Why Scientists Can't Walk it Back

A common ailment of the problem sciences is that the practitioners often find it difficult to say "we don't know why." This causes them to say, "the least wrong theory must be right." In astrophysics, the insistence that all observed redshifts must be caused by relative motions leads to a constant stream of "surprising" results and all kids of theoretical absurdities, like dark energy. In evolution, the theory that the origin of species arises by random mutations of DNA has been destroyed entirely by modern genetic technology, but scientists cling on anyway, like children to a favorite blankie. Why?

A number of common reasons are given. Perhaps they just can't admit they were wrong. But that's partially wrong, at least. Scientists have no problem admitting when tests yield unexpected results, which happens time and time again, to the point that it's become amusing to watch. They're perfectly willing to admit the theories were wrong and improvement is needed, but they'll only admit it in a certain way: the theory must be repaired rather than discarded. Further, there should be great incentive for young scientists to be the ones to overthrow an old theory, in the way that Morley and Michelson became famous for disproving universal ether. So it's not just a reluctance to admit being wrong that drives the reluctance to reject the bad science.

Most will assume it's about money. Again, that may be partially true. Certainly veteran researchers will fight to maintain their established funding tracks, and upstarts will seek out pursuits with proven funding success. Still, it doesn't explain the systematic lingering on to failing theories. The scientists will be funded in any case. As long as they can make the case to funding officials that a different pursuit is likely to pay scientific dividends, the money will flow. The officials have egos too; they want to be the ones to fund the next big thing. They are, like the rest of society, investing in the areas that the scientists tell them are most promising. There is no real financial reason, besides some institutional inertia, for scientists to resist abandoning the theories that are being contradicted by evidence.

The most fundamental reason why scientists can't admit certain theories are wrong is because it has become a necessity of their new social role. Scientists are no longer mere implementers of the scientific method, but high priests of the progressive secular religion. There's a reason that one of the most revered public SJWs is a "Science Guy." Science, to them, means factual. It gives them a pretense of rational credibility. Science, to them, is also considered to be a refutation of religion. The leftists do not praise science as the pursuit of objective knowledge - progressive scholars openly attack objective truth as racist - but because they see it as a way to tell Christian bigots that they are wrong.

Consider this passage out of yesterday's edition of Contrabang!

If a theory cannot conceivably be proven false, then it is not a valid scientific theory. It's why scientists reject the theory of "God did it." How do you prove He didn't? It's more a matter of theology than science.

God lives in the dark corners where the light of science does not shine. In primitive times, man knew very little about the world, thus everything was explained by the supernatural. The shaman who could summon the rain gods held great power over agricultural societies. Over time, understanding of the world has grown, and the domain of things explained by interference of the gods has shrank. (Still, I'm sure some Midwest farmers are praying for the rains to stop, about now.) Progressives believe that the portions illuminated by the light of science will grow to encompass everything there is, and the realm of superstition will be totally eliminated. The irony is that they are not eliminating the old religious order so much as replacing it with a new one. The old shaman pointed out how the peoples' sins had angered the weather gods, and they must pay a penance to regain favor. The new shaman says practically the same thing.

The guiding principle is not that scientists can't be wrong, but they can't cede ground back to God. A domain, once illuminated, cannot be darkened. It's the essence of progressivism: there must be continual progress. It's not so much that they don't want to lose ground and thus admit a defeat; it's that they can't fathom such reversal of progress is even possible. In no area is this more important than in cosmological and biological evolution, which tells the story of why we are here. My detractors would naturally assume that I've gravitated to those particular scientific domains because of my religious convictions. It's not actually true! I harbor very few such convictions. Lately, I've become so disenchanted with the materialists who dominate our society that my religious conviction is a simple rejection of materialism: spirit must animate matter; it can't be that matter randomly simulates spirit. That's it. How the biological species arose, or the cosmos came to be, I really have no personal preference. I'm not drawn to astrophysics and evolution for some agenda, but because the science there is so demonstrably bad. It is their agenda! It is their religious bias! Neutron stars are disproven. A genetic basis for evolution is disproven. What will it take for scientists to admit it? Whatever it is, it will not be a scientific argument. They already misinterpret the evidence they have. (A study showed no genetic correlation with fox domestication, yet they reported it as "hinting" at a genetic influence anyway.) The only way to stop the bad science will be to kill science as a religious platform. The solution, I'm sorry to say, is societal, not scientific. An irrational society cannot produce good science. There's a reason the west didn't spark an industrial revolution until after the re-discovery of Aristotle.

With that said, I will continue doing scientific analysis, because I do think it is important for swaying one mind at a time. Most people think the evidence supports neo-Darwinian evolution. Most people think the evidence supports the Big Bang Theory and cosmic inflation. Once they realize that it doesn't, they will naturally wonder what else in the progressive worldview they've been misled about.