March for Politics, Scientism and Scidolatry

But not for Science

Bill Nye, one of the featured players in Saturday's March for Life.

By William M Briggs Published on April 20, 2017

The upcoming March for Science — check with your nearest purple-haired activist for directions and times — is to no one’s surprise turning out to be one of those standard-issue paroxysms of “outrage,” grief, and angst directed against … well, this time against those who are against science.

Which is a group comprised of exactly no one.

Since there is no opposition to science, protesting against those who are against science ensures the March will be a success. Nothing burns as brightly as a Straw Man.

Let’s see if we can analyze this March scientifically. There are three broad motivations for participation: politics, scientism, and scidolatry.


Not only is the march providing moments of high comedy, it is allowing our self-appointed betters a stellar opportunity for virtue signalling.

Politicians and celebrities are courting injury, rushing to the nearest cameras, anxious to let their constituents and fans know they are “for” science.

Some in the march realize that the event has become just another political event, and are suggesting politicians try to maintain a low profile. You may as well ask fish to eschew water.

President Donald Trump is said not to love science with sufficient ardor. And by that marchers mean they believe Trump is disinclined to spend money on favored projects.

Hyperbole abounds. One for-instance. The East Bay Times screams the march is about “life and death,” because, they say, Trump won’t give money to Ebola research. A fatuous and false claim.

Perhaps the budget masters in the Trump administration wanted instead to cut expensive, government-funded research like “Development of a Stop Your Kids From Being Fat Website” ($615 thousand) and “When you’re drunk or fat, do you get hungrier when you smell delicious food?” ($401 thousand).

Sad fact is, apportioning money for research has fallen under the same diversity and equality politics and quotas as everything else. As President Eisenhower warned, there is too much money in the system, and this march proves it.


Can you see the flaw in this argument? The heat of vaporization of tungsten is 774-thousand Joules per mole. Therefore, rape is morally wrong.

The number is correct. But nothing about morals or ethics flows from a scientific statement. Philosophy and religion precede science. Science cannot even say why 2 + 2 = 4 (though it can use that fact). The belief that science can answer philosophical questions is called scientism, the fallacy that science provides the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Science can tell us facts and make predictions. For example, science tells us this fact: a man pretending to be a woman is a man. But it is a question of morals and not science whether it is right or wrong for the government to insist we act as if this man is a woman.

Global warming models cannot make skillful predictions (and there is no difference between a forecast, scenario, or a projection). Scientifically, this means the theory underlying these predictions is wrong. But it does not follow that one has to abandon this busted theory if believing in it better accords with one’s political goals.

Another clue about scientism comes from organizations like the “Brights” and the Center for Inquiry, groups which promote atheism. CFI want marchers to “speak out” against those who “deny facts and reject reason on crucial issues.” (The conceit some atheists have is that because there is science, there is no God. Talk about rejecting reason on the most crucial issue!)

A favorite example of these groups is global warming. Yet even if global warming theory were true, nothing political follows from that fact. Nothing. What to do about a fraction of a degree increase in global temperature over the next few decades is a moral and ethical question, not a scientific one. A politician can ask a scientist, “What might happens to the climate if we do X?.” But the judgment whether to pursue X is not scientific.


It’s hard not to escape the sensation that many marchers feel (not think)  that “Science” is some kind of mysterious being. And that Science isn’t happy with the state of the world. It must be appeased. It must be supplicated. It must be worshiped. “Hail Science!” “Raise your hand if you believe in Science!

If we do not pay enough attention to this grand entity, it might turn against us and refuse to reveal more of itself to us.

Celebrity scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, “The good thing about Science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

Pure scidolatry, that.

Science isn’t true, nor is it false. It is a collection of facts and predictions, some of which are true or good, and some false or bad. Tyson is substituting Science for God, or suggesting that because a scientist says a thing, that thing is therefore true. Which is obviously false.

Does this fall under scidolatry or politics? An apprentice scientist remarked that the march “must be an inclusive event for it to be a success in my eyes. All organisms and things should be welcome and celebrated, from the microscopic to the astronomic.”

All organisms? Like the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, which is responsible for botulism? Welcome smallpox? Anthrax? Cockroaches? Celebrate all things? Like volcanic eruptions? Earthquakes? Tsunamis? Rogue black holes wandering onto the plane of the ecliptic?

Black holes swallowing the planet? Hey. It could happen. Don’t you believe in Science?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Timothy Horton

    Wow, the Discovery Institute must really be butt hurt they didn’t get to enter their woo in the March for Science. This is the sixth DI paid shill to post a whiny article boo hoo hooing because science isn’t interested in their religious propaganda.

    • Kristen P

      you sound butt hurt and whiny about not being able to reply to any of them on the merits

      • Timothy Horton

        The next time the DI makes a scientific argument on merits will be the first. It’s 100% lies and anti-science propaganda, all the time.

    • Hannah

      Ad hominen attack. Try again.

      • Ken Abbott

        It’s about the only stick he has in his satchel.

        • Hannah

          Those who have to resort to using logical fallacies usually have only the one stick.

          • Imperator0

            And it’s usually a pretty small stick… just sayin’.

      • Timothy Horton

        It’s not an ad hom if it’s true. This statement from the article

        “Global warming models cannot make skillful predictions (and there is no difference between a forecast, scenario, or a projection). Scientifically, this means the theory underlying these predictions is wrong”

        Is a flat out lie. My post with the evidence it’s a lie was “vanished”.

        • Hannah

          An ad hominem attack is still a logical fallacy regardless of its validity. It’s irrelevant to the matters at hand, thus counting it against you. Try again.

          • Timothy Horton

            People with no argument love to yell “ad hom! ad hom!” It’s sort of a knee-jerk reaction, makes them feel like they’ve said something important. Most like Hannah don’t even understand what the term means.

          • Timothy Horton

            People with no intelligent answers often resort to yelling “ad hom” as an excuse for not answering. Most of them like here don’t even understand what the term means.

    • LgVt

      The only links I can find between Mr. Briggs and the Discovery Institute are a DI member’s podcast interview with him and a link on their website to a single article that he wrote for another publication. The odds of him being a “DI paid shill” would seem to be very low.

      (And you, of all people, should be wary of suggesting that economic motives are a reason to disregard someone’s arguments.)

  • Timothy Horton

    Global warming models cannot make skillful predictions. Scientifically, this means the theory underlying these predictions is wrong

    Ah, I just love the smell of the Disco Tute’s lies in the morning. 🙂

    Global warming models don’t make predictions, they make projections. The uncertainty ranges on these models necessarily widens the farther out in time the projections run due to the inherent uncertainty in all the variables. The major temperature rise models have successfully tracked the actual temperature rise over the last 20 years within the models’ uncertainty range. Of course climate scientists are always working to reduce the uncertainty range but to claim the theory behind the models is wrong is a flat out lie.

    Sad that an organization like the DI has to continually resort to such egregeous lying to try and score cheap political points.

  • MikeW

    I agree with this article. Good science makes good predictions. Global Warming of Doom is bad science, because it has consistently made bad predictions over the past several years.

    • eddiestardust

      Try explaining why Venus is actually hotter than Mercury?

  • Timothy Horton

    I see the rebuttal pointing the demonstrable lies in the OP has been “vanished”. Look like The Stream is operating true to form.

    • Bryan

      You could try posting it through the Disqus site directly instead of through The Stream’s website. glenbo mentioned that to me on another article earlier this week when I had a post that wouldn’t make it through the filters. Never figured out why though.

    • Charles Burge

      Any post with clickable links is going to vanish. I’m not sure if that’s what happened in this case, but I’d wager it’s so. Despite your cry-baby claims, it’s not personal, and it’s not selective. It’s the same policy for everyone.

  • Gary

    This is mostly a philosophical/religious conflict, with some attempts to get money in the mix. Its about the battle between conflicting views about what is real and what is true.

  • TaLina Parcel Hoff

    Yes let’s support science.. After all, it was God who gave us science! But don’t twist it to fit your needs and wants… Stand up for science! XX= Female XY= Male! Thats just for starters

  • eddiestardust

    They have chose “Earth Day” and “Astronomy Day” to do this? Amateur Astronomers throughout the United States will be out in force showing citizens The Sun (safely) and exhibiting everything Astronomical in local events. Environmentalists will of course, be out too and doing the same.

  • Imperator0

    I vote for C. diff to be part of the march, for the sake of inclusion and diversity.

God Transforms You to Participate in the Work of His Kingdom
Paul David Tripp
More from The Stream
Connect with Us