In the aftermath of the Challenger disaster, Richard Feynman shows Congress what happens when the rubber seals that had been used in the spacecraft’s launcher get cold.
Tulane Mathematical Physics Professor Frank J. Tipler notes that the late Richard Feynman would have rejected the appeal to authority so frequently invoked to shut down debate on alleged Anthropogenic Climate Change. A consensus of climate scientists, if it actually did exist, proves absolutely nothing.
‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts’ is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in his article What is Science? …
Immediately after his definition of science, Feynman wrote: â€œWhen someone says, â€˜Science teaches such and such,â€™ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesnâ€™t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, â€˜Science has shown such and such,â€™ you should ask, â€˜How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?â€™ It should not be â€˜science has shown.â€™ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.â€
And I say, Amen. Notice that â€œyouâ€ is the average person. You have the right to hear the evidence, and you have the right to judge whether the evidence supports the conclusion. We now use the phrase â€œscientific consensus,â€ or â€œpeer review,â€ rather than â€œscience has shown.â€ By whatever name, the idea is balderdash. Feynman was absolutely correct.
When the attorney general of Virginia sued to force Michael Mann of â€œhockey stickâ€ fame to provide the raw data he used, and the complete computer program used to analyze the data, so that â€œyouâ€ could decide, the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia (where Mann was a professor at the time he defended the hockey stick) declared this request â€” Feynmanâ€™s request â€” to be an outrage. You peons, the Faculty Senate decreed, must simply accept the conclusions of any â€œscientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards.â€ Feynmanâ€™s â€” and the attorney generalâ€™s and my own and other scientistsâ€™ â€” request for the raw data, so we can â€œjudge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at,â€ would, according to the Faculty Senate, â€œsend a chilling message to scientists â€¦ and indeed scholars in any discipline.â€
According the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia, â€œscience,â€ and indeed â€œscholarshipâ€ in general, is no longer an attempt to establish truth by replicable experiment, or by looking at evidence that can be checked by anyone. â€œTruthâ€ is now to be established by the decree of powerful authority, by â€œpeer review.â€ Wasnâ€™t the whole point of the Enlightenment to avoid exactly this?