Trending
Modern "science," we believe, was born during the Age of Enlightenment, where serious scientific inquiry began to take root. In its youth, "science" grew by leaps and bounds, focusing on its three main tenets including, use of reason, the scientific method, and human and scientific progress. For many years, "science" remained healthy, contributing to the wonderful advancements across every major discipline, from medicine to engineering to technology and psychology, among countless other fields. "Science" made its mark on all our lives and made all our lives better.
Like a rebellious youth, though, as it aged, "science" delved too far into what might be termed socio-politics, which clouded its sincerity, judgment, and credibility. "I am neutral," science insisted. "My believers do not let opinion or politics influence me," science screamed, as it began its slow descent into madness and irrelevance. Science didn't go down without a fight, though. "Trust me," science said in an attempt to reassure us, as if repeating this same mantra over and over convinced people to believe it's delusions.
As it aged, "science" began to be unable to care for itself and was caught in a decades-long custody dispute between liberals and conservatives, both of whom claimed to know how to care for it better. "Science" became confused by the prattling from both sides of the political aisle, each claiming "science" was on "their side." As the ravages of time impacted "science," it began muttering gibberish (or the political equivalent seen in Joe Biden) and routinely deflecting or going off topic (or the political equivalent seen in Donald Trump), convincing itself of its worth, yet it was nothing more than a fossil from another age when scientific integrity meant something, in my opinion.
In its final days, "science" fell victim to voices in its head claiming that it still mattered, that "science" shows the Earth will end in 12 years (climate "science"); that "data" shows the November election had been rigged and polls are/are not accurate (political "science"); that a fetus is a baby … no, wait, it's not a baby … no, wait, it's somewhere in between (human biology "science"); that guns kill people … no, wait, people kill people, and every other gun control and gun rights data point (criminology); that somehow a feminist glaciology perspective is a matter of academic importance (though the "scientists" stress the importance of research examining the relationships among gender, "science," and glaciers); that we should wear a mask … no, we shouldn't wear a mask, perhaps wear two (public health "science"); and even, courtesy of Cambridge University, "scientists" who sought to understand whether a normal sized human being can possess the characteristics of Spiderman (who knows?)
Sadly, in the end science succumbed to the cruelties of the socio-political virus, a derivative of moral relativism, where my truth is my truth and that alone is the proof by which I believe.
RIP, "Science," you had a good life.
DAVID BJORKMAN
Williamsport
Submitted via Virtual Newsroom