If you’ve made it all the way through this category, you have my thanks and congratulations! I hope I have made it clear that science is incredibly useful and beautiful. Its propositions, however, are inherently provisional and uncertain. Beware of the errors I laid out in dealing with science:
- When statements are made with certainty, not (specified) confidence, that’s scientism, not science.
- When models are relied on (especially when they support ruling-class-approved narratives) without appropriate model assessment, that’s scientism, not science.
- When scientific research is politicized, and ruling-class-inconvenient results are suppressed, and the scientists ostracized and demonized, that’s scientism, not science.
- When philosophical materialism is asserted to be critical for scientific progress, and the work of non-materialist scientists is suppressed or deprecated on that basis, that’s scientism, not science.
I cannot urge strongly enough that the general public become a much more sophisticated consumer of scientific evidence. This evidence can (and should) be a huge help in public policy, but only if we, the public, can assess scientific evidence and correctly separate it from groupthink and narrative lockstep. It would be wonderful if we could rely on our governing class (now our “ruling class”) to be expert enough and credible enough to do that for us, but those days, sadly, are gone.
I suspect strongly that the citizens of USA version 2 will need to inoculate themselves against “scientism” as a firewall against bureaucratic takeover.
Postscript: after writing this category, I came across this Victor Davis Hanson essay hitting many of the same notes, except, you know, written better – enjoy!