How Popperian falsification enabled the rise of neoliberalism
&gt;To suppose a situation in which a potential parent will exercise a perfect and unencumbered liberal choice lends unwarranted impartiality to the scientific facts. In reality, economics or politics might force that parent’s hand. A more extreme example makes the case clear: if a scientist explains nuclear technology to a bellicose despot, but leaves the ethical choice of deployment to the despot, we wouldn’t say that the scientist had acted responsibly.<p>Odd smells preceded this passage and I was unsure of their origin. This is where the article went fully off the rails in my reading. The author conflates the individual economic actions of parents with the collective coercion of a despot.<p>Next, she labels Hayek as neoliberal. It is hard to take an article seriously if it cannot distinguish between laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism. This is a surprisingly common inaccurate generalization. I cannot help but wonder if the author is sincere.<p>&gt;Popper’s appointment to a fellowship at the Royal Society marked the demise of a powerful strand of socialist leadership in British science...<p>Having played her cards, one can expect to read the rest of the article as a lamentation of a lack of socialism. She delivers by pivoting immediately to climate change and identity politics.<p>&gt;Many of the same scientists went on to work for fossil fuel lobbyists, casting doubt on the science of anthropogenic climate change. It doesn’t take much time on a search engine to find examples of Popperianism wielded by deniers.<p>Here we touch on one of my favorites. Yes, incentives matter. Are there no incentives for the climate change agenda? What is a carbon credit, if not monetized debt? Putting aside the veracity of the climate apocalypse, we should be able to agree that the climate agenda involves centralizing control over energy consumption. We are supposed to believe that incentives of petroleum companies exist, but those who would establish a new paradigm for international currency have no ulterior motives? Simply put, who exactly will be printing these carbon credits, what is their historical background and why should we trust them?<p>Pure nonsense. Academic socialist declares that the sciences are not yet socialist enough, while the mainstream narrative is dominated by green socialism. If critiques of lockdowns, mass vaccinations, climate apocalypse or other political goals utilize falsifiability, she concludes falsifiability is the problem. Her favored political agendas remain infallible.