“Follow The Science”

…is not a strategy.

Like Joe Biden.

[Afternoon update]

Related, sort of: The alien red planet and the scientific method.

11 thoughts on ““Follow The Science””

  1. Nullius in verba (Latin for “on the word of no one” or “take nobody’s word for it”) is the motto of the Royal Society. John Evelyn and other fellows of the Royal Society chose the motto soon after the Society’s founding in 1660.

  2. “Anyone observing President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. would have good reason to wonder if his administration ever had much of a strategy for handling it. ”

    Except no one is observing Trump. They are observing Twitter or the writings of people who observe Twitter. The author didn’t even try and sum up what Trump has been doing because they can’t. They haven’t gained that information and assume that because it wasn’t delivered to them on Twitter that it doesn’t exist.

    The author defaults to authoritarianism as a strategy and frames it in terms of sweeping aside states having a say in how their populace is governed and making value judgments on who needs to suffer and how much to stop the climate from changing. The scientific hypothesis here is that people need to suffer?

    The author does not allow for solutions that don’t conform to their religiosity.

    These people claim to be all about science but they think that if we make enough people suffer, we wont have forest fires. The fires that are caused by people, have nothing to do with gullible warming and if there were zero humans in existence, there would still be forest fires.

    Faye closes it off nicely though. The vocal poles arguing on what should be done about the pandemic aren’t helping us deal with the problem. But I am very skeptical of people whose value judgments are default authoritarianism. Trying to control uncertainties is very human but people have to understand they can’t control everything and imagine how to live where uncertainties abound and control is limited.

    1. Except no one is observing Trump. They are observing Twitter or the writings of people who observe Twitter.

      So what do we call this article then and the emails that they read?

      Some real “Ministry of Truth” stuff in here

      “The reports must be read by someone outside of CDC like myself, and we cannot allow the reporting to go on as it has been, for it is outrageous. Its lunacy,” Alexander told Redfield and other officials. “Nothing to go out unless I read and agree with the findings how they CDC, wrote it and I tweak it to ensure it is fair and balanced and ‘complete.'”

      How is this supporting science? Seems more like stifling and censoring communication of data and ideas? Instead valuing the electoral political messaging than the free flow of data and ideas which I am sure Rand will agree is critical to science.

      1. “So what do we call this article then and the emails that they read?”

        It is BS.

        The CDC operates under the Executive branch and no matter who is President, there will be oversight. Obama used all of the agencies he controlled to present a united front on his polices. And we currently have career Democrats who think it is their job to sabotage the current administration, just like other Democrats think it is their jobs to burn down buildings, close highways, pull people from their cars and beat them, and assassinate people walking down the street.

        So when Democrats working in government are acting as political agents, it isn’t “science”. Gotta say, the article you linked is trash and I can tear it apart line by line if you want and it doesn’t say anything about what the Trump admin was doing to deal with the virus.

  3. The left uses science the way a witch doctor uses a totem or talisman. Something to wave without understanding in order to appear they are doing something right.

  4. Aside from science not telling you which decision to make, based on priorities and values, what Biden said was still pathetic. He could similarly say that he’s just going to do what the “experts” tell him to do:

    on the economy.
    on the budget.
    on policing.
    on foreign policy.
    on immigration.

    or any other subject. If we didn’t want a person who made the actual decisions, a desk where the buck stops, we wouldn’t have a President.

    His statement reflects layer upon layer of failure and unfitness for office. He’s not even in the same approximate area as “leadership”.

  5. I respectfully disagree. The left is following the science. Political science. They have been studying the reaction of what politicians say and modifying their stand accordingly. It is very scientific.

    1. Yeah, and behavioral science. The way they manipulate and brainwash people into acting like a cult and ignoring objective reality relies a lot on behavioral science.

Comments are closed.