Honest Scientist Points Out What Is Wrong About “Follow The Science”

Throughout the pandemic, there are a number of phrases that we have heard time and time again which have stuck in our minds. Phrases like “wear a mask” or “stand six feet apart” or, because people love telling others what to do, “wear your f**king mask”. The phrase “trust the science” or “follow the science” is another one which we have often heard.
 
As I have stated in the past, science has become something of a religion for a certain group of authoritarian people. You are supposed to “trust the science” like one would trust God. You are supposed to “follow the science” like one would follow Jesus. You are supposed to “listen to the experts” like they are all-knowing prophets delivering the gospel to broken people. Scientists have become prophets and science has become a religion of the Left to spread whatever political narrative they wish to spread.
 
Biology details the differences between a man and a woman (as those are the only two possible options)? Heresy! There are a billion and one genders! There is no discernible evidence to suggest that mankind is even close to a primary driver in climate change? Sacrilege! We are killing the planet! We are the virus! There is no evidence that suggests that lockdowns are in any way effective? Bahumbug! Just lock yourselves down forever because there are things out there that can kill people at a rate less than 0.01% for most people!
 
Anything the Left says is “science” is junk science and real scientists like the one I will soon discuss understand this.
 
And, by the way, in case PragerU (who brought in this scientist) gets accused of bringing in a “biased” politically conservative scientist (as if the Left never brings aboard highly biased Leftist scientists), I think you should know that this scientist believes that mankind does at least somewhat contribute to the warming of the planet, so not a particularly conservative opinion, politically speaking.
 
I won’t argue against the scientist here as I have a lot of other articles pointing out how anthropogenic climate change is a communist hoax (to be fair, the guy didn’t necessarily say that mankind was the primary cause of climate change, just that “humans play a role in the warming of the planet” which is a more reasonable stance), so I’ll just get to the PragerU video.
 
Brian Keating is a relatively famous professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego, and who claims that science is his life, but “when I hear someone somberly intone ‘science says’ or ‘follow the science,’ I get very nervous.”
 
“Science doesn’t belong to any ideology. Science is the never-ending search for new knowledge. That’s what science means in Latin, by the way – knowledge. Not wisdom. Not morality. Not social policy. Knowledge. What we do with that knowledge is where wisdom, morality, and social policy enter the picture.”
 
This is generally what I have been saying for years now. The “science” that the Left uses or brings up isn’t actual science. The “science” that says we have less than 12 years before the world is doomed from climate change, or that the planet will become uninhabitable in around 100 years, is a load of crap. None of it is tested and, because they rely on models, they can’t really even be tested to begin with, as Prof. Keating will explain in a moment.
 
Keating continued: “Knowledge, it turns out, isn’t so easy to come by. And sometimes what we think we know for certain (the earth sure does look flat when we’re standing on it) turns out not to be so certain.”
 
“Of course, I trust in basic scientific truths – those things for which there is overwhelming evidence like, say gravity, even that humans play a role in the warming of the planet. But scientists – even the best ones – can get things wrong.”
 
“The brilliant astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle believed the universe existed in a steady state forever and had no beginning. But his view, once held sacrosanct by all astrophysicists, no longer holds. It’s been superseded by the Big Bang theory that the universe had a beginning and is still expanding.”
 
Certainly, it is more observable that the universe had a beginning. I just find it jarring how scientists generally accept the theory of the Big Bang, a giant explosion which brought into existence everything that currently is, and seem to generally ignore what would cause that explosion. After all, an explosion is an effect, and all effects require an antecedent cause. There is no such thing as an uncaused effect. Now, scientists might debate what may have been there before to have caused this, but they don’t seem to come to what is perhaps the most logical conclusion that God was the one to have created that Big Bang.
 
For crying out loud, the Bible literally begins with: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light,” – Genesis 1:1-3.
 
Literally the third verse found in the entire Bible could be interpreted as describing the Big Bang event.
 
But in any case, Keating continued:
 
“In the 20th century, some of the most respected scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winners believed in eugenics – the reprehensible idea that the human race could be improved by selective breeding. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Rockefeller Foundation supported it. By the middle of the century, it had been thoroughly rejected as quackery. No reputable scientist would have anything to do with this idea.”
 
“So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone – be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist – employs the phrase ‘science says’ means whatever they’re saying is right. It might be right. But it might also be wrong. And if it’s wrong, it won’t necessarily be a bunch of scientists who say it’s wrong. It might be one guy.”
 
“Ask Einstein. One hundred scientists wrote a book explaining why his theory of relativity was wrong. He quipped, ‘If I were wrong, then one would’ve been enough.’”
 
And in the end, Einstein’s theory of relativity was proven right by an expedition led by Arthur Eddington to the island of Principe off the coast of Equatorial Guinea in West Africa, where a full solar eclipse was scheduled to take place on May 29, 1919.
 
100 German scientists wrote an entire book about how Einstein was wrong about his theory, and those 100 were proven wrong themselves following that expedition.
 
So let no one tell you that there is “scientific consensus” regarding anything, from anthropogenic climate change to anything else the Left claims. “Scientific consensus” means squat. All scientists in the world, past, present and future, could say that the sky was red and write thousands upon thousands of papers talking about how it’s definitely red, but their own observations and beliefs, even if agreed upon in a consensus, doesn’t alter reality. The sky is blue, not red.
 
It doesn’t matter how many scientists the Left brings on to try and “prove” that their agenda-driven junk “science” is correct. Consensus by definition isn’t science.
 
At any rate, Keating eventually brought up a quote from Richard Feynman, one of the most eminent physicists of the 20th century, who said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts…” This doesn’t necessarily mean that the experts are wrong, but it does mean that any good scientist will have some amount of skepticism in their own findings.
 
There is no such thing as “case closed” in science. Science means the search of new knowledge, and new knowledge is always obtained. Scientists used to think the earth was flat. Then, new knowledge was obtained and we observed that it was round. Scientists used to think the earth was the center of the universe. Then, new knowledge was obtained that the earth wasn’t even the center of the solar system. Scientists used to think, after proving that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, that the sun was the center of the universe. That, too, was disproven with new knowledge, the discovery of our Milky Way galaxy, and what we have come to know about the universe itself.
 
Heck, over the past decade, scientists have found that we know astronomically little about what makes up the universe. Only 4% of the universe is made up of known forms of matter and energy, the rest being classified as “dark matter” or “dark energy.”
 
Good scientists will have a healthy level of skepticism in their own theories and findings. Bad scientists proclaim theories that cannot be falsified, or proven wrong. Keating explains that this is one reason as to why we can’t put too much faith in models (such as models that say how many people will die of the Chinese coronavirus if nothing is done, or that say that the planet will become uninhabitable in a century). Such models, which are attempts to predict the future, can’t be tested precisely because the future that they predict has yet to happen.
 
If I said “in 10 minutes, I will grow a second butt”, that can’t be tested at all because those ten minutes have yet to occur (though the chances of that happening are so astronomically low as to be virtually impossible). Now take that prediction and have me exclaiming that people have to do something drastic and irrational like giving up their freedoms, and you have what the Left does with climate change. Well, to be fair, the dynamic climate is more observable than my chances of growing a second butt, but it’s not too dissimilar to what the Left does.
 
They make a wild, unprovable and untestable “scientific” proclamation and follow it up with a demand from people (usually people outside the 1%) that they make great sacrifices “for the sake of the planet.”
 
In any case, there is more to this video than what I have shared, so I suggest you check it out for yourself (below). It is a good refutation of the insane and irrational demand that we “follow the science” as though science was God and as though the people who bring up this “science” are omniscient beings who are entirely infallible. Scientists are people, after all, and people are flawed. People err, make mistakes, and draw incorrect conclusions. More importantly, people can be corrupt, and use unscientific garbage and sell it as scientific like snake oil salesmen.
 
Science is the search for knowledge, and that knowledge is what we learn from the reality that God has created. Scientists don’t have to believe in God to study in their fields, but it is no coincidence that their fields exist in conjunction to God. They exist BECAUSE of God, and they are so observable.
 
Take genetics, DNA, proteins, cells, etc. and try to tell me that there isn’t intelligent design behind those things. Chance couldn’t have caused them because chance is not something that has power, but rather, is the mathematical calculation of probability. Everything around us can’t have come from nowhere or from nothing, because ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
 
Science is about understanding the creation that God has built. It’s not about advancing an ideology, certainly not an ideology that refutes scientific truths like biological sex for the purposes of political agendas.
 
Good scientists understand this. Bad and fake scientists – corrupt scientists – do not.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”