The very first paragraphs of The Wall Street Journal article: 'Trump Targets Scientific Journals' (June 14-15, p. C1) were like a shot over the bow:
“The Trump administration’s attack on scientific institutions
has been characteristically audacious: Eliminating the U.S. Agency for
International Development, which funded healthcare interventions and research
worldwide. Removing all the members of the vaccine advisory panel of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutting healthcare research funding
by $1.8 billion and overall funding for the National Institutes of Health by $3
billion.
It has also homed in on what might seem like a small-bore
opponent: the highly specialized world of science and medical journals,
including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American
Medical Association.”
But I'd already been aware of the Trumpist's impending moves as I wrote about two months before the WSJ piece:
The gist of it is that the Trumpist lowbrows and fascists have no use for anything that can enlighten or inform the citizenry, which they want to be kept dumb and ignorant. The better to control them. We saw that even earlier with the dastardly move to intimidate and compromise universities, e.g.
Wherein I noted the aim was to kneecap the educated and the "elites" in favor of advancing lowbrows, dedicated quacks and their pseudo-science. All the better to wrest control of the future direction of the country - while the Chinese bound ahead on multiple fronts.
So it was but another small step to go on to healthcare research, as well as scientific journals such as Solar Physics that I have published in, e.g.
And: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983SoPh...88..137A
And:
One of 220 papers published in a massive compendium of solar research from an international conference held in Meudon, France:
But if the Trumpists and Trump were in power back then, they'd have likely ensured such work never saw the light of day, any more than quantum physicist David Bohm's groundbreaking research e.g.
But again, why the intention to destroy and prevent the disclosure in scientific journals? I am convinced the core basis is the objection to the long-standing peer review process which is done by all respectable journals. As we learn from the WSJ piece, this "gatekeeping role" has been responsible for: "giving new research the imprimatur of rigor and validity." Thus such journals:
"have been the forums for publishing research that has advanced human health and progress in every imaginable field."
Hence, the science lowbrows believe if they can attack peer review as "politically biased" they can pave the way for defunding journals -research unless they detach from the strict gatekeeping role. But they fail to appreciate that one of the fundamental tenets of science is the ability to explain the exceptions to any generalizations - which the quacks and pseudo-scientists have failed to do since the year dot.
Such recent examples include the failure of the proponents of the "Chinese lab theory" for Covid's origins to explain and account for exceptions, to the climate skeptics - like Bjorn Lomborg - and their failure to do the same, e.g.
There are multiple other examples, going back to perhaps the most infamous, Immanuel Velikovsky with his "colliding worlds" bunkum in his book, Worlds In Collision. For those unaware, Worlds in Collision’ postulated the dynamical idiocy that Jupiter belched out a "comet" with the mass the size of Venus, which then blasted off toward the Sun, passing so near the Earth en route that it caused it’s rotation to halt (coinciding with Joshua’s famous trumpet blare) and in the process triggered the precipitation of carbohydrates (from hydrocarbons?!) – manifesting in the manna for the Israelites. Leave out that the author mixed up carbohydrates with hydrocarbons and you don't even have to go further to show the whole thing is twaddle.
Of course, railing against peer review for journals isn't unique to Trumpist lowbrows who demand their own nonsense get equal exposure to well-founded science. I already pointed this out in my June, 2016 post:
Intertel's Kort Patterson Conjures Wacko Conspiracy Theory On Global Warming 'Alarmists'
which highlighted the late Intertel President Kort Patterson's nonsense (in one Port-of-Call Editor's note) that peer- review governed climate Journals (like Nature) were trying to:
"restrict participation to just those who can be trusted to parrot the officially approved story line".
And, as echoed by another Port-of Call Kort sympathizer (Jeffrey R. Fisher):
"There are so many political axes to grind, there's no way a collegial system of peer review can function correctly."
And so it goes. So that even those with purported IQs of 135-140 can refuse to accept climate science facts, opting instead to embrace nonsense (e.g. from Kort) that "changes in the Earth's celestial mechanics" are the real cause of climate change - not CO2 buildup. Reinforcing my point that emotional reaction to the scientific facts may also be one reason the quacks and pseudo-skeptics refuse to accept peer reviewed research. A point originally made by Michael Shermer in one Skeptic magazine piece (Volume 6, number 4, 2021), noting:
“Negative stimuli have a stronger influence on neural activity than positive stimuli” Hence bad information is processed more thoroughly than good information."
This led Shermer – in conjunction with the work of the Skeptic Research Center – to conclude moderate to large correlations (r > 0.39 ) existed, for example, between the belief that “political and media elites are hiding the truth” and the belief Covid -19 “was really developed in a Chinese lab and Chinese officials - and American scientists like Dr. Fauci covered it up."
Kort (and his Intertel compadre Fisher), however, are more plausibly the primary victims of a tendency I noted before, called agnotology. Hyper obsessed free marketeers like Patterson and Fisher have practiced this brand of climate skepticism to a fault - in order to protect their free market idiom and economy. My belief in Mr. Patterson's agnotology is tied to his repeated railings (in his Port-of- Call) against proven climate science as "bunk" and "propaganda" because "it threatens the free market system with more taxes and regulations."
Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied agnotology to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic advantage. In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable unfettered economic profit and hence planetary ruin. Proctor also notes these special interests are often paid handsomely to sow immense confusion on the issue.
While the more educated Trumpers may be in this (agnotology) group, I still believe most just - like Dotard himself - just want to eliminate the input of the "elites" at major research universities to reduce our nation's best to the mandates of Philistines and Babbits. Else, why drive the best brains away to foreign universities? If anyone can answer that I am all ears and eyes!
See Also:
Anti-Intellectualism In The U.S. - A Real Concern Or Hyped Worry?
And:
And:
- The Ars Technica article on the proposed NASA FY 2026 Budget: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/trump-white-house-budget-proposal-eviscerates-science-funding-at-nasa/
- The AAS Press Release expressing concerns about the proposed budget: https://aas.org/press/aas-statement-nasa-cuts
No comments:
Post a Comment