More climategate

I need to keep writing on this, because I need to keep thinking about it.  I'm beginning to see why this is so huge.  Allow me to quote Mr Moldbug again and then try to summarize his post:

You'll note that Professor Hanson is saying the same thing as me – with only three differences.

One: this doesn't change his opinion of global warming. Nor does it change mine. But he started out believing in it! Somehow, the actual facts of the matter are too unimportant to engage his attention. Does this inspire you to engage Professor Hanson to help overcome your biases?

Two: he expresses no shame whatsoever at being a member of this basically criminal endeavor. Indeed, if he has ever before bothered to inform his readers of the nature of his Mafia oath, I missed the post. How kind of him, to help his readers overcome their bias! You know, the one toward unconditionally trusting the products of Science – just on account of the name, it seems.

His argument is that the New Deal instituted government by University.  University attained this high status because of the historical effectiveness of science (note the lower case, by which I refer to an unbiased scientific process using the classical scientific method).  As the University took over governing, science (which still means something in scientific fields) was replaced by Science.  The latter has now become a sham process – I think Mr Moldbug would not object if I say that this process of moving from science to Science was significantly accelerated in the '60s.

As a person born in the early '80s, I am – of course – a believer in science.  But if what I thought of as science has really been so polluted, then it's not clear to me where Truth comes from.  I'm an atheist, so it cannot be revealed.  Perhaps the void and uncertainty that I am now feeling is what the early atheists felt.  Our god (science) is a sham god (Science).

If Mr Moldbug is even partly correct – and I don't see how he's not – then Professor Hanson's comments (as well as those of his orange-line-libertarian fellows) are nothing short of depraved.  His opinions are clearly, ludicrously biased (making a mockery of his website).  After all what is bias, if it's not the thing that makes you maintain the same belief structure even after you find out that the process that originally led you to that belief structure is a sham process?  Not only does he refuse to even consider changing his mind, but he defends the admittedly fraudulent process.

Enjoy your weekend.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: