Someone Pulled The Science Card. What Do I Do?

Have you ever been in a debate, and at some point you reach that fork in the road, where someone pulls the Science card? 🃏

The room goes silent and people start clutching their pearls as beads of perspiration accumulate on the brow. “Did you see that? He invoked Science! 😳”

What can we do now?

If you debate difficult ideas you are sure to encounter people that challenge you to provide scientific proof supporting your position. Anything less is idle speculation to them. Your other reasoning and evidence are simply not enough. Without that Science they can not consider your ideas in civilized discussion anymore. They need the proof right now!

For thinkers and debaters it’s worth while to consider Science as a standard and when is it appropriate to use that standard. There are many assumptions built into that debating technique which are interesting and instructive about the opponents.

Bodies of Knowledge Versus The Scientific Method📎

People correctly perceive that the Scientific Method, if applied precisely, is capable of giving proof about the natural world. It’s one of the best methods we know for doing that.

It’s important to understand in modernity that when people say the word “Science” they aren’t necessarily speaking about the “Scientific Method.” That’s somehing else they don’t want to discuss. That’s so 1600s. It’s so old. We have math and computers now.

For most people now uttering the word “Science” is very loaded and means a lot of things all at once. They expect that you immediately accept the gravity of what follows while they talk about “Science.”

They are generally speaking about a Body of Knowledge first. That is an established set of conclusions, which most people believe, and are supposed to have been derived from the Scientific Method. It’s considered uncouth to say words that contradict the Body of Knowledge.

Although the principle of free communication of ideas is a basic tenet of the scientific community, there are numerous examples of their suppression. Professor Herbert Dingle, who wrote a book on relativity in the 1920s as well as a section on relativity for ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, and was the man chosen by the BBC to give the eulogy on Einstein when he died, developed doubts about the special theory of relativity around 1955. To his astonishment, he found that the scientific journals and institutions suddenly closed their pages and doors when he wanted to write or say something unorthodox; that is, heretical.

-Ivor Catt, The Catt Anomaly, 1996

This is an interesting case. Dingle spent decades in the academic science establishment, wrote a book on Relativity, eulogized Einstein, and he cannot get them to publish his dissent. Does that seem right? I wonder what that is like to spend all that time in a discipline, and develop your good reputation, and do all that hard work, and then you ask for some consideration and you’re dead to them.

Right away you know that if you put yourself in a position to question Science is a steep uphill social battle. People come out of the woodwork to tell you that you’re not as smart as Einstein The Unquestionable. Not even Dr. Dingle could move an inch. You will be informed that your tone is mildly disrespectful to the “Giants of Thought” on whose “shoulders we stand on.”

Missing in the first automatic response is critical thinking and genuine curiosity. They’re not going to care why you have any doubt. The average person cannot fathom how anyone could doubt Science. It’s assumed that all the previous work on the subject is correct and accurate. Debaters usually assume they can cite a little science here or there and it’s an ironclad case. Is it though?

Let’s hear from the renowned Physicist of String Theory, Michio Kaku, about Science.

In science we always say that you make observations, you have a theory, you make more observations, and it’s a very very tedious process. Wrong! Nobody that I know of in my field uses the so-called Scientific Method. In our field it’s by the seat of your pants. It’s leaps of logic. It’s guesswork.

Why would he say that? “Nobody that I know of in my field uses the so-called Scientific Method.” Nobody? How can that be? Aren’t we paying them to do tedious stuff like repeating minute, precise, observations and refining their hypothesis?

Who’s going to check if Scientists did the Scientific Method or not? It is assumed to be so. “It’s a very very tedious” to use that method. Are you going to check it?

Show Me The Peer Reviewed Science📎

Next you will be told the words “Peer Review” in your debate. Nothing except “Peer-Reviewed Science” will suffice in order to convince your opponent. If you only had that you would convince them. You don’t have that so you must concede.

One thing they are missing in this demand is that peer review is not a step in the Scientific Method. Peer review does not validate or invalidate a thesis or theory. If someone has followed the method correctly and they published their result it is Science, even if nobody reviews it.

Who are their peers? Why would they spend their time looking at it? What are their motivations for reviewing the science? Are these peers empirical? Are they even rational? If so how did they ever become empirical and rational? It’s not taught in school unless you take highly specific classes in philosophy. Did their peers take classes how to be rational, and pay attention, and apply that knowledge to their peer review?

There are so many assumptions built in to the concept of “Peer Reviewed Science.” If the science you’re doing is cutting edge how many peers could you have in the whole world? What makes you sure that other people have the intelligence and background to understand all the concepts and data that you’re submitting in your scientific papers? All of these things are assumed to be in place and in working order by your debating partner.

If any of these assumptions are proven false the idea of peer review will not be so helpful. It assumes that people are interested, willing, and capable to review it. It assumes that they aren’t your political enemy, funding enemy, or scientific rival seeking to undermine you.

If you are anything less than a Marxist Communist Antifa supporter are you going to have any peers willing to review your work at a modern university? Who are these peers? How can this be a standard used in debate? It is assumed that all these things are in order in the scientific community.

How To Manipulate Your Opponent Scientifically📎

It’s not to say that people always do this but sometimes in a debate someone will use Science to manipulate their opponent and interlocutors. It is rude to manipulate but lets say for the sake of argument we wanted to deliver some scientific manipulative blows to our opponent how would we do it?

The first and easiest way would be to demand the Science and then also not be able to understand it or care to. This method is accessible to everyone. We don’t need to know anything to abuse it. The thinking is to raise the bar so high neither you or your opponent can get over it. Now you make your opponent go first. When they cannot get over the bar of scientific proof you claim victory in the debate.

Most people view Science like Voodoo. It’s a confusing song of magic words to them. It’s got something to do with beakers and explosions.

If the first trick doesn’t work and your debating opponent does bring some science you now have to caution the opponent about the danger. The danger level is getting high now. Science is on the table. If you’re going to do that it better be all 100% correct. Right? There’s no room for errors. It needs to be peer-reviewed and the debating opponent better be able to point to the exact sentences that prove the point. If not it’s invalid they’re defeated.

Wow! Now it’s getting difficult! Can my opponent bring this level of science on me? How will I deal with this if they hit me with a heavy-hitting Scientific proof?!

Easy! Say “That’s subjective” or ignore it and move on to a different aspect of the subject. Done! Forget that part of the conversation happened. The idea behind this tactic is if we don’t acknowledge any validity to someone else’s Science there is none. It’s like if I cover my eyes and I cannot see you then you cannot see me. It’s wrong but how will anyone know the difference? We all went to public school so it should be okay to do it.

As an emergency drill, in case the opponent calls you on all these things, there is another thing left in our manipulative arsenal. Normally we would always hold aloft the Scientists and defend their honor but in some cases we need to sacrifice a Scientist for the greater good. It’s a little bit heretical but probably nobody will notice in the crowd. At this point we dismiss the reputation of the Scientist who created the science, denounce their organization, and question the evil political motives of the Scientist.

  • Bias!
  • Right wing!
  • Settled Science!
  • Sample size!
  • Racist!
  • Correlation is not causation!

BOOM! Sampson Option executed. While everyone is shocked and confused we change the subject and none are the wiser. For most people this is an acceptible way to discuss Science.

Show Me The Money For Science📎

As Dr. Kaku said before it can be very tedious to do science, with all these observations, repetitions, and collecting all that data. With such a big and important undertaking it’s also capable of attracting a lot of government funding.

From they explain:

Who pays for science? Today, we all do. Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e.g., from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations (e.g., the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, etc.).

As a society, we reap the rewards from this science in the form of technological innovations and advanced knowledge, but we also help pay for it. You indirectly support science everyday through taxes you pay, products and services you purchase from companies, and donations you make to charities. Something as simple as buying a bottle of aspirin may help foot the bill for multiple sclerosis research.

It sounds pretty good. The idea is that money can be deducted from my paycheck automatically, and it goes to fund science, for our benefit, and the benefit of all of society. Wow! It seems like quite a good deal if we assume all that is working and it does that.

For a few decades now people have been complaining about economics and poverty. There are these cyclical boom-busts with the markets. What if someone, a regular person, is fine with all that but they want to opt out of Science funding and save money for themselves? That’s fine right? Well, no. They can’t opt out.

Money will be automatically taken from you if you like it or not. In the above from Berkeley they don’t factor in deficit spending for science and the subsequent inflation. They will not factor in the overhead, waste, fraud, corruption, and abuse. They’re Scientists after all. They are assumed to be intelligent, wise, and ethical.

If you as a tax payer would rather keep your money or you have an objection to their ethical standards that is not an opinion you are allowed to have. For example if you don’t think animal testing should be done, or it’s done too much, or it’s cruel you will pay for that science anyway. You don’t get to protest that. If you persist in protesting and you withhold your money then you’ll be dragged through court. Do you want that? If you persist past that men with guns are going to abduct you and take you to prison or kill you. Is that what you want? If not then you better pay your taxes and fund that Science! Don’t think for a second you will get in the way of our benefits for society. Understood? Good.

Now that we got our ethics and funding solved lets talk about how you can prove your point in your debate with a technique called scientific reproducibility. By reproducing someone else’s scientific experiment you can potentially validate, invalidate, or produce an inconclusive result. These are considered to be helpful to a lot of people to do this.

It’s taken for granted when someone tell you “Science, therefore and so forth” that it’s gone through that very effective peer review and also reproduction. It assumes that the reproduction was precise and the result confirmed the same thing as the original author. When we take this position we’re making the assumption that other people can understand all those scientific papers, data, instrumentation, and how to reproduce it all precisely. They have all the time, money, and connections to do it. That is quite the challenge! So, what we usually do is assume it’s 100% done, working, reproduced, and final. Why bother questioning it? What could go wrong?

That is “Settled Science.” It’s 1000% validated by peers and reproduced. It’s unquestionable! Millions and billions of dollars were spent on it and how could you ever question that? How could you assume any error happened at any point in thousands of steps required to produce that science? Do you want children to get sick from car exhaust? Do you want everyone to die from Global Warming and Overpopulation? It’s heretical. It’s evil to think that these people, at far-left extremist universities, would ever do a false or unethical thing.

That is what you are expected to believe. And you will believe it or else you will be disapproved of socially. You will be considered an ignorant and evil person if you question that. The majority of people will develop bad feelings for you if you go that route. Is that what you want? Do you want cut Science funding and have Scientists starve and die in the gutter or something?

Culture of Scientific Advancement📎

Now that we are enriched by all our Scientific discoveries, and we’re going to space, and everyone was happy with all these benefits to society, it couldn’t last forever. There are people starting to fight against Science and the foundations of Science.

Several members of the Middlebury community have explicitly denounced reason and logic, citing their belief that both concepts are “manifestations of white supremacy.”

Middlebury College, 2017

A City University of New York sociology professor reportedly said in a tweetstorm last week that “the white-nuclear family” promotes racism, prompting a backlash on social media.

@JessieNYC via her tweetstorm

The governments all agree scientifically that they need to provide benefits for some races at the expense of another race, and race is merely a social construct. Race isn’t real to them, and they think you shouldn’t notice race, but they believe they definitely know for sure via Peer Reviewed Settled Science that your money needs to goto other races to give them money and opportunities.

They all agree that you’re going to pay for Anthropogenic Global Warming Science and Climate Change Science. It’s a part of our culture of scientific advancement. The governments all agree you’re going to pay for it.

All the global banks agree now that you’re going to pay to promote these scientific and political endeavors as a condition to do business with them. The European Union agrees that Climate Change is happening, Greenhouse Gasses are the cause, and you’re going to pay for that. The United Nations agrees this is Settled Science and you will pay for their Sustainable Development program.

There is no debating it. It’s settled. You are going to continue to pay for Climate Change Science, Vaccine Science, Abortion and Contraception Science, Space Science, Nuclear Science, Military Science, Bio-Weapon Science, Population Control Science, and Population Reduction Science. The people at universities and government all agree you’re going to pay for their Peer Reviewed Settled Science. Some people might call that evil, slavery, false, wicked, unethical, stupid, destructive, wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive but it doesn’t matter. Scientific Progress at all costs is our culture. You’re going to pay for it. Do you understand that?

Is that Satanic? Is it subhuman? Guess what? You’re going to believe it or else you’re going to receive your social punishment and ostracism. Got that? Do you think you’re smarter and better than Scientists? Do you think you have a better solution? Heh.

Are you satisfied that all these people have a good method to debate with useful outcomes for everyone? Are you bursting with confidence for Science? If someone pulls the Science Card on you in a debate maybe you can think about giving them a nice heaping plate of reasoning and logic. Maybe give a side dish of skepticism. That is unless you want to be viewed as a racist. Is that what you want?

The Argument From Morality and tax slavery is a nut-shot to delusions. Do you have the cojones to use it? If your opponent is a believer and a sucker are you going to push those buttons? Are you going to block out the manipulative tactics? Maybe you’ll get some discomfort in your life and you’ll be disapproved of. Think of the alternative if you don’t.

Thank you for reading and please share your thoughts with people around you. Lets have this debate in public before your population is made Sustainable.

-Tony Crowe, Feb. 2020, Salt Lake City, UT, US