal to their sense of self-worth.  Rather than proverbially and literally beating them over the head, we present the facts arrived at with the use of "scientific method" while acknowledging their motivations as being worthy and of great value.

We must become good teachers who have mastered the art of allowing a struggling student to save face – we don't infer ignorance or stupidity while instructing.  We guide them to the logical answers (arrived upon with scientific methodology) and congratulate them for being smart and wise for analyzing the problem correctly in the first place and then being smart enough to arrive at the correct solution.  This requires patience, but most of all it requires us to set aside our own impulses to project and to internalize an inflated sense of superiority.  Not an easy thing to do, but we cannot logically or morally ask of others that which we ourselves are not willing to do.

RECENT VIDEOS