They've Ruined Science for the Rest of Us

The only thing you can trust them to do is screw it up

If there’s one thing we’ve heard a lot about recently, it’s “science.” Science has become the new measure by which everything in the post-modern West is judged and this has especially been the case over the last couple of years. It’s become a fetish for millions of midwits who don’t even know what it actually is. Yet, what we’re really seeing is the replacement of science with SCIENCE! (midwits don’t understand the difference but I’m sure the discerning reader does), something which is going to continue to lead to terrible public policymaking, as well as an overall destruction of science’s potential for good in our society when properly used.

Keep in mind, I’m generally friendly towards science. In fact, until a couple of years ago I was a scientist in Big Pharma, something which I voluntarily left after two decades only because of a radical change in life direction. I find several branches of science (mostly relating to chemistry and physics) to be extremely interesting, so I still try to keep up with my reading in these areas. That why, as a scientist, I have become so disgusted with the state of “science” in our society today.

It’s obvious that science is no longer really about science. By this I mean that science no longer matches the “textbook” definition that most of us probably still subconsciously expect from it - that of a dispassionate use of a standard procedure called “the scientific method” to systematically investigate natural phenomena, eliminate spurious theories, and move toward a better comprehension of physical reality. Understand, however, that this is not really what happens anymore, at least in any area that involves public policymaking or any question of how to spend taxpayer monies or exercise governing powers.

I’ll be frank, “science” has been a public policy excuse for decades. In our increasingly secularised society, the new moral compass for the nation has become the technocratic expert, whose attributed expertise is used to drive public debate and legislative appropriations in the direction of the highest bidder. This comes into play in areas as diverse from climate change to the ever-changing nature of the “nutrition pyramid” that usually ends up touting soy and carbs. The problem is that when science is corporately funded or subject to the needs of governing powers, it ceases to really be empirical or independent.

One good example of this is how modern medicine has managed to almost completely delegitimise natural remedies and other “non-Big Pharma” interventions. In fact, some of you reading this now might be rolling your eyes because you’ve been memed into thinking that I’m one of those “Natural News weirdos.” I’m not, but I do recognise that there are strong financial incentives for many to dismiss long-used and widely available natural treatments in favour of more profitable pharmacorporate routes. Yet, our ancestors weren’t stupid, after all. We’ve always had observation - that’s how traditional remedies became traditional in the first place. So there’s always been an element of empiricism included, even if it didn’t involve corporately funded “peer review.” The problem is that Pfizer doesn’t make billions off of essential oils that people used 500 years ago when their thyroid was acting up.

And therein lies one of the key issues involved in the transition from science to SCIENCE! which is that of the peer review process. In theory, peer review is supposed to work to weed out theories and conclusions that are bad or just plain nonsensical. It’s intended to serve a quality control function in the process of bring scientific knowledge into general acceptance. Unfortunately, in recent decades it hasn’t done a very good job at this as the “replication crisis” in science attests.

The modern peer review process instead acts as a way to keep supposed empiricism locked away as the realm of a very small priesthood. This works to make science endogenous and closed to outsiders (who do you think you are to question The Science you uneducated pleb??). In practice it is no longer about preserving quality in the scientific process so much as it is ensuring conformity to whatever politically determined position needs to be buttressed. As you might expect, this doesn’t do a very good job of ensuring the quality or reproducibility of the science involved.

Above I used the word “priesthood” and that was a deliberate choice. Our science-which-isn’t-really-science has become an ideological semaphore used by midwits to signal conformity to Regime party line on science-related questions. If you “believe in science,” this means you’re Smart and Progressive; you’re not like one of those dumb hillbilly Trumpsters who hate and fear science.

But the problem is that if you “believe in” science, then what you really have is a religion. And those technicians and experts who hand down your holy writ from on high are your priests, even if you don’t like thinking of them in that way. Yet, it’s increasingly obvious that “science” is turning into a belief system that is cynically used to control the redditor masses while engineering desired political results. Or as Seneca put it, “religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Doubters of official SCIENCE! are increasingly being looked upon in the same way that an atheist would have been in the 16th century.

This reflects the ongoing transition that has taken place in western epistemology. We began with philosophy in which reason and logic were used to arrive at truth. This metamorphisised into empiricism in which observation and the experimental scientific method were employed - this is essentially the stage at which classical science used to exist. The final step, however, was the modern form of science in which peer review and selective publishing are used as epistemic roadblocks designed to prevent preferred results from being challenged.

This has been a major sticking point for a lot of people with respect to official western policy responses to Covid-19. It’s obvious to anyone who knows science (and who does not have a vested financial and/or emotional interest in SCIENCE!) that there’s been a lot of grossly unscientific approaches that have been taken. Belatedly, the experts have grudgingly accepted what “internet trolls” on social media were saying for two years now, which is that lockdowns don’t have any appreciable effect on stopping Covid-19. Neither does masking. Don’t even get me started on how Regime scientist-bots knew that Covid-19 started out as a Chinese lab leak but worked to silence other scientists who correctly inferred from the evidence that this was the virus’ origin.

This was also apparent in the rabid way in which The Powers That Be have successfully prevented hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin from being seriously investigated as early intervention treatments for the virus, despite our previous knowledge that antiparasiticals such as these (as well as certain antibiotics) can also display antiviral effects. Instead, high dollar, experimental, poorly-tested vaccines have been pushed in their place.

Remember when I mentioned above that I have roughly two decades in Big Pharma under my belt? About fifteen of those years involved work at various stages of the vaccine development process. My point is that I know the science involved and I know how the process is supposed to be done. And it largely was not done with respect to the vaccines that were rushed to market last year. There are long-standing regulatory processes that exist specifically to try to ensure that pharmaceutical products brought to market are safe and effective. These were mostly bypassed with the Covid-19 vaccines, so it is not surprising that we’re now seeing all manner of dangerous side effects, as well as an increasingly apparent inefficacy, which TPTB are having to cover up.

All of this is happening because of the science —> SCIENCE! transition. Because Regime compliance (enforced at the demotic level by weaponised midwits) has replaced actual science, we can expect that most scientifically-related public policy questions that in any way relate to the ability of TPTB to accrue more wealth or power to themselves will continue to be decided on that basis, and that basis alone. This, naturally, ruins genuine science as a public good that can actually benefit society. Personally, I think it also spoils the enjoyment of science itself as an intellectual pursuit. We’re already seeing science and scientists lose much of the esteem that they once held in western nations. Expect to see that continue for so long as science by political diktat governs the laboratory.