Scientific Elitism

There is a trend these days, particularly online, to just trust the experts. The experts of course are those that hold to the politically correct views such as Big Bang to man evolution, man-caused climate change, and a lot more. Inherent in this idea is the notion of Scientific elitism.

 Scientific elitism is the notion that approved scientists are not to be questioned when they say something considered scientific. Of course, the only scientists who have this privilege of being unquestioned are those who follow the official party line and accept whatever leftist agenda exists on the topic they are talking about.

I have encountered criticism simply for not blindly accepting what is said about evolution, climate change, and other topics. That is the problem with such elitist attitudes. you are expected to blindly follow the elites even if the direction they are going seems ridiculous. What a lot of people do not realize is that such attitudes are completely unscientific. What is actually scientific Is being able to question and even refute claims that are made in the name of science. No matter how scientific an idea may be originally, it ceases to be truly scientific when you are no longer allowed to question it.

The moment somebody tells you that you may not question what a scientist has said, the person making the statement is engaging in scientific elitism and not true science. Elitist attitudes are among the biggest dangers that genuine science faces. This is because not only can scientific elitism prevent progress in specific fields being discussed by the elites but in related fields as well.

The danger that elitist attitudes in science pose is that it actually hinder scientific development preventing ideas such as evolution or old Earth geological theories from being challenged. Even if the theory being challenged is ultimately correct the challenge still makes real science stronger. This is because the challenge will strengthen a correct theory. Not only does it open the door to correcting errors in current theory, but it opens the door to replacement if it is needed.

The Internet has done wonders for the democratization of science by making both scientific research and the ability to do scientific research available to more people. While this does allow for cranks to appear, it also allows legitimate challenges to establishment science that can open the door to breakthroughs. Being able to challenge even the most strongly accepting theories is a critical aspect that strengthens real science. Scientific elitism is it danger to this critical ability to challenge existing theory, and consequently, it is a danger to science itself

Help support this blog.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

The anti-science label

The term “anti-science” is one of several derogatory terms that evolutionists use against creationists. You’ll find some Christians for whom this charge is correct, but it’s not a label that’s accurately associated with creationists. In fact, most active creationists embrace science. The issue that most creationists face is the promotion of atheistic mythology disguised as science.

Definition of Anti-science

The legitimate meaning of anti-science refers to a collection of attitudes that encompass the denial of science and the scientific method. Evolutionists and others commonly define it as the rejection of mainstream scientific perspectives and methodologies or the substitution of unproven or intentionally deceptive theories. These two definitions differ significantly. The first definition pertains to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles, such as the scientific method, on a general level. On the other hand, the second definition targets specific theoretical concepts advocated by established scientific institutions. In essence, the first definition, which is a valid usage of the term, rejects science as a whole, while the second definition is employed to criticize those who dispute particular claims made within the realm of science. The disparity between these definitions is substantial. By the way, in the second definition, I will leave it to your imagination to determine who holds the authority to decide whether a theory is unproven or deliberately misleading.

Ignored in Usage of Derogatory Terms 

The usage of derogatory labels often overlooks the fact that challenging and disagreeing with widely accepted scientific concepts has historically played a crucial role in the advancement of science. Had this mindset prevailed in the early 20th century, groundbreaking theories like Special and General Relativity, as well as Quantum Mechanics, would have been rejected. Esteemed scientists such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck would have been dismissed as anti-science. Derogatory labels are employed to protect certain ideas that are presented as scientific facts, despite being highly questionable. This tendency is often driven by philosophical and political motivations. For instance, the philosophical connection between universal common descent evolution and atheism, or the leftist origins of the belief in man-caused climate change.

Political Nature of Use of Derogatory Terms 

The political nature of the use of such derogatory terms is evident by the fact, that people who have opposed mandatory masks, closedowns, and vaccines, because such mandates are an attack on individual liberty are finding this label applied to them whether or not they are questioning the scientific claims involved. Those using these labels are basically saying that you not only have to agree with them in these areas, but you also have to allow them to decree what solutions you must follow.

Tyranny of the Experts

A tyranny of the experts is precisely what allowed the Catholic Church to maintain its authority for numerous centuries. The beginning of their decline in power occurred when ordinary individuals gained access to the Bible in their native tongue and could interpret it independently. What exacerbates the severity of the present form of tyranny of the experts is that one is not deemed an expert unless one aligns with specific perspectives.

Personal Experience

When I was in college, I had a hard time understanding both Relativity and quantum mechanics. Part of the problem was that the textbooks presented them as mathematical abstractions in need of a physical explanation. I worked on such an explanation for many years and even developed a  good model. I did this because I had time to work on it. However, my model made a prediction which I was able to prove to be wrong. I also discovered a solution to my problems with both theories at the same time. Not only do I understand both theories better today, but you will find that I defend them better than people who blindly accept them. It also led me to find a way to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics which is what I am working on now. This is because of the freedom to investigate. The tyranny of experts doesn’t allow this.

Conclusion

To put it another way, the use of terms like "anti-science" implies that the point of view of those who use them is the only correct one. They claim that anyone who does not agree with that point of view is an enemy of science. In fact, this is an anti-science stance all on its own, because it denies that scientific thought is contingent.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA