Scientists believe themselves to be the prophets of the new religion. To them "science" is a special revelation that gives them authority to make moral decrees.
When I was younger I read a lot of creationist material, and they saw this coming. They argued that people need a framework to view the world through, and with the increasing secularization of society they said that "science" would become that framework.
Of course, the question is, why is people using science as a framework to view the world a bad thing? The answer, as usual for Christians, is that human nature corrupts everything. A person's worldview must give them a lens to view morality through. But morality is outside of the purview of science, so what do you do? Well you loudly declare that it is in the purview of science! A person's worldview must give them an understanding of the past and present. So now history and sociology are science. It needs to help you understand yourself so psychology is science.
So science is denigrated further and further by the need to include topics that it's not equipped to deal with. All the while a bait and switch is pulled so now the "knowledge" from these non-scientific fields are attributed the same weight as the knowledge from physics, chemistry, or biology. The successes of the, so-called, hard sciences (a designation only necessary because the new "sciences" aren't amenable to the scientific method) are attributed to "science" and hence all of these other fields.
Now, here we are in 2020. We've seen a decade of "I fucking love science" style blatant indoctrination into seeing scientists as the prophets of the new age who can never be questioned. Science is now explicitly political, and the views of scientists on things far outside their field are expected to be accepted merely because of their title.
Now, scientists are either seeking political power, and/or people looking for political power are using science as a means to obtain it. It's only going to get worse.
I'm not going to pretend I know the answer. This is all just what I think happened/how I see it.
People have always been power hungry. All institutions are corrupted and decay as they become more powerful.
With the advances of technology and impact that science has had on society this was an inevitability. When you have a position that is seen as authoritative it will attract those who want power.
When we got to the point that climate change was a huge concern and scientists were being called on to make policy decisions, there could be no doubt that science would become political. How many people do you think are scientists right now because they were inspired specifically by climate change and desired to make a difference on that front?
The biggest question I have is when did people become so intoxicated by power?
When people live in a time a peace for a decent amount of time, they become bored and find new ways to cause havoc hence morality policing. This path always leads to either civil unrest or balkanization.
Science was always about power. It just used to be that they gained power by inventing practical stuff and just teching themselves ahead of their opposition.
Physics and the laws of reality prevent any meaningful change happening like that anymore, so instead their power now comes from how they wield it.
Never mistake any of this for new or special. Its just wearing new skin.
A lot of Science isn't science. The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science. It might be possible that we figure out climate stuff, but right now we just make shit up until we can solve some really hard problems like turbulent flow.
I agree. That's why co-opting science as the framework through which all things should be evaluated was so destructive.
Science only really works in very specific fields of inquiry. Beyond those the scientific method, which is what makes science such a powerful tool, doesn't work.
But the connection has already been made. The bait and switch has been accepted at every level of society. To deny a study in, for example, sociology, is the same as denying gravity. The explanatory power of what is now considered science has decreased, but we still act like it's pure rigor and scientific method.
The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science.
The amount of time I spent in Psychology working with null hypothesis and biological indicators of mental phenomenon says that is isn't impossible by any means.
The field is just so corrupt it doesn't put in the effort to need to. Nearly all of social science is debt ridden and desperate, and will write a study that says whatever you want it to to get funding from some random corporation. The field makes zero money, so it prostitutes itself to social engineers to survive and then they use it for whatever.
There is also the problem of lacking the technology to properly study the brain of a living human (they aren't so useful dead). A lot of right now is trying to figure out modern problems with renaissance level tools. Its hard to properly conduct research when you have only a subjective tool reporting to you what it thinks it thinks.
Have you read Human Action? Mises really needed someone like Bernays to help him make better terms. Praxeology is a terrible word choice. Economics is axiomatic, like logic or math, instead of empirical, like physics or biology.
Medicine and almost all of science is quickly becoming a skin suit for marxist filth.
Scientists believe themselves to be the prophets of the new religion. To them "science" is a special revelation that gives them authority to make moral decrees.
When I was younger I read a lot of creationist material, and they saw this coming. They argued that people need a framework to view the world through, and with the increasing secularization of society they said that "science" would become that framework.
Of course, the question is, why is people using science as a framework to view the world a bad thing? The answer, as usual for Christians, is that human nature corrupts everything. A person's worldview must give them a lens to view morality through. But morality is outside of the purview of science, so what do you do? Well you loudly declare that it is in the purview of science! A person's worldview must give them an understanding of the past and present. So now history and sociology are science. It needs to help you understand yourself so psychology is science.
So science is denigrated further and further by the need to include topics that it's not equipped to deal with. All the while a bait and switch is pulled so now the "knowledge" from these non-scientific fields are attributed the same weight as the knowledge from physics, chemistry, or biology. The successes of the, so-called, hard sciences (a designation only necessary because the new "sciences" aren't amenable to the scientific method) are attributed to "science" and hence all of these other fields.
Now, here we are in 2020. We've seen a decade of "I fucking love science" style blatant indoctrination into seeing scientists as the prophets of the new age who can never be questioned. Science is now explicitly political, and the views of scientists on things far outside their field are expected to be accepted merely because of their title.
Now, scientists are either seeking political power, and/or people looking for political power are using science as a means to obtain it. It's only going to get worse.
I'm not going to pretend I know the answer. This is all just what I think happened/how I see it.
People have always been power hungry. All institutions are corrupted and decay as they become more powerful.
With the advances of technology and impact that science has had on society this was an inevitability. When you have a position that is seen as authoritative it will attract those who want power.
When we got to the point that climate change was a huge concern and scientists were being called on to make policy decisions, there could be no doubt that science would become political. How many people do you think are scientists right now because they were inspired specifically by climate change and desired to make a difference on that front?
When people live in a time a peace for a decent amount of time, they become bored and find new ways to cause havoc hence morality policing. This path always leads to either civil unrest or balkanization.
Science was always about power. It just used to be that they gained power by inventing practical stuff and just teching themselves ahead of their opposition.
Physics and the laws of reality prevent any meaningful change happening like that anymore, so instead their power now comes from how they wield it.
Never mistake any of this for new or special. Its just wearing new skin.
A lot of Science isn't science. The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science. It might be possible that we figure out climate stuff, but right now we just make shit up until we can solve some really hard problems like turbulent flow.
I agree. That's why co-opting science as the framework through which all things should be evaluated was so destructive.
Science only really works in very specific fields of inquiry. Beyond those the scientific method, which is what makes science such a powerful tool, doesn't work.
But the connection has already been made. The bait and switch has been accepted at every level of society. To deny a study in, for example, sociology, is the same as denying gravity. The explanatory power of what is now considered science has decreased, but we still act like it's pure rigor and scientific method.
The amount of time I spent in Psychology working with null hypothesis and biological indicators of mental phenomenon says that is isn't impossible by any means.
The field is just so corrupt it doesn't put in the effort to need to. Nearly all of social science is debt ridden and desperate, and will write a study that says whatever you want it to to get funding from some random corporation. The field makes zero money, so it prostitutes itself to social engineers to survive and then they use it for whatever.
There is also the problem of lacking the technology to properly study the brain of a living human (they aren't so useful dead). A lot of right now is trying to figure out modern problems with renaissance level tools. Its hard to properly conduct research when you have only a subjective tool reporting to you what it thinks it thinks.
Have you read Human Action? Mises really needed someone like Bernays to help him make better terms. Praxeology is a terrible word choice. Economics is axiomatic, like logic or math, instead of empirical, like physics or biology.