Article 12 B

Science Is Non-Debateable Knowledge.

The need for my Campaign for definitive knowledge to replace definitive belief in policy-making is more than adequately demonstrated by an article jointly authored by Sir Paul Nurse (a Nobel Laureate) and Lord Saatchi (a former Chairman of the Conservative Party) which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 6/6/20 which fails to recognise the non-debateable nature of science; and which fails to recognise the presence of such debate as being conclusively indicative of the absence of science. This jointly-authored contribution to debate opened by stating that ‘science and politics is not a marriage made in heaven’; that ‘both now need a marriage counsellor’; that ‘difficult marriages lead to unhappy outcomes’; that ‘in this case, it may be the worst death toll in Europe and soon the worst recession ever’; that ‘the couple should fix their relationship as we move forward to the next stage of this long and painful journey’; and that these authors ‘have some advice for them’.

This ‘important’ advice is that the public should not ‘be treated as children’ because ‘they are grown-ups. These authors then accuse the politicians of having ‘the scientists centre-stage with their slides, charts, graphs and diagrams’; of ‘putting “the science” in the limelight’, and of ‘diluting responsibility over decision-making’. They then proceed to state that the politicians say they are following the “scientific evidence; that this is ‘Good’; but ‘they should let the public see it too’ because ‘people want clear accountability which means clarity about the governance arrangements and the demarcation of advisory versus decision-making roles’. Again they state that ‘the public wants to know who is in charge; and that ‘there are too many organisations, too many cooks in the kitchen’; that ‘communications are also important’; that ‘the scientific case should not be distorted by the messaging’; and that there should be more respect for plain English’ that “tested” does not mean tests in the post; that “died of virus” is different from “died with virus”; and that ‘scientists should not be used as cover for politicians who are ultimately responsible for policy’; that ‘sometimes politicians have to make difficult decisions; that ‘they may choose not to follow scientific advice’; ‘but if they do they should give their reasons for doing so; and that this ‘is part of being a leader’.

At this point, I observe for my readers that neither of these two commentators recognises that science is anything more than belief and opinion which can be accepted or rejected according to whether or not it complies with opinions or consensual beliefs of politicians or the voting public; that neither commentator recognises that science is incontestable knowledge which politicians and the public reject at their peril; that they do not recognise that “the science” to which they refer is no more than the belief-consensus of those offering it as advice; that they do not recognise that “the science” is not science, though they go on to state that ‘ politicians need to understand the uncertainty in “the science” and to communicate it; that when there are uncertainties, there are speculations’; that where speculation turns out to be wrong, it is important to admit it; and that ‘otherwise members of the public stop believing you’.      

In contrast, I say that there is no uncertainty about definitive knowledge; that science treats beliefs and opinions as hypotheses for submission to the cause-effect experimentation which reality-validates or reality-refutes hypotheses to positive or negative knowledge as I explained in my third book and in the Preamble to this Website; that scientific knowledge is thus non-debateable in total contrast to political beliefs and opinions which are endlessly debatable  and are only temporarily resolvable to one or other transient belief-consensus by submission to a vote which can always be reversed by further debate and recourse to another vote.         10/6/20