Reader Question: The “Science”?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s the latest reader question, which is more a commentary – along with my reply!

LW writes: First, thank you again for your service to your community of readers.  Thank you for providing a public voice and a place where those that still value liberty and critical thought can question the manufactured groupthink and consider alternatives to seemingly popular narratives in autos, politics, government, and most recently The Saga of the Coof.

Which brings me to that tiresome battlefront.  I know you’re busy dealing with your mother’s situation and trying to make a living so if you read no further, I’m satisfied. Just trying to manage my own mental health and put my thoughts down in a coherent manner so I can stop waking up at odd hours trying to make sense of clown world 2020. So, I keep hearing the phrase “believe the science” in the liberal media and by those they cherry pick as “authoritative sources”.  It’s been gnawing at me hearing that phrase.  It reminds me of a scene in the movie Anchorman where the well-established idiot, Ron Burgundy, tosses out random and absurd knowledge of his own creation to publicly disparage his professional competition and challenging love interest, and self affirms his absurdities for all witnesses with the phrase, “It’s science.”

As a STEM grad of long ago and a fan of absurd humor, this gag was most satisfyingly hilarious to me.  To wield the word “science” as some sort of blunt club to subdue your detractors and short circuit any attempts to refute your absurd and offensive claims is hilarious.  A sophomoric delight.  So, I wonder.  Why does it seem the average person can’t see that the liberal media and our state and local god-kings/queens mimic this wise fool technique with their facial diapering and shutdowns/lockdowns rhetoric?  The same thing that they’ve been doing with “climate change”, formerly known as “global warming,” formerly known as “global cooling”? We are only to believe “the science.”

When one asks to see the results of their “science” or has done their own research, they are shunned as a heretic for questioning the faith. Is it just willful ignorance by the masses? The comfort one has feeling they are in the care of someone supremely skilled and competent that will save them?

As I was pondering these things with supreme irritation at an early hour this morning, I was curious what the accepted definition of science is these days. The top definition for “science” from Merriam-(woke) Webster: The state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. Top definition for science from my 35+ year old dictionary: Knowledge acquired by careful observation, by deduction of laws which govern changes and conditions, and by testing these deductions by experiment.

Notice anything different? Science, now, is simply: “The state of knowing.” That’s where we are now. I guess the media and ruling elite have reached Nirvana and the mysteries of the universe are just manifest in their omniscient hive mind; divine knowledge to be handed down to the unwashed masses as so many pearls cast before swine.  Believe the science; Believe the state of knowing.  Makes perfect sense.  Known by whom?  Knowing what?  What one fallible human source told you?  Knowing that you ignore any data that is contrary to your “belief”?  Contrary to your unrightful and illegal claim to powers beyond the constitutionally granted authority of your office?  I’m not saying I don’t believe there’s not a viral pathogen in our midst that can truly harm some.  There is.  Always has been.  Especially if you are unfortunate enough to be of frail constitution.  What the acolytes of the coof apocalypse have yet to convince me of, is that paper/cloth masks and lockdowns and arbitrary draconian orders destroying people’s livelihoods, their intimate relationships and their mental and physical wellbeing, do one fraction of the good they are claiming.  If they work so well, why does their own data indicate otherwise?  Why do people get so angry when you simply question what they’ve been told? Told to believe. It’s not science. As you’ve so astutely pointed out: it’s a religion.

My reply: Indeed. “Science” is also changeable, absent evidence. Fauci and the Surgeon General say wearing a Holy Rag is pointless theater – and then retract that statement. Which “science” is to be believed? The one so ordered. Not subject to evidence/cross-examination of assertions.

This is, in fact, a religious movement. It is why I use the term – not as abuse but rather to define.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at and I will send you a copy directly!



  1. eric, I don’t seem to be able to post a comment. It’s about Face Bitch and how it banned ill speech of the govt. by permanent ban so everyone’s been speaking out the corner of their mouth. This is my 3rd try to post this because the first 2 were “spam”. I guess old Worm Piss isn’t pleased either. Anyway, here goes nothing…….again.

  2. LW, with all due respect, I looked in my Webster’s Ninth Collegiate (1983) and found the first definition of “science” to be identical to what you said Merriam-Webster online (I’m assuming) has as the definition. The 3rd definition given is more akin to what you state is in your old dictionary. Mine also refers to “scientific method” as part of that definition. By that they mean testing observable outcomes, etc.

    This does not, however, negate your point about “science” as such becoming a religion. It’s a religion grounded in the god Earth Mother Gaia. Its acolytes use The State as the priesthood. It’s a communist salad with green goddess dressing.

  3. The best part about “SCIENCE!” (TM) by revelation is that the priestly caste never has to actually make testable predictions or explain how any conclusions were reached, at least not to the proles. It’s nice work if you can get it.

    • Hi Bama,

      One of the many “tells” that this whole thing is a fraud is the fact that people are willing to go out in public at all. If they really believed that death was in the air, I doubt one out of ten would risk it – using a bandana, dust mask as “protection.”

      Hell, I’d stay home – forget the Face Diaper – if I believed there was a significant chance I might catch a deadly illness by going out in public.

      It’s analogous to “speeding.” Most people “speed” – despite the propaganda – precisely because they know it is propaganda.

  4. LW,

    It is not religion or science, it is abuse. What the government is doing to its people is an emotional and mental exploitation. Just has I stated on an earlier thread today, the government is the abuser, the constituents are the abused. Everyone probably has a friend who has been in a fanatical relationship at sometime or another. Their partner is dominating, controlling, manipulative, but she/he loves them. The first time you met the creep you instinctively knew that he/she was an out and out jerk. You couldn’t understand why your friend would want to be with someone like that. As the relationship intensified your friend became withdrawn, he/she stopped hanging out with you, everything revolved around this twit. The creep would tell your friend that “you” were no longer good for his/her significant other. Why? Because you told the truth. You told him/her to question the relationship, that this was not normal, and this person did not have their best interest at heart.

    After a few months or years of emotional abuse maybe the friend woke up and dumped the blockhead and stated they should have listened to you. Maybe they are still with them and your friendship has been severed.

    The point is when someone is dependent on someone the outsiders (you) will always be told you were wrong, when in fact, you have been right all along. You cannot stop an abusive relationship. You can just observe it. The advice you offer is not advice that they want to hear. As individuals we have two choices: 1. Be willing to wait until your friend regains consciousness; 2. Walk away knowing that you tried and you refuse to be a part of the circus. Those are the only choices.

    In the meantime, live your life freely. Accept the fact that you can’t stop the train wreck coming, but you can avoid it. Spend time with your family, talk to your sane friends, ignore the chaos surrounding you, but most importantly steer clear of the abuser.

    • For the last several thousand years humans have been ruled (with some limited exceptions) by the formula of a ruling class that employs an intellectual class to tell people why they need to obey and sacrifice to the ruling class.

      The intellectual class is usually priests but they got replaced by scientists who then corrupted science to do their role’s primary task. As a result science is now a belief, a religion. If you don’t believe in the voices of science you’re a heretic. It’s the same thing as a priest speaking for God or the gods or whatever.

      Six thousand years and nothing changes.

      • Morning, Brent!

        It’s worse, I think. I can and do respect science. But science is evidentiary; it is the opposite of belief. That which is asserted – a hypothesis – must be supported by testable evidence and if it “does not compute” then it isn’t science, especially if insisted on in the name of belief.

        If “science” actually mattered, this “crisis” would be over. The small portion of the general population that may be at greater risk would be advised to take reasonable precautions, the same as would be/was the case with seasonal flu. But the rest – the Diaper Wearing and lockdowns?

        They’d have been canned months ago as absurdly over-reactive/hysterical.

        • All of the govking’s executive orders regarding these controversial measures make references to a number of studies supposedly proving the efficacy of this or that. Sometimes we’re referred to the “settled” science, other times the “latest” science. Our science vs. their science. Real science vs. junk science. It’s all a shell game.

          Science filtered through the lens of politics becomes scientism, defined as an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation. This is apparent in the words of public health dictators when they say things like, we didn’t consider the economic impacts of so-called lockdowns.

          • Scientism rarely follows the proper rules of science. It is common to see government and foundation funded scientists break rules of science and data presentation I learned in the fifth grade.

            • I think you’re agreeing with my first paragraph. However, even if scientism did follow the rules of science, it doesn’t change the fact that the scientific method is not appropriate in contexts outside natural science. Like economics or politics. If gov’t referenced “science” was conducted according to the proper scientific method in a manner to conclusively prove to you that diapers “worked”, would you wear one? Would you then consider it appropriate for gov’t to “mandate” them on everybody? Should the science be informing all political decisions? Just some? Which ones? It starts to get really arbitrary. The whole science thing is a red herring.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here