Experts

"A lie makes it halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on in the morning." - Winston Churchill

For most of my life I’ve had an abiding interest in the various sciences, and I’d like to think I have a fair understanding of the basics at least. Scientists are for the most part pretty sharp people, and usually are the undisputed experts in their respective fields. With that expertise goes fame and fortune, along with a good deal of public trust. Historically, scientists lived up to expectation, even if they did get into some real donnybrooks among their peers! (In particular I’m thinking of the 1870’s “bone wars” between paleontologists Marsh and Cope, over who first discovered what dinosaur.) None-the-less, scientists were pretty honest about their studies, findings, and conclusions. In recent times however, attitudes seem to be changing somewhat. Consider the thousands of scientists we’ve heard, weeping and wailing, as they discuss the threat of “global warming” and the outlook for humanity. All the problems, according to them, are the result of mankind’s dependence on fossil fuels. But if we check into their credentials we find that a very large percentage of them have absolutely no expertise on the realm of climatology or metrology, and were merely parroting the unsubstantiated work (some of which was deliberately falsified) of others!

Science is and must be precise, rigorous, and above all accurate. Science is after all about discovering laws of nature that have existed forever. Newton “discovered” (not invented) the laws of gravity, while Einstein discovered (not invented) the theory of relativity. The invention of the computer, of aeronautics, rocketry, or even of the internet, was not science, it’s nothing more (or less) than an expansion of technology and engineering. Most inventions however are based on prior scientific discoveries such as thermodynamics, electromagnetism, solid-state physics, abstract mathematics, Boolean logic, fluid dynamics and so on.

Like the soothsayers of old, scientists want to predict the future. To do so they have devised many a theory, many a mathematical model that provides some insight as to how things might work, allowing them to predict what will happen in the future. With that, it’s possible to predict the positions of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars for hundreds of years to come quite accurately. Yet an accurate forecast of the weather for the day after tomorrow is quite difficult. (I reckon that’s why we called the weather forecasters “Weather Guessers” back in the days when I was flying.)
.
Mathematics is the preeminent tool of science, providing the means to analyze, correlate, predict and express physical or natural phenomenon. Mathematic results are also very hard to fake, unless the input data is erroronious, either by observational error, carelessness, or in some cases deliberately to gain a certain result. For the soft sciences (human behavior, social interactions, “polls” and such), a branch of mathematics called statistics is quite useful, along with being one of the most misunderstood and misused forms of mathematics.

Twisted statistical data, and the suppression of key points leads to numerous examples of flawed reasoning. The “science” of statistics uses irreproducible experiments, disregards peer review, sometimes passes fiction as fact, and a number of other techniques, which are used in the promotion of the pseudo-science known as “public opinion polls”. (Pseudo-science looks like science and sounds like science to most non-scientists, but is purely “junk science” none-the-less.) The fallibility of statistics led to coining the phrase “Lies, damn lies and statistics”. Consider, a few years back, an analysis of traffic accidents showed that 70% of auto accidents happen within 10 miles of home. This led to the idea that people are more careless when they are close to home. While the statistic might be true, their interpretation was erroronious. The reason why most accidents happen close to home is that most of the time, people are close to home! Using the techniques of junk science, you can almost always prove that you’re right no matter what the claim. Consider that global warming is a plausible phenomenon, and there is evidence that the earth is warming, but there is no conclusive proof that global warming is real. (It’s a hypothesis, not a proven fact). However, environmentalism and flawed statistics have raised global warming to the arena of gospel truth, thus allowing Al Gore to make a lot of money from a movie (and collect a Nobel Prize)!

The science of statistics is also an effective tool in political propaganda and activism. If you want to promote socialism for example, merely run a study that shows socialism has wonderful advantages and effects, while the lack of socialism leads to hunger, famines, depravation and such. (You do have to conveniently ignore the experience of the socialist world over the last few decades though.) Such science is a dangerous yet convincing version of the scientific process. You may not read the journals every day, but if it is not peer reviewed, and tested by independent scientists, it can’t be relied on.

Such faulty "Junk science" is often used to advance special, and often hidden, agendas, as we see nearly every day. The mass media may use junk science to generate sensational headlines, while other members of the media use it to advance their social and political agendas. Personal injury lawyers often use such junk science to fool juries into awarding huge settlements, then use the verdict to extort even more money from businesses fearful of future cases. Social activists use such “science” to achieve their goals in environmentalism, welfare, and gun-control. Bureaucrats commonly use junk science to expand their authority and to increase their cut of the budget pie. As was done with global warming, politicians can use junk science to gain favor with assorted special interest groups or to be "politically correct." And finally it’s amazing how many “community activists” use such junk science to blame our free society for the problems of the poor and underprivileged, all over the world.