Register
A password will be e-mailed to you.

by Kitty Testa

All around the world today people are gathering to March for Science. The march was organized to counter a perceived global rejection of science, and as the organizers proclaim, “The March for Science is the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.”

Now I love science. I aced my college science classes. I took evolution. I used to belong to the local astronomical society. I’ve read A Brief History of Time AND Time in a Nutshell. I know a ridiculous amount about the Space Race, and am fascinated by the lives of the great scientists of the past and the inspiration of their discoveries. I am a science enthusiast who loves technology and is enthralled by the creative destruction it brings. I am not anti-science.

But I am wary of the goals of The March for Science. I agree that science plays a vital role in our world, but science should never be used as a tool to suppress individual freedom, and sadly, that has happened all too often over the last several decades.

Today’s scientific experts are too quick to label anyone who questions their conclusions as a wacko, a luddite or an ignoramus. Dismissing questions is inherently anti-science, which should always retain skepticism for its own sake. Science is not about settled questions, but rather a continuous search for the truth. Should new information turn an accepted truth on its head, so be it.

In a world where science has become politicized, the lofty purveyors of scientific fact want compliance, not questions. There is a host of matters on which they want us to just shut up and listen when they say, “Trust me. I’m an expert.” Here are five of them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

About The Author

Kitty Testa

Feeling the pain of government regulations and ill-advised policies 40+ hours a week, I write about business issues from a libertarian perspective. I am a Certified Management Accountant and work as the Corporate Controller for a group of manufacturing companies. I received my BA in history from the University of Illinois at Springfield. I've been married to my husband, Vince, for 36 years, and we have four grown children and three grandchildren who are on the hook for all the wasteful government spending of the last several decades. I'd like to see them have a more libertarian future, with freedom and real choices. And I'm also a Trekkie. :)

  • MatFan

    When colleges are turning out political hacks instead of educated people — it affects everything, including the sciences. Nine out of 10 aren’t qualified.

  • Warren Clark

    Politics before science is how you get bad policy from unsound reason. Science before politics and you get sound reason. Making bogus claims and questions that have already been answered does not help your case.
    No one forces you to get a mammogram or to treat your cancer. Tests and treatments are peddled by capitalists with no concern for the consequences preying on the fears and lives of people. I am not an anti-capitalist myself, but you are barking up the wrong tree.

  • Mike Silverton

    More contrarian than libertarian. I smell bullshit.

  • David Ward

    There’s a lot of small-s science in the world now, a lot of agendas sitting behind “science” mainly there to use science as a platform to promote said agendas. Science can be corrupted just like any other arena of thought, and in this day and age of greed and mass ignorance, it takes a lot of discernment and harsh honesty to keep science true to its title.

  • Ann Crampton Finn

    Hello – Chemtrails?

  • Dolores Carlson

    All this article seems to be doing is replacing one scientific school of thought in each of the topics to a different scientific school of thought. If the last two paragraphs are true than those ideas also apply to both sides of science issue. These five ideas laid out are also not taking into account freedom of the individual. We each make our choices and for different reasons, it doesn’t mean we are wrong and that the opposite view is correct. Conflicting ideas are simply that, conflicting, not proven.

  • Coby Ingram

    I’ll accept your contention that many climate change deniers are just asking good scientific questions, if you’ll accept the corollary that so are many of the people warning of climate change. You would not bet all your money on a sudden uptick in the stock market. Don’t decide the whole issue on one cold year. In this issue where industry is so intimately involved, we also need to control for “following the money.”

    • Jakelson

      And there is A LOT of money in climate change, and and grants that require a climate change positive outcome. Billions of dollars per year are funneled to the cause, as well as billions being made by promoting climate change to businesses and consumers. Follow the money is right.

1K Shares
Share1K
+11
Tweet
Pin1
Share
Stumble