Teach the controversy

 

Credit: Mari bob hairstyle@nekosuki8401 (Twitter)

Originally posted on December 19, 2021. Slightly revised for readability.

The slogan "unite behind the science" is frequently being used to shut down political dissent and questioning. Indeed, you can be both censored and persecuted for questioning "science". And very often, the leftists and the liberals are behind this "science" crusade. Being "unscientific" has become the equivalent of being a witch, or perhaps a KGB agent. 

This scientism is a threat to political democracy, not just in its "static" form, but also in its more "dynamic" form, in which democracy is used to politicize everything and change it - to reform society, in short. There was a time when progressives would see things in precisely this way, rejecting all "scientific" claims that class society, capitalist economy, gender inequality or racial segregation were "natural" and hence outside the proper jurisdiction of the political sphere. And yet, here we are, with authoritarian social engineers and condescending saviors telling us what to do in the name of "science", and insisting on the top of their voices that nothing - not a proper democratic debate, and absolutely not fiery political protests - can trump their questionable decisions cuz scientific. In fact, I wouldn´t even call them social engineers, since those at least tried to change society (sometimes even for the better). The present-day "PMC" just wants to uphold the status quo as it looked like circa 2010 (when most workers had been thrown under the bus long ago). 

By the above "logic", liberals and leftists should have been racist during the 19th and early 20th centuries, uniting behind a science which said that Whites were a superior race, while Negroes were, of course, inferior. Perhaps they should still be racist, since Whites consistently outperform Blacks on IQ tests. Also, science showed that of course women were more stupid, emotional and weak than men. Yet, no true progressive at the time was thinking like this. Why not? Muh science, after all! Clearly, the reasons weren´t "scientific" but political, social, ideological. As for Blacks, they fought racism and slavery anyway, regardless of debates between Whites about the desirability of such a struggle. 

"But X has been scientifically proven" isn´t an argument against a democratic debate and political process, *not even if the claim is true*. A whole number of issues are still on the table and must be dealt with politically, by duly elected officials, a free press, and so on. A course that´s scientifically correct could hurt the economy, disproportionately hit the workers or oppressed minorities, make it harder to defend the nation against foreign enemies, and so on. Science may be consequence-neutral, but politics cannot be, progressive politics in particular. "Group X has lower IQ than Group Y" could be an argument for apartheid, but it could also be an argument for creating more employment opportunities for Group X (in this case, jobs that don´t require high IQ), thereby integrating them into society, strengthening the social cohesion of the nation.  

Ironically, the COVID pandemic is an excellent example. *According to established science, pandemics are best fought by herd immunity*. Had the pandemic been allowed to take its course in the spring of 2020, the whole thing would have been over by summer. Yet, it´s probably true that this is *politically* inexpedient for a whole number of reasons. That´s why leftists and liberals oppose it in favor of hard lockdowns. The claims that this is somehow more "scientific" than herd immunity is just bullshit rhetoric to lock down any political debate about the course taken. And since there is seldom a scientific consensus on any issue, the people who talk warmly about "science" are really saying that a *very specific group of scientists should be handed political veto powers over our elected officials or the popular will*. But on what grounds have this *particular* group of scientists been selected? Obviously on the grounds that they support...you guessed it...the *politics* of the faction making the proposal...

So it always boils down to good ol´ politization in the end.

That purported "progressives" suddenly want everyone to unite behind a classless and perfectly objective Science, or else be stripped of their democratic rights, simply shows what very material class interests they are defending. It is the interests of...their own class.