This websites uses cookies for Google Analytics.

Due to privacy law you cannot use this website without accepting the use of these cookies.

View Privacy Policy

By accepting you give consent to Google Analytics tracking cookies. You can undo this consent by clearing the cookies in your browser.

The 'anti-science' narrative

A declaration of "war on science" (heresy)

The declaration of people as anti-science is a declaration of heresy and it provides a basis for persecution.

The international science establishment demanded in 2021 that anti-science is combated as a security threat on par with terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

(2021) The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.

Antiscience is now a large and formidable security threat.
Source: Scientific American

Anti-science is used to characterize opponents of GMO as being “engaged in a war on science” to justify counter measures in name of war.

Academic philosopher Justin B. Biddle who observed the development of the “anti-science” and “war on science” narrative wrote a paper about it in 2018.

(2018) “Anti-science zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous. Source: PhilPapers (PDF backup) | Philosopher Justin B. Biddle (Georgia Institute of Technology)

The following publication by Alliance for Science shows the nature of the “war on science” propaganda. Anti-GMO activists are placed alongside 🇷🇺 Russian trolls and are denounced for “sowing doubt about science”.

(2018) Anti-GMO activism sows doubt about science Russian trolls, aided by anti-GMO groups such as the Center for Food Safety and Organic Consumers Association, have been strikingly successful in sowing doubt about science in the general population. Source: Alliance for Science

Science is philosophy and philosophy is questionable. The dogmatic conviction that science can be valid without philosophy is a fallacy.

Depicted as anti-science Luddites

In 2013 Philippine people destroyed a test field of GMO Golden Rice that the Government had secretly carried out behind their back. The global media and science establishment depicted the Philippine anti-GMO activists as 'anti-science Luddites' and blamed them for causing the death of thousands of children.

Stop Golden Rice! Network (SGRN)

(2023) 🇵🇭 Philippine opponents of GMO Golden Rice depicted and ignored as 'anti-science Luddites' Source: /philippines/

The labeling of people as “anti-science” originates from a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism.

It is not justified to depict and ignore people in Philippines as being 'anti-science Luddites' and to blame them for killing children is an atrocity.

Why are critics of GMO characterized as anti-science?

The inability to capture meaningful experience (conscious experience) within the scope of empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) causes incompatibility with what science deems valid.

The problem is addressed in the philosophical zombie theory.

(2022) The philosopher's zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness? The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can't explain consciousness. Source:

When it concerns morality, it concerns aspects related to meaningful experience.

In science the inability to define the meaning of life has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality.

GM: science out of control 110 (2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control? To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy. Source: New Scientist (2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation. Source: Duke University: New Behaviorism

Morality is based on 'values' and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

Friedrich NietzscheThe declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

Perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University, UK provide an example: 

Philosophy is bunk.

[Show more quotes]

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.

Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.

Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.

When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the 'knowing' of a scientific fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.

It means that there is a dogmatic belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done (i.e. without morality).

Attacking critics of GMO as heretics of science

The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the “Why” question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”).

The atheism religion is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they (hope to) find stability in life.

Atheism campaigndios no existe

Besides the ideal of science to abolish morality, and the potential emotional motive of atheists, the GMO industry (including the pharmaceutical industry) has a multi-trillion USD interest.

Science as a guiding principle for life?

woman moral compass 170While repeatability of science provides what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be whether the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, is accurate on a fundamental level.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a 'certainty factor' isn't at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with eugenics on nature, it would become important.

Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot logically be a basis for a guiding principle since a guiding principle would concern what is essential for value to be possible (a priori or “before value”).

(2022) Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 Source: