The myth of ‘settled science’

Charles Krauthhammer says there is no such thing as “settled science”:

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less) or be subject to termination.

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing?

[Keep reading. .  .] 

"What experts? Comey came down hard on her -- just short of prosecution."

News Media’s “Most Humiliating Debacle in ..."
"I just tried. It still took me to the sermon Salvatore mentioned."

“Your Thirst for My Salvation”
"[Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell in an interview released Monday:] "So, let’s put ourselves ..."

News Media’s “Most Humiliating Debacle in ..."
"nor would you be in any position to know thatI mean, that's the point of ..."

News Media’s “Most Humiliating Debacle in ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment