Mark Wauck: “settled science” and "misinformation"

 

Whether it’s challenges to the claims about “man-made climate change,” the COVID vaxx, or other examples of “misinformation,” a judge in California has issued an injunction against that state’s attempt to muzzle and penalize any doctors who disagree with the CDC’s and other government mandates on COVID (vaxx, masks, etc.). Mark Wauck at Meaning in History reports:

This tactic cleverly relies upon the common misconception that “science” consists of a body of settled knowledge that is above challenge, rather than being a process of continuing inquiry that relies to a great degree precisely upon challenges to previous consensus (I simplify, of course). This notion of a settled body of knowledge—identified as such by Leftist ideologues without regard to evidence as such—is then used to shut down debate on whatever happens to be the latest Leftist pseudo scientific cause—”settled science” so just shut up! You’re an ignoramus if you dare object, or if you demand evidence to back up the Left’s latest campaign.

We’ve seen this tactic employed repeatedly, first in “social science” fields and now even in the “hard” sciences. Most recently, with the use of the charge of “misinformation—it has evolved into a full assault of the First Amendment and an instrument of social control. The Covid Regime, with its numerous scientifically unjustified mandates—masks, distancing, plexiglass screens, and so forth—has offered fertile ground for the extension of draconian anti-freedom controls over the populace. All in the name of an invented and often contradictory “scientific consensus” which usually boils down to an uninformed and arbitrary bureaucratic consensus.

. . . Specifically, [Judge William] Shubb attacks the definition of “misinformation” as something that is contradicted by a supposed “scientific consensus”—a highly problematic concept.

In an order Wednesday, Shubb criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation,” which is “false information contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

Shubb, who called the definition “nonsense” at a court hearing Monday, said in Wednesday’s order that it was “grammatically incoherent.”

Beyond that, Shubb’s order also criticized the phrase “contemporary scientific consensus,” saying that it doesn’t have an established meaning in the medical field.

“The statute provides no clarity on the term’s meaning, leaving open multiple important questions,” the order said. “For instance, who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)?”

That lack of clarity, the judge added, makes it impossible to determine what the new law prohibits.

“I think he correctly analyzed the facts and the law and understood that the concept of a ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ is highly problematic,” said Richard Jaffe, an attorney representing one of the challenges to the rule.

Mr. Wauck concludes:

Given that the federal judiciary—right up to the SCOTUS—has largely been missing in action while the Left has been running roughshod over our constitutionally protected freedoms, it’s refreshing to see a judge directly challenging these tactics. Hopefully this case will establish a precedent for dismantling this Leftist assault on freedom.

Source links are here and here.

# # #