Because, Science

More to explorer

11 Comments

  1. I hate Tucker’s style. Like the “wet sand” thing. What Garcetti said was reasonable, even if the phrasing was a bit odd. Beaches are being opened for exercising, but not for sunbathing. Makes sense: sunbathers tend to cluster, while exercising can be more solo (assuming you’re not playing beach volleyball).

    I watched the interview with Anderson Cooper, and there were a lot of restrictions being lifted. Tucker said that there are restrictions being added, although the only one Tucker mentioned in that segment was wearing masks, and I’d be willing to bet that restriction was already in place. The mayor talked about increased retail with curbside pickup, increasing manufacturing, and hope for schools opening in the fall. He said that there will be some kind of restrictions for 3 months, but those restrictions can be reduced as new data comes in.

  2. I’ve written a piece on Catholic Stand about science being God’s gift to mankind. Science, as an intellectual discipline, is not the same as “scientism,” the notion that science explains everything about the world that needs explaining.
    The problem is that most of the “science” cited for covid-19 is really computer modeling with all the GIGO flaws that entails (see Anthropic Global Warming’s failed predictions).
    The efficacy of masks is by no means verified, nor is the death or case count for covid-19, the Wuhan flu, unambiguous. In these times common sense is a more reliable guide than “science,” as it is cited by the MSM and left wing politicians.

  3. “Only science has the right to describe the world around us”
    The above is a philosophical statement that cannot be described by science.

  4. but those restrictions can be reduced as new data comes in

    If they were truly concerned about data Pinky, the lockdowns would have ended in April for 95% of the nation, and the lockdowns would never have been nationwide. Garcetti is a power hungry moron. In that, he is not unusual among politicians, particularly in icy blue states. As for dry sand, the best thing you can do in regard to Covid-19 is to catch a lot of sun and build up vitamin D.

  5. There are many in Minnesota who support Governor’s Walz’s restriction of worship to 10 people (with no schedule for expanding beyond that) because, science. For example the quisling Rev. Curtiss DeYoung said:

    “We support the cautious, science-driven, and health-focused approach that the governor has followed for the reopening of houses of worship.”

    At the same time casinos are opening, malls are starting to open, restaurants are starting to open, etc. I guess it’s “science” to believe that a church requires greater separation between people than every other sort of venue.

    Thank God that the bishops have finally pushed back against this.

  6. Here’s another letter to the editor that nicely expresses the “Because, science” attitude:

    “I’m stunned and saddened by the news that the Minnesota Catholic hierarchy is going to defy the governor’s guidelines and open for worship beginning May 26. I am a Lutheran pastor (definitely not of the Missouri Synod — which also plans to defy the order), but I have long been grateful for the Catholic Church’s blending of faith and science, as exemplified and articulated so well by Pope Francis. Now, though, these local leaders are ignoring the warnings of scientists and are putting lives at risk — not only their own members, but those who encounter those members elsewhere.

    Yes, the leaders promise precautions, but we all know there will be hugs and close greetings as people enter and leave, to say nothing of those aerosolized particles during worship. (It was noteworthy that the same issue of the paper told of the state buying a large building to serve as a morgue!)

    As a lifelong Christian, I desperately miss gathering to hear the Word of God and eat of the Lord’s Supper. But I and my congregation are not prepared to put others’ lives in jeopardy to do that.”

    Again, it is just assumed that “science” means that no more than 10 people can be in a church. More than that can be in a restaurant or a store. People can be in close proximity in parks or at family gatherings. But if there are more than 10 people specifically in a church everyone will die. To say otherwise is to “ignore the warnings of scientists.”

  7. RH: From the letter you pull-quoted: “…I have long been grateful for the Catholic Church’s blending of faith and science, as exemplified and articulated so well by Pope Francis.”
    The letter writer apparently believes “science” is exemplified by environmental extremism of the Jeffrey Sachs ilk. That’s really the only thing remotely resembling science I’ve ever seen or heard from the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. Wow. The ELCA is in worse shape than I thought, if this person is representative.

  8. He also has a very low opinion of other people: “[W]e all know there will be hugs and close greetings as people enter and leave, to say nothing of those aerosolized particles during worship.”

    From my very limited experience of 1 week, the hardest part of social distancing at Mass is remembering to space out in the Communion line, and not crowd the doorway by trying to leave all at once.

    And the folks worried about scary “particles” were all wearing masks.

  9. “Yes, the leaders promise precautions, but we all know there will be hugs and close greetings as people enter and leave, to say nothing of those aerosolized particles during worship.”

    To the first part: not even hand shakes at my parish. To the second: yes, it’s a valid concern. I wouldn’t sing in close proximity to people without a mask. I won’t receive the Eucharist for the foreseeable future. Maybe during a weekday Mass when the priest isn’t in a rush.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

%d bloggers like this: