In a recent piece for the Daily Sceptic Chris Morrison alluded, ironically, to the ‘settled science’ on the subject of climate change. I have recently been reflecting on the oxymorons of our time, and this is one of the most provocative.
An oxymoron is a combination of words which offers us a contradiction. It is a contradiction in terms. The word comes from the Greek, oxus, ‘sharp’ and moros, ‘foolish’: meaning, literally, sharply or pointedly foolish. The reason why it is pointedly foolish is because the words are not vague or confusing: they are clear, but point in two different directions, like crossed swords. Hence what we see is something paradoxical.
So let us note, an oxymoron is not a simple weapon. A sword is a weapon. Crossed swords are something much more beguiling and odd. Anyone who uses an oxymoron in speech is attempting to confuse us by waving two swords around and clashing them together. Recall Sergeant Troy’s wooing of Bathsheba in Far From the Madding Crowd. This is, pretty much, what the authorities are doing to us now: playing soldiers, bent on seduction, using threat as part of that seduction.
There are many oxymorons in modern politics. One of the best is ‘sustainable development’. But that, at least, is obviously flawed: though perhaps it takes some knowledge of economics and history to know why. That is for another time.
‘Settled science’, however, is an affront to not only language, but also to science and to politics.
Let me make this as clear as I can.
Science is a scientific word.
Settlement is not a scientific word, but a political one.
Science seeks exactitude; it seeks truth; but though it attempts exactitude, it is aware that the price of seeking exactitude is tentativeness. We postulate the existence of a solution, but we propose hypotheses, which we test in various ways, through argument or observation or experiment.
Anything which is settled is not solved. But it is also not tentative, not hypothetical. It is actual: it is certain. It does not care about truth or exactitude. It is certain because it has come out of agreement, and this agreement may have involved compromise and cutting corners and concessions to the other side. It is decisive: but it is not decisive because it is true, but because it has been decided. A decision has been made. A settlement has been reached. And it is final. Everything is final and certain in politics – until the next settlement. But nothing is final and certain in science. There are no settlements.
The phrase ‘settled science’ has nothing to do with scientific truth, or scientific hypothesis. What settlement suggests is that a scientific hypothesis has been transposed from one sphere – that of science – to another – that of politics – and therefore its nature has been changed. It is no longer a hypothetical or tentative truth. It is settled, so it appears to be certain. But it is certain not because it is true: it is certain because it is agreed, and then decided. And we are entitled to ask about who is agreeing, and why, and who is deciding and why, and how, and who is paying for it, and what economic and moral and institutional incentives there are.
‘Settled science’ is a phrase which should curdle in the mouth of any scientist. Any ‘scientists’ who use the phrase ‘settled science’ are not making a scientific argument. They are making a political argument: and they are doing so coercively, by appealing to the authority of that exact, truthful, tentative thing, science. They are not arguing as scientists. Perhaps in the mornings they are scientists. But in the afternoons when they speak of ‘settled science’ they are no longer scientists. They are politicians, doing political work, and doing it by misusing the authority which comes to them from the high status of the work they do in the morning.
This of course applies to the IPCC, and all other institutions and individuals who speak of ‘settled science’.
Dr. James Alexander is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
‘Settled science’ may well be an oxymoron.
But the experience of the last three years calls to mind a shorter word: a ‘lie’.
One of my favourite ‘settled science’ topics is Darwinism. I just love the unsettling and uncomfortable reactions of reminding people, especially science types, it’s just a theory that not all scientists concur with
https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david
https://slate.com/technology/2012/10/evolution-of-cooperation-russian-anarchist-prince-peter-kropotkin-and-the-theory-of-mutual-aid.html
Yes, but we do not try to reorganise the global economy and spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers money based on what we think might or might be true about evolution. We ARE doing that with “climate change”. People are free to talk about evolution or black holes without being branded “enemies of science” or “deniers”.
Whenever I try to talk about the origin of the species I get called a Nazi eugenicist…
Agreed. And curious that so many aspects of GangGreenery were launched precisely by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
How humanity views itself within the framework of nature is relevant to anthropocentric perspectives and how we proceed with how ‘the crowd’ will continue to interact with nature. Part of the global economy reorganization is continued urbanism(smart green cities) and thus continued isolation/separation of humanity from nature…as opposed to spreading out and being part of nature and it’s natural order without a control system of intellectuals that consider humanity to be and accident that ended up being a parasite and then telling people who see themselves as part of nature how to live. AND in some circles you will be considered a heretic and banished for disagreeing with Darwinism and big bang… and on the other hand everybody is actually still free to discuss climatology outside of the status quo…one just has to not use the technocratic/blackrock/vanguard media platforms. Check out…
https://judithcurry.com/
Anyone else finding the site suddenly full of dodgey click bait junk adverts? Strewn all over the article, top of the window, bottom of the window? So many that they’re often overlapping? And for scam like things such as non surgical fat removal, or the like?
Not what I expect from a reputable subscription news site. Has it been hacked?
None at all. No doubt it depends on your setup. If you look at the image below, it shows part of how I’ve got Firefox set up – note the tick box against “pop-up windows”. Loads of other things you can manipulate as required.
Thank you!
Yes.
When using my android phone the ads have invaded everything. Make it quite hard to navigate.
Not sure about my computer.
Is Toby aware?
Re “settled science”, just follow the money.
Opera browser is an alternative with ad-blocking built it.
I use Brave. No ads.
Use Brave Browser. I don’t see any crappy adverts – neither on PC nor Android.
Then donate directly to Daily Sceptic.
Of course, you could just install Brave Browser and not donate, but that would be cheap, and only the rich can afford cheap shoes.
But then you do, because you’re commenting!
Yes. I thought it was my system, but I suspect interventions…
Keep your anti-virus up!
Yes. Site appears to be hacked.
None at all. I’m using iOS Safari. It could be that something nasty had got installed on your browser perhaps? Not saying Safari is better at all, just that I’m not seeing anything so suspect it’s something specific to your set-up.
Try DuckDuckGo (DuckDuckGo — Privacy, simplified.). You can add it in as an extension to most browsers.
You can use it for searching instead of google which I recommend. Also, to control your privacy when visiting web sites. I use it and don’t get adverts or popups here.
I got the same thing on the Telegraph. Popups telling me that my McAfee subscription had run out (I don’t use it) and I should check my details. No doubt a phishing attempt. Turned on the DuckDuckGo privacy and no more popups from there.
Hey, this is an important thread!
Don’t kick it sideways with an irrelevant browsing problem!
That’s why they are now switching to ‘scientific consensus’.
Achieved by ignoring, cancelling and refusing to debate any scientific dissenters.
Religion’s a culture of Faith – just believe what you’re told.
Science is a culture of Doubt – question and test everything you’re told – even that which you’ve told yourself.
This is why politicians don’t like science and scientists – it’s all just too bloody slow and awkward for them and their little agendas.
Not to mention their tiny Arts Grad minds.
“Settled science” is an oxymoron. But a simpler explanation would suffice: The scientific method is predicated on uncertainty and embracing possibilities and the unknown, and once anything is claimed to have been settled, there is another word for it – dogma. It is no longer science if it is considered beyond question, since science is the systematized art of questioning everything to arrive at an ever-refined understanding of the phenomenon in question.
It is a highly typical uniquely human flaw to instinctively try to calcify our perceptions and interpretations into concrete and immutable meanings. And this kind of perceptual rigidity has reached into the arbiters of scientific discourse through the scientific age. The doctrine of neo-Darwinism, for example, has a death-grip on many academic institutions and is routinely taught as fact to students of the biological sciences when in reality it is a theory that has more recently been superseded by various other contenders.
Can’t remember when exactly, but sometime around Isaac Newton’s time a prominent scientific commentator of that era proclaimed that no further understanding of the life and the universe was necessary – only a refinement of that understanding. Along came Albert Einstein and threw a fairly hefty spanner in the works – unsettling “The Science” by doing more science!
So the claim of “settled science” is really nothing new under the sun, can be taken with a pinch of salt, and is merely the product, as most of this readership would agree, of an agenda-driven news media that so many mistakenly take as being representative of real scientific discovery. It’s not settled – it’s just become a fashionable meme.
‘The phrase ‘settled science’ has nothing to do with scientific truth…’
Agreed, and yet some science is settled. The earth is round, the solar system is heliocentric, the blood circulates, micro-organisms are agents of disease, the continents were once conjoined, the speed of light is constant for all observers,… I could, of course, go on.
It is settled and agreed that only cranks disagree with this settled science.
The triumph of the green maniacs is that they’ve achieved the same cranks-alone-dissent status for their theory of man-made climate change.
Some of the best articles in Daily Sceptic have come from this author, Dr James Alexander. I have not read one of his many articles that has intrigued and educated me and in many cases enforced my thoughts and beliefs. He is spot on with his remarks in this short piece and I have continually brought the subject of ‘settled science’ up as a nonsense – it is not science and it is not settled.
My own method of ‘getting’ to people on this subject is to bring it down to items that they can understand from the likes of that awful man, Attenborough. There are more polar bears than ever before; there is 18% more coral growth on the Great Barrier Reef and last Winter was the coldest Antactic winter on record. Nowadays, ordinary folk do not have a clue about statistics or understanding graphs – they only understand the Daily Mail’s headlines and nothing more and the BBC uses this apathy all the time to further their woke ideology.
We have a prolonged fight on our hands!
From an online lecture by very highly rated climate scientist William Happer, he quoted Shopenhauer who said:-
“All truth passes through three stages; First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and thirdly it is accepted as self evident.”
Happer then said the truth that CO2 is not harmful, but is actually good for the planet is somewhere between the stages of ridicule and violent opposition.