A Comment Worth Repeating

I was haunting the blog of Larry Correia, who is a bestselling author that I highly recommend, especially his brilliant Hard Magic series, his rollicking Monster Hunter Series, and his hilarious Tom Stranger Interdimensional Insurance yarns, and his most exceptional Saga of the Forgotten Sword series, which is his best work yet.

I came across the trenchant remark below, by one of his readers, which I repeat in full.

Tis from an man codenamed Archer, who describes himself thus: “In no particular order: Cynic, thinker, husband, father, tinkerer, Christian, conservative with libertarian tendencies, gun owner, freedom activist, IT guy. No, I will not fix your computer.”

His website is here: http://notonemoregunlaw.blogspot.com/

*** *** ***

I imagine most of us here have sufficiently robust backgrounds to have studied (at least passingly) the Scientific Method.

But if anyone needs a refresher, here’s the rough overview (note that the exact steps vary by author; this is just a quick rehash):

1. Make an observation and identify the problem
2. Ask a question
3. Gather information – research, interview, collaborate, etc.
4. Form a hypothesis (testable explanation)
5. Test your hypothesis – make a prediction based on your hypothesis and run experiments to see if the results match your prediction
6. Analyze data and draw conclusions – do your results match your prediction? if yes, move to next step; if no, go back to step #3, adjust hypothesis, and retest (or conclude the hypothesis is wrong and start over)
7. Communicate results

This system of organized thought, research, and experimentation has been in use since around the 1600s, and is how modern science has produced everything from medicines to technology.

What’s interesting is how hard the so-called “Party of Science” is ridiculing us for asking a question or identifying a problem (step #2) without also providing a viable solution (step #7) while simultaneously working to stymie us on Step #3 by cutting off our ability to research and collaborate.

Even if you make it all the way through to step #7, your conclusion will never survive peer review if it doesn’t align with Leftist orthodoxy.

But remember, even though it’s the so-called “Party of Science” that’s actively killing real science, YOU are the “Science Denier”.

What’s the solution? Hell if I know; I’m just another guy stuck here on step #3.