Words can be real pests when it comes to thinking straight. They may only be symbols to the enthusiastic reductionist, but some of them don't half come with a load of baggage. For example...
We call some people politicians and others we call
scientists and as with many words, these two appear to cause rather more confusion than simple symbols ever could.
Yes there are politicians and yes there are scientists, but successful scientists are sometimes led into the role of covert politician but don't actually own up to it. So we tend to
credit them for being scientists when in many cases we should discredit
them for being covert politicians because their public persona is driven by politics, not science. After all, that's where the power and the money are.
Government science advisors for example are usually
scientists who for whatever reason went into politics even though the day job
is still science.
Remember when Professor David Nutt had to resign in 2009 because his views on legal and illegal drugs were not in accord with government policy?
Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
Ah - a clear message was required, not a scientific opinion. That’s what happens when you leave one club and join another. It isn’t complicated or confusing unless people forget that the label scientific advisor doesn’t usually mean what it says on the tin. It means political advisor.
Remember when Professor David Nutt had to resign in 2009 because his views on legal and illegal drugs were not in accord with government policy?
Nutt incurred the wrath of the government when he claimed in a paper that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The home secretary has asked Professor Nutt to resign as chair of the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs].
"In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
Ah - a clear message was required, not a scientific opinion. That’s what happens when you leave one club and join another. It isn’t complicated or confusing unless people forget that the label scientific advisor doesn’t usually mean what it says on the tin. It means political advisor.
So why the confusion when it comes to climate science? Why
the mystification when climate scientists tell us what UN political bureaucrats told them to tell us? Why do we think it possible to be both a scientist and a
politician? Because it obviously isn’t.
If any scientist take the state’s thirty pieces of silver,
then a dual role results, but it is very clear which will dominate and why. Power and money. Yet a huge weight of climate propaganda has been placed on the notion that we are being advised on this issue by scientists.
It ain't so.
The word scientist is being used to imprison our thoughts. Words do not a scientist make. Behaviour is what counts, not the word scientist.
The word scientist is being used to imprison our thoughts. Words do not a scientist make. Behaviour is what counts, not the word scientist.
6 comments:
Climate etc. is very complex with serious problems in prediction. Notably, what Earth may come up with next or what Outer Space may throw at it. Politicians want very simple ideas that they might, might, understand and then convey to the people who vote in a simpler way to allow them to remain politicians. This puts it it in a Nutt shell.
Climate etc. is very complex with serious problems in prediction. Notably, what Earth may come up with next or what Outer Space may throw at it. Politicians want very simple ideas that they might, might, understand and then convey to the people who vote in a simpler way to allow them to remain politicians. This puts it it in a Nutt shell.
Not an easy distinction - public figures are skilled in sending "dog-whistle" messages. Think of former "deputy drug czar" Mike Trace who described himself as a "fifth columnist" for drug legalization:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311342/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-drug-zealot-I-exposed-decade-ago-BBCs-promoting-plan-heroin-shooting-galleries.html
There is such a thing as the scientist with an agenda, in more fields than climate change.
Demetrius - I agree, yet I'm sure many of us would actually welcome more nuanced messages.
Sackers - yes there are quite a few scientists with an agenda. Climate is the one I understand so I tend to fixate on it.
Saw this:
In a letter he [Alan Johnson] expressed surprise and disappointment over Professor Nutt's comments which damage efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.
And immediately after it, you address it. Nub of the matter.
James - I'm almost surprised they are upfront about it.
Post a Comment