'Trust the Science!' the New Liberal Mating Call

[Ekklesian]

I Will Not Be Scienced! - Ann Coulter

After a year of being browbeaten by THE SCIENTISTS not to wear a mask, to wear a mask, to wear double masks, to get vaccinated and still wear a mask, our analytic overlords are still no closer to…

anncoulter.com

After a year of being browbeaten by THE SCIENTISTS not to wear a mask, to wear a mask, to wear double masks, to get vaccinated and still wear a mask, our analytic overlords are still no closer to determining the tiny little issue of where this virus came from.

Recently, the widely respected science writer Nicholas Wade published an article in Medium pushing the idea that — contrary to what “the scientists” assured us — COVID-19 might have come from the Wuhan virology lab, not the wet markets.

According to Wade, the virologists attacking the lab theory were claiming scientific certainty for something unknowable, and at least one of them has a gigantic conflict of interest. Even at a time when “TRUST THE SCIENCE!” has become a liberal mating call, I’m shocked at the deceptions of these guys.

 

[Ekklesian]

Had Coulter been following the tyranny of Darwinism, she would be less shocked, and one need not parse every one of 卐auci's words to see that he's a lying little caesar.

 

[Ekklesian]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=805632393700926

 

[ALAYMAN]

The sad part about this article is that just as with many other debatable matters there are kernels of truth in it that make it more tantalizing, but at the end of the day this article also does damage to propositional truth claims by casting doubt on science in general via the bad actors mentioned. The problem is the politicization of issues which clouds the reality of truth and science and policy implementation that flows from it. As the article points out, just shout "science demands it" and you can make outrageous and audacious claims about social constructs. But by the same token using examples of political abuses of policies as a pretense for declaring viral hoaxes and overblown mortality rates is also damaging to the process of ascertaining truth. It's kind of like preaching, you have to sometimes sort through the mess to get to truth. Should it be that way? No. But it often is.