Pro- or anti-science?
You sometimes say things expressing disappointment in science, in your reports on the coronavirus. I don’t think this is what you mean to say, and think it’s very important to make a clearer distinction with what you mean by that.
While the politicization of science is surely, in my opinion too, problematic, some people do not understand the difference between science and that which purports to be science. I don’t think you need to hear this, but to put it crystal clear: the scientific method, whereby rigor and care is programmed into reliable information, is not the problem! The problem is the abuse of platforms from which scientific clout is trusted to disseminate.
You do come down clearly on the side of science, from my perspective, but you also have the eyes and ears of a significant amount of people, many of whom (not all!) are likely to amplify what you say without thinking about it critically. Sometimes just hearing something like “I don’t trust science” once is enough to send them on a bad contagious journey.
So yeah, this is not a philosophical counterpoint so much as a PR one.
to put it crystal clear: the scientific method, whereby rigor and care is programmed into reliable information, is not the problem! The problem is the abuse of platforms from which scientific clout is trusted to disseminate.
While I agree maybe 90% with that idea, the scientific method has its inherent problems as well. For example, there is the assumption, as Terence McKenna most eloquently observed, that there is, and can be, “restoration of initial conditions” for experiments — with the corollary that science is the study of phenomena so crude that they are (or are perceived/assumed to be) time-invariant.
And sadly the idea that “rigor and care is programmed into reliable information” and is the predominant factor directing scientific progress is far from the case. It’s more about funding, careers, and pre-existing dogmas/narratives.
See, above all, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s phenomenal The Science Delusion (called Science Set Free in the US) for a solid foundational basis for this type of critique.
“The science delusion is the belief that we already understand the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. This is a belief system very prevalent among scientists, even moreso among devotees of science — or devotees of scientism.” — Rupert Sheldrake
Watch for example this talk:
(or any of these shorter ones)
The elevation of “science” to the (undeserved) status of arbiter of truth, as the only epistemological tool useful to determine “true” statements, and a sufficient ontological tool to understand reality, particularly in the abscence of the use of hyperdimensional tools such as DMT, which, provided a sufficiently high dose, invariably shatters the physicalist’s world-image and is readily available at any time to a seeker with 15 minutes of spare time, is the underlying theme and dogma of the second-most extended religion on this planet: scientism.
This foundationally Aristotelian, but more recently Cartesian, perception of reality that permeates the West, boasts merely a few hundred years of history, and while great toys have been built, it also enables the enslavement agenda to take on a technocratic character more difficult to attenuate or divert/direct towards more liberating/involutionary ends.
The greatest irony is that we already discovered that physicalism is a dead end… a long time ago.
“Naïve empiricism worked well enough, until the discoveries of quantum physics seventy or eighty years ago [almost 90 now] revealed the hideous secret that the bedrock of reality is a funhouse basement!” — Terence McKenna
So if one is to be truly “pro-science”, one has to be aware of the extreme corruption occurring within the realms of science. For some people, that kind of revelation is happening only just now, with e.g. the supression of HCQ and vitamin D.