Thursday, February 18, 2021


Every human is a scientist; we all "do science". We are born doing science.

The thing is, we aren't all good at doing science. That includes those who call themselves "scientists" or science "experts". They are no better at doing science than anyone else, they just get more unearned credibility when they speak on the subject (even when their topic has nothing to do with their narrow field of "expertise").

Science (including medical science) doesn't require government funding, a billion-dollar laboratory, or a Ph.D. Yes, some humans who do science have those things, but they aren't essential. Nor do those things guarantee good science is being done. It still depends more on the human doing the science, and their ability to do science right.

If you "listen to the science" without doing it yourself, you have to decide whether you trust that the person you're listening to did science well. Then you need to decide if they are trustworthy and credible. If they are also involved in politics, the answer is "No, they aren't".


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two


  1. “If they are also involved in politics, the answer is "No, they aren't".

    I completely agree. And the rot runs even deeper than the personal involvement of the individual practitioner of ‘science’ in politics. I am referring to the now near universal funding of this process by State entities. Never forget the old adage: “He who pays the piper, calls the tune”.

    1. If a scientist receives that funding, he's doing politics.

    2. I am not sure I would agree that they are ‘doing’ politics but I can’t deny that they are influenced and even directed by it in less obvious or overt ways. A person like Fauci may have once practiced the scientific process but his involvement and willful participation in politics is now the ‘dog’ that wags the science ‘tail’ in his actions. A practicing scientist who works for some entity that is funded by stolen pelf from the government may still pursue truth and reality and follow the evidence to the extent they are able and consequently bear less responsibility than the former. This distinction becomes less justifiable when the whole purpose and goal of some scientific endeavor is clearly for political ends and purposes as I would place the development of nuclear weapons to be subsequently put in the hands of government.

    3. Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Knowing where the money comes from, and wanting to keep it coming, is going to influence the conclusions the scientist reaches.