The celerity with which Western liberals besmirch the name of their own gods is extraordinary. Right now they are busy blackening the good name of empirical science. No philosophical conservative ever had any problem with empirical facts, but it has always been useful to liberal agitprop to imply otherwise and write polemics about the conservative War on Science. So liberal sanctimony on this matter has long been tiresome, but these poor fools have only more recently crowned sanctimony with blatant hypocrisy and obscurantism.
To review, here are three immediately grave matters of public import, upon which many liberals fulminate with manifest, almost inarguable, anti-science derangement.
Human carbon emissions. If your desire is to reduce carbon emissions, an obvious opportunity present itself: the economies of scale, innovation, geology and law combine to insure that almost any possible unit of Arab, Venezuelan, or Russian fossil fuel that is replaced by American, Mexican, Canadian, in a word, North American fossil fuel, will result in a reduction of human carbon emissions. That liberals oppose policies to take these opportunities means that either they (a) don’t care about reducing carbon emissions, or (b) don’t care about what empirical fact tells us about reducing carbon emissions.
Human biodiversity. When a good Yale liberal like Amy Chua is denounced by an ignoramus in Time magazine as a filthy racist, merely for assembling evidence about certain fascinating details of human biodiversity, we can rest assured that liberal officialdom has no desire to wrestle with the empirical details that cluster around family, inheritance, gene expression, culture, flourishing and prosperity.
Human embryology. If a man of veterinary science disgorged himself of the opinion that at six weeks, we don’t really know if this horse embryo is really a horse, he would be instantly recognized as a quack and not a veterinary scientist at all. If a primate biologist were to express doubt as to what exactly healthy male-female procreative copulation produces at six weeks, he would be an immediate object of amusement and parody. Nevertheless, innumerable liberals who adopt just such a manifestly erroneous opinion about human embryos, carry on quite as if they haven’t pronounced a flat rejection of the facts of science. Personhood theory is the very opposite of science. The lineaments of Human Development are well known enough to put to rest the question of when a new member of the species appears.
These points established (and many more could be added), I see no reason at all to credit for even a moment the standard liberal narrative concerning science. I am well aware, of course, that this liberal narrative is superficially regnant in our culture, but I am quite unmoved by it. The comical sanctimony of liberals upon this subject is precisely the bluster of a buffoon whose fraud has reduced him to bullying. No one who stands athwart human embryology is going to lecture me on the place of science in American politics.