Skip to content

The Coming Dark Age & The Death Of The Scientific Method

June 4, 2020
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

The Appeal Hearing in the Peter Ridd case has now been heard, but judgement could still be months away.

GWPF take up the story, originally published in The Australian:

 image

A court case this week in front of three judges of the Federal Court was a further stage in Peter Ridd’s fight for freedom of speech on climate change. The case, James Cook University v Peter Vincent Ridd, has enormous significance for the future of Australia’s universities and scientific institutions.

Ridd’s case is a dramatic illustration of the free speech crisis in Australian universities, not least around matters as politically and emotionally charged as climate change. It will determine, in effect, whether universities have the ability to censor opinions that threaten their sources of funding. It is one of the most important cases for intellectual freedom in the history of Australian jurisprudence.

The Ridd case has resonated around Australia — and has attracted significant attention worldwide — for good reason. It confirms what many people have suspected for a long time: Australia’s universities are no longer institutions encouraging the rigorous exercise of intellectual freedom and the scientific method in pursuit of truth. Instead, they are now corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy, and are capable of hounding out anyone who strays outside their rigid groupthink.

JCU is attempting to severely limit the intellectual freedom of a professor working at the university to question the quality of scientific research conducted by other academics at the institution. In other words, JCU is trying to curtail a critical function that goes to the core mission of universities: to engage in free intellectual inquiry via free and open, if often robust, debate. It is an absurd but inevitable consequence of universities seeking taxpayer-funded research grants, not truth.

 

 Full story here.

18 Comments
  1. June 4, 2020 10:25 am

    I weep for science and its method!!

  2. saparonia permalink
    June 4, 2020 10:59 am

    We are in solar cycle 25 and after this cycle we are going to witness something that nobody now living has experienced. The Sun is going to begin a drastic new cycle and hell is going to freeze over. Even on the NASA website there is an image putting the coming temperatures close to the Dalton minimum. It’s going to be more like the 1600’s and the Little Ice Age. Now we know why they kept their animals on the bottom floors of their homes, it was for the warmth and so the animals didn’t freeze to death. We are already witnessing changes in the weather that are a result of the increasing solar wind. For a while it might be close to normal warm summers as we get some solar flares to warm us up but by the next 6 to 10 years the shit will hit the fan.
    I just can’t comment about Prince Charles, I think the lies on TV are scripted to excuse people who know they are complicit to genocide, pass the book. Bill Gates has openly stated more than once that he wants to reduce population by 20%

  3. Devoncamel permalink
    June 4, 2020 11:00 am

    This dispute reveals what really matters to the green blob, protecting their political and financial status. To do this they try to silence any critique that threatens their position. Forget about freedom of expression, scrutiny, objective analysis, openness, debate etc.

  4. June 4, 2020 11:33 am

    I was with you until the final sentence, “It is an absurd but inevitable consequence of universities seeking taxpayer-funded research grants, not truth.”

    Why is it inevitable that taxpayer-funded research grants will subvert universities’ commitments to free speech, whereas privately-funded research grants presumably don’t even pose a risk of this?

    Why is the consequence you think is “inevitable” (but only if publicly-funded research grants are allowed) “absurd”? Intuitively, I’d have thought the freedoms to solicit, to receive, to make or to withhold research grants, from the public sector or the private sector, inevitably had the potential to pose a risk to freedom of speech and thought, via groupthink.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      June 4, 2020 11:43 am

      Government funds come from the same trough, through the same funnel.

      If a certain ideology controls that funnel, so it controls the funding and the research.

      If someone in a university says something that may affect that funding… woe betide them !

      Private funds come from many places and cannot be controlled by a single ideology.

      • June 4, 2020 5:36 pm

        I accept that there are special risks to academic freedom with state funding of science, but I thought the final sentence overstated that point.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        June 4, 2020 9:55 pm

        I work at a Uni, I know that it most definitely does lead to group think.

        Those who “disagree” with the the money bringers know that have to stay quiet or risk loosing their jobs.

        It is not an overstatement of the facts.

    • June 4, 2020 12:11 pm

      In the United States, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is a perfect example. For some fields, such as botany, they are a major funder of research. For a number of decades, you have had to sing from their page in order to get a grant. Therefore universities tended to hire only those who could get these grants. The universities and NSF bureaucratic policies slowly, but surely squeezed out any opposing voices in the scientific community.

      Further, universities want the faculty/research which brings in the big research bucks. That means heavily cellular/molecular research with expensive equipment. These grants come with 20-30% and even higher overheads granted to the institution for a “handling” fee.

      I do not see truth and integrity very important in today’s society and certainly not in the scientific community. They view the scientific method as a hindrance and not principles to which one should strive.

      As always, “follow the money.”

      • Broadlands permalink
        June 4, 2020 12:56 pm

        “These grants come with 20-30% and even higher overheads granted to the institution for a “handling” fee.”

        Yes, Joan. It is stunning that someone asking, pleading? for financial support would turn around and charge absurd overhead simply to pay for the Deans and their staffs who were hired to distribute and monitor it…while dismissing any professors unable to obtain it.

        Michael Mann’s Total: $6,409,700. Penn State cleared him? With their administrative overhead at risk? A tidy sum just for “processing and handling”.

      • June 4, 2020 5:43 pm

        We should follow the money. We should follow all the money though, not just public money. The final sentence, the only one I expressed disagreement with, seemed to be saying that all corporate research grants were good and that all state-funded research grants were bad. It also seemed to be saying that corruption that harmed academic freedom was inevitable if there were state-funded research grants, but that private funding of research grants posed no risk at all. That took me by surprise, because, until then, these ideas that first appeared in the final sentence hadn’t been mentioned.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        June 4, 2020 10:04 pm

        As I mentioned above, state funds generally come through the same funnel, eg ARC funds in Australia. So whatever ideology controls that funnel, controls the funds.. Research proposals have to be accepted by that funnel, or they don’t get funded…leading to massive group-think.

        And no-one wants their fund funnel disrupted, especially not the Uni hierarchy.

        Commercial funds are generally for a specific research related to their interest, so many interests and ideologies can exist. Not group-think.

        There is very little “unattached” research at Uni’s nowadays.

  5. June 4, 2020 12:33 pm

    This is a return to the Middle Ages when people were burned at the stake for thinking the universe wasn’t Earth centric. It indicates that a currently held scientific belief is just that, a belief because evidence is coming forward that challenges the narrative.

    As observations in medieval times became more accurate, orbital epicycles were introduced to explain these anomalies. As observations became even more accurate, epicycles within epicycles kept the Earth centric view alive until it was generally realised that nature simple wasn’t that cumbersome.

    We are at this point now with AGW, none of the predictions have come to pass and there is desperation amongst the alarmists to keep AGW alive despite growing evidence to the contrary. The only way to keep an inaccurate theory alive is to make it illegal to question it. A few hundred years ago it was the Church, today it is misguided scientists.

    • June 4, 2020 5:20 pm

      @andrewmharding

      “the Middle Ages when people were burned at the stake for thinking the universe wasn’t Earth centric”

      Do you have any source for the assertion that somebody – anybody at all – was burned at the stake during the Middle Ages for thinking the universe wasn’t Earth centric? Or this something that everybody is supposed to know, in certain circles, so that nobody bothers to check whether it’s true or a made-up myth before repeating it?

  6. jack broughton permalink
    June 6, 2020 7:54 pm

    There was another, as usually uncritically edited, article about the Barrier Reef in the “i” yesterday: –
    Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at JC Uni said “We saw record breaking temperatures all along the length of the Great Barrier Reef…..so hot that the bleaching we have seen this year is the most extensive yet …..he is almost certain that the reef is not going to recover ……. if global warming continues the reef will be destroyed” etc etc.

    Looks like Dr. Ridd crossed his path!

  7. June 8, 2020 3:23 am

    Yes Khun Paul, it is the death of the scientific method. It had to be sacrificed for the greater good of saving the planet from fossil fuel emissions.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: