Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Fencepost No. 12: Religion replaces Science and Reason as a means of discourse

I just want to flag up another Fencepost - the acceptance by the Establishment of unreason and unscientific justifications to impose opinion upon all, to make it policy, to enact it in legislation (I do not call such things "law"). Religion, in all but name. This is as a result of back-to-back posts at Dick Puddlecote. Please read them. I joined the dots.

The religious mindset we have recently seen in the sphere of Anthropogenic Global Warming, now renamed to Climate Change (while pulling up the ladder to reason, inquiry, doubt and common sense, natch) has also existed in the temperance movement - the demon drink.

This has not been of such great concern in the past for, unlike the AGW mob - and they are a mob, happy to leverage the Tyranny of the Minority/Majority - the Temperance Movement has been almost purely about a religious standpoint. As such, it has remained a matter more of personal choice and conviction and as such easier to keep in its box. That does not mean it has not wished to get out of its box and force us all to comply, but I suspect over the years a Fabian approach was preferred.

Recently, however, they seem to have lost patience as well as reason and hijacked Science and we have the lobbying of various bodies growing. Others do it, so... The biggest bootstrapped scam is the "20 units per week" wibble. As Dick exposes, the head of Weatherspoons consumes 40+ units and the chap who came up with* the number, he suggests, did not believe it. 20 units of Stella vs 40 of Real Ale or Champagne? I'd venture that the latter is better for you. Units are meaningless, it is like saying "2lb of meat" not distinguishing between sausages and sirloin.

Into this mix we have the Anti-Smoking movement. This is an odd one. In some ways you could say it began as a true scientific health-based concern. It has mutated into a quasi Anti-Capitalist, Authoritarian thrust, (intentionally?) blurring the divide between anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. Big Tobacco is a nice, easy, guilt-free punchbag for those of an anti-capitalist mindset, even though the actual stance would correctly be anti-corporatism. I wonder if some edge towards the anti-cap and away from anti-corp due to dissonance arising from Socialist views which tend to be happier with Corporatist activity.

All three contain loud advocates that use dodgy science, misleading and selective information and attack dissent with foaming, inquisitional fury. To them it is heresy to disagree.  It does not take much imagination to work out how they treat those who stand up to them. Reason, scientific rigour and personal choice are cast by the wayside.

So, the  Climate lobby never really used proper science and has now become a religion in all but name under the cloak of science. The Temperance Movement has rebranded itself, and is using made up figures and specious arguments but has also grabbed the cloak of science as a basis and to give it an excuse to become more aggressive and demanding. The Anti-smoking lobby has gone on a power trip of Authoritarian dimensions. Personal choice can go hang - all must obey. 

The Government has a duty to resist such snake oil. Yes, listen to reason and scientific evidence, but to begin to fund such groups to produce policy triggers? To not only listen but parrot their unreason? To pander to their desire for Authoritarianism and social tyranny? No. No. No.

As we know, however, our "Government" is chock full of de-educated Statist imbeciles. Authoritarianism and arbitrary control of the personal sphere is like mother's milk to them.

* polite term for pulling it out of his arse


Dick Puddlecote said...

Brilliantly put Roger. Yes, it is becoming like a religion. You're not the first to draw such comparisons either, slowly people are waking up to the threat. Just too few and too slowly.

Here is an article in The Publican about the return of the Temperance Movement.

Roger Thornhill said...

Thanks for the link.

I note Andrew McNeill popped up and spouted his mission statement.

Interesting use of words. It includes one or two "dog whistle" words for me.

Here is the blurb:

"To educate and to preserve and protect the good health of the public by promoting the scientific understanding of beverage alcohol and the individual, societal and health consequences of its consumption and by promoting measures for the prevention of alcohol-related problems and to promote for the public benefit research into beverage alcohol and to publish the useful results."

Note "protect the good health", not "defend". To protect is to put a barrier between, to remove potential dangers. This is a disingenuous way of excusing a ban.

What is "an alcohol-related problem" in their eyes. More prevention, whatever. Also, the publishing of "useful results"...useful to whom, pray.

Mealy-mouthed tripe from a prod-nosed busybody.