Aimee Arrambide is the head of the pro-abort group Avow Texas. Well I guess an abortion of a man would be the safest for the non-existent unborn child he is not carrying in his non-existent womb.
The Party of Science
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 41 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Heh. And just yesterday guess who wrote…
https://markpshea.com/2022/05/18/faithlessness-and-irrationality/
You can have the most solid science in the world with irrefutable and reproducible results, but as the idiocy of the anti-vax movement and the climate change denialists and the six day creationist and flat earth movements (movements as much at war with Pope Francis as they are with the results of scientific research) bear eloquent witness, if trust has been poisoned and perverted by paranoia, lies, and perverse spite, your science will no more be received or heeded than the Apostles Creed. Radical skepticism turns out to be, not the chastity of the intellect, but its sterilization.
We actually have people like this running our government? The Republic is in more danger than I imagined!
There is no such thing as “solid science” with “irrefutable” results. With respect to “reproducible results,” much of what is accepted as science today is NEVER done again due to difficulty of getting funding for simply re-doing someone else’s experiment again and many scientists are reluctant to do something over that will not pad their resume, increase their celebrity, or secure them tenure. These are the totalitarians’ SS, soldiers of science. I have this image of arms being held down, attempting to do the Nazi salute and all present in chorus saying Sieg, Heil when Dr Mengele enters the conference room at the CDC. Guy, Texas
My bad, mea culpa, did not mean to insult Nazis or Dr. M; I meant “Dr Fauci” [not Dr Strangelove either]
A lot of the time it isn’t even clear what these “scientific results” are supposed to be in the first place.
Take the COVID vaxes. What are the reproducible and irrefutable claims being made about them? It certainly isn’t that they make you immune, or prevent transmission, or prevent you from going to the hospital, or are perfectly safe, etc. At best you’ll get something like:
-They are extremely effective against the alpha variant (which isn’t really reproducible due to the alpha variant being practically extinct, and is irrelevant anyway.)
-They have marginal effectiveness rates, provided that you are continually boosted and look at the data just so (which is hardly an irrefutable claim)
But the vast majority of the time that such claims are made it’s all rhetoric. No specific scientific hypothesis is in mind, just a general idea of “trusting the science” which ultimately means following the dictates of government officials.
That’s of course without getting into the claims which actually were refuted. For example, the MN COVID prediction data predicted a higher number of deaths than what actually happened in reality. This is true even when you look at the absolute optimal case provided by the model, which required several things to happen which did not happen in reality. Thus that model is refuted. But the “trust the science” crowd will not acknowledge this, and will even use the unmitigated numbers from the model in arguments for how many “lives were saved” by government edicts.
I got your meaning, Guy. No offense taken. 😉
Many people write about science without having engaged in it, or worse, not studied the history of science. If one studies the history of science, one recognizes that there are no eternal truths, principles, theories change with time in view of new findings, new theories. That which doesn’t change is the methodology. I’ve written about this (excuse the shameless self-promotion) in a series of articles on the Magis Center for Faith and Reason–see here:
https://blog.magiscenter.com/blog/how-science-works-part-iv-what-science-cant-do
and links to preceding articles at the bottom of the article.
I also will have an ebook out (accepted for publication by EnRoute Media) “A Science Primer for the Faithful.”