Scientocracy Is Coming

Posted on January 19, 2013 in Darwin and Evolution, Philosophy of Science, Politics and Ethics

The scientocracy C. S. Lewis feared is seriously being considered by left-leaning, abortion-promoting scientism communities.

Time for science to seize political power” blazes a headline on New Scientist by Michael Brooks.

In your wildest dreams, could you imagine a government that builds its policies on carefully gathered scientific evidence? One that publishes the rationale behind its decisions, complete with data, analysis and supporting arguments? Well, dream no longer: that’s where the UK is heading.

But why would they need to “seize” political power instead of use the methods of democracy?  Brooks used the either-or and loaded-words tactics of portraying anything but scientocracy as “hunch-based politics,” failing to define evidence in “scientific evidence,” a philosophically vexed notion.  His description of science fits the classic definition of scientism: the belief that the scientific method is the only sure pathway to truth.

If a scientific government sounds appealing, it will not grant equal rights for all. The scientific community is largely controlled by leftists who abhor conservatives and embrace Darwinism, with its principle of survival of the fittest.  They also embrace liberal causes like unfettered abortion.  Look how leading science news outlets portrayed the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized it:

  • Live Science: “40 Years After Roe vs. Wade, Most Don’t Want Abortion Decision Overturned.”
  • Science Daily:  “Abortions Are Safe When Performed by Nurses Practitioners, Physician Assistants and Certified Nurse Midwives, Study Suggests” [safe for whom?]
  • Science Daily: “more young people — all of whom were born at least 20 years after the decision — identify as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-life”

The last article provided some balance, saying that the results may obscure a deeper divide on the issue, and that young people don’t consider the potential of overturning Roe v. Wade as important as some other issues, like war or terrorism.  Still, Live Science employed typical leftist talking points, such as describing Roe v. Wade as the decision that “protected a woman’s right to have an abortion.”  They were not so concerned about the right to life for the unborn, or the millions of aborted babies since 1973 who never had a chance to experience their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Consequently, advocates of scientocracy may have less concern than conservatives about the lives of other humans: the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled.   Ironically, they will promote the rights of criminals to escape punishment on the grounds that evolution made them do what they do.  Meanwhile, their idealistic schemes of protecting the planet will undoubtedly severely weaken individual rights and national economies.

C. S. Lewis respected science, but he deeply feared a scientocracy: scientists aggrandizing themselves with their presumptive authority to grasp political power.  He portrayed the potential consequences in his dystopic novel, That Hideous Strength, based on real ideologies and developments underway around World War II.  Those developments have not slept in the interim.

Update 1/22/2013: On the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade, another pro-abortion “scientific” article biased against pro-lifers appeared on Medical Xpress.

Update 1/23/2013: New Scientist’s editors inserted scientism into gun control.  “It is time for the scientific evidence to trump ideology,” the article began, continuing the false dichotomy that science offers “evidence-based” guidance, while gun rights advocates are motivated by money and greed without evidence.  The article assumes from the beginning that governmental control is the solution.  PhysOrg played games with statistics, advocating political policy on a website presumably concerned with science.

Read The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society so that you can be forewarned of what is coming and know how to stand up against it before it’s too late.  Another possible outcome, though, since scientists tend to take the liberal line of appeasing terrorists rather than fighting them, is that the members of the scientocracy will all be beheaded, leaving their weakened countries to suffer under rule of Islamic tyrants.  Pick your poison.

 

 

 

One Comment

SirWilhelm January 19, 2013

Dogma already rules science with two of it’s most fundamental doctrines, Big Bang theory, and Evolution. Big Bang has been falsified many times over by observations, but it still rules Cosmology, suppressing competition from Electric Universe theorists.. Evolution is more important to politics, than it is to science, because it is used to support pro choice abortions. It tolerates no competition from Creationism or Intelligent Design, proving how dogmatic it is. Not all science, or scientists, are dogmatic, but few have the courage to risk their careers, and livelihoods, to stand up to those that are.

Leave a Reply