Slippery Slopes, and A Failure to Learn

From Uncommon Descent, UK Spectator: “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” (Slippery slopes dept.)

—<Quote begins>—

April 30:

Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’. It only took five years for the proverbial slope to come into view . . . .

A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse . . . [Click and read]

This is the Schaeffer-Koop warning about the incremental undermining of the value of life, and it is a case in point on slippery slopes. Let us hope Canada wakes up and let us not go there. END

—<Quote ends>—

The desire to kill tends to focus on the weakest, then works its way up.

Also, the mere fact of having a judicial bureaucracy with ceremonies and robes does not make you a lawful society.

From Uncommon Descent, Has anything been learned from nearly two decades of keening about science’s replication crisis?

—<Quote ends>—

As Graham Hillard explains in fact-filled article, awareness began decades ago:

Whatever their actual explanation, the failures that had dragged the hard and social sciences under the public’s microscope [by 2014] were stark indeed. According to the Reproducibility Project, a crowdsourced enterprise led by University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek in 2011, an attempt to replicate 100 key studies from three years prior resulted in a success rate of only 39%. Similarly distressing was the work of three Bayer scientists, that same year, examining reproducibility in oncology, women’s health, and cardiovascular disease. As stated in analyses eventually published in Nature, the Bayer team was unable to replicate nearly two-thirds of the external studies under review.

Graham Hillard, “The science crisis” at Washington Examiner (April 28, 2022)

But has anything really changed?

To name just one of the horrifying discoveries made in recent months, a meta-study published in Science Advances found that unreplicable studies in top psychology and economics journals are cited more frequently than experiments that replicate. Furthermore, “only 12% of post-replication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure.”

As has been widely remarked, the reproducibility crisis is not mere inside baseball but a matter of some urgency for a liberal order under fire from both the Left and Right. Until actual science gets its house in order, hysterical worship of “The Science” will remain exactly what it is today: an implausible posture that only emboldens those who would tear down America’s institutions.

Graham Hillard, “The science crisis” at Washington Examiner (April 28, 2022)

Science is beginning to sound like the medieval church, actually. We are now moving on from keening to caterwauling. But nobody working on the inside can actually do anything about it.

Hillard is managing editor of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.

—<Quote ends>—

Dead priesthoods are dead.

Some know it.

Others don’t. Not yet.

From Creation-Evolution Headlines: Comfort for the Climate Panicked Take heart; the world is not coming to an end. Who says so? Climate scientists.

—<Quote begins>—

All of the following links are to articles by organizations and institutions who believe in man-caused climate change. No climate skeptic sites are included. Is the world at a tipping point to catastrophe? Are the scare tactics constantly emanating from the press (e.g., Princeton 28 April, New Scientist 20 April, Nature 5 April) based on good and complete knowledge? Let the scientists speak.

Less Doomsday Talk, Please

No obituary for Earth: Scientists fight climate doom talk (Phys.org, 4 April 2022). Flavor of this article: “We are not doomed, but rapid action is absolutely essential.” Reading the links below, however, may generate doubt in the credibility of the prophets of doom.

Study: Climatic variability might not drive evolutionary change as much as previously thought (Arizona State University, 11 April 2022). Some panicked reporters assert that animals won’t be able to evolve quickly enough to handle global warming, and so many species will go extinct. This article claims that climate change doesn’t drive evolutionary change as much as evolutionists thought (cf. a paper in Nature 13 April 2022 that proposes global warming drove apes to become humans). There have been big climate swings in the past; “A UArizona-led study … reveals that times of erratic climate change are not followed by major upheavals in evolution.”

News from the climate history of the Dead Sea (German Research Centre for Geosciences, 28 April 2022). It’s worth remembering that there have been long, warm dry periods before. German scientists investigated the Dead Sea in Israel and concluded that it has receded up to 250 meters in historical times, long before fossil fuels and SUVs. […]

—<Quote ends>—

Some people just want something to fear… something politically correct.

Others just want a justification to control others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.