climate denier in charge of EPA transition

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 11:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Were those beliefs based upon science or creation myths?  Regardless, "Science" proved those beliefs incorrect approximately half a millennium before Christ was born. But, I understand his job: professional bullshit artist. 

In fact, one could argue that modern science, what we really call "science" and not just a system of beliefs about nature, emerges in the 16th century when astronomy distinguishes itself from astrology and the "common sense" understanding that the earth is flat.  So it would be quite wrong to pose this historical example as some kind of paradigm shift within science. Astronomy marks the emergence of science from non-science.

What bothers me about Scaramucci in this case is his attempt to use the provisional character of all scientific theory--one source of its strength--as a kind of weakness, a basis for general distrust.  One sees this tactic deployed by big business interests when science threatens profits (e.g., the tobacco and extraction industries), and by religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam) when it threatens religious "truths." 

There are, of course, paradigm shifts within science and periods in which science is unsettled as advocates of an older paradigm face off with those of a newer. But I cannot think of any such case in which one side is invested in undermining science per se to get its views accepted.