Popular Science<\/em> closes<\/a> its combox.<\/span><\/p>\n A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus<\/a> on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Certainly, not everything is up for grabs, i.e., not everything is a topic of reasonable<\/em> debate. But it is equally certain that some things are<\/em> up for grabs, and also certain that what is up for grabs and what is not is up for grabs. (Think about it.)<\/span><\/p>\n So while I applaud the closing of the Popular Science<\/em> combox as the closing of a repository for what in the main is the drivel of cyberpunks and know-nothings, I must express skepticism at the incipient dogmatism and incipient scientism that lurks beneath both the author's words and those of the author of the NYT piece to which he links.<\/span><\/p>\n To mention just one item, talk of "scientific certainty" with respect to climate change, its origins, and its effects is certainly<\/em> unscientific. Natural science is not in the business of generating certainty on any topic, let alone something as difficult to study as climate change.<\/span><\/p>\n No gain accrues by replacing religious and political dogmatism with scientistic<\/em> dogmatism.<\/span><\/p>\n To say it again: doubt is the engine of inquiry. Inside of science and out.<\/span><\/p>\n Unfortunately, too much of present day 'science' is ideologically-infected. Global warming alarmism is yet another ersatz religion for liberals. See here<\/a>. Of course, I also condemn those conservatives and libertarians whose knee-jerk rejection of global warming is premised on hostility to any empirical finding that might lead to policies that limit the freedom of the market.<\/span><\/p>\n Companion post: Would Schopenhauer Allow Comments?<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n