|2011-05-16 02:04:55||"Science vs.Scientism" -- a New Climate Denier Mime?|
The following was posted today (May 15) by SirGareth on a marathon comment thread to "Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial" posted (May 3) on DeSmog Blog. [Note: I posted a blog on this article a couple of days ago.]
I do not recall seeing this particular agrument before. Is it something original to Sir Gareth, or is it another piece of poppycok that was churned out by the Climate Denial Spin Machine?
Its a strange science that requires proper political orientation and more importantly "belief" in order to see benefit in it.
This is not traditional science; tradition science could care less whether people "believed" in it or "denied" it. Do you think Issac Newton sought to fine people for not honoring his 'laws' of motion?
What we have here is a nexus of religion, science, and government. Ie essentially a recreation of the theocratic state which was perhaps dismantled too early by the age of enlightenment.
I have coined my own term for AGW belief and have termed it "Scientism" as distinct from traditional science where proof rather than consensus and authority dominates the discussion.
People who practice traditional science are indeed scientists but this term is truly inadequate for Scientism as a faith based science.
I have used the term Scientismist to describe one who ascribes to or practices faith based Scientism. Faith is maintained only when those who would "deny" the faith are not admitted to enter the practice. Deniers are, after all, contrary forces to the aims and outcomes desired by the faithful adherents to Scientism.
Traditional science recognizes no authority and no decrees; while Scientism cast off the shackles of proof in favor of a hierarchy of authority. When a non-authority finds flaws in the catechism of Scientism he can simply be dismissed by the proper authorities.
Councils of belief have always been important in maintaining a coherent catechism; indeed the Catholic Church holds Vatican II and AGW Scientism holds its IPCC 4 so the value of keeping the catechism somewhat coherent has already been recognized by hierarchy of AGW Scientism
Traditional scientists try to recognize passion for an outcome compliant to one's belief as a bias towards error. This can all be discarded by Scientismists; they can be full of passion and fury and ignore contrary evidence and cook the books because it is the outcome that is all important. When their own data does not support the belied it can be called "a travesty" or sacrilege as the case my be.
RE: "Depends on which government you are talking about. If it's Canada, the Conservatives won there & they don't believe it is so & are not implementing any policy."