Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


« Constitutional Carry Sweeping Nation | Main | Leftists Dominate Navy News »

Is Science Now Decided By Voting?

Note: This is not satire, just bizarre

New Continent "Discovered" on Earth (near New Zealand)

Only if science promo effort successful

Media has relinquished its roll of calling BS on BS

The lamestream media told you:

Science News is reporting "a long-hidden continent called Zealandia" but since no scientists are "officially" in charge of "rubber-stamp" naming new continents, a team of geologists is pitching the case for a new continent in a science journal, GSA Today. Zealandia is around 1.892 million square miles of continental crust, according to the report, about the size of the Indian subcontinent. But it's 94% underwater, surrounding New Zealand. So who knew.

"If we could pull the plug on the world's oceans," one researcher named Mortimer said, it would be clear this is a continent. The editors note "the landmass faces an uphill battle for continental status, though." I'm not making this up. Maybe if outside dark money funding poured in, the uphill battle could be more easily won. [OK, that was satire.] The main advocates say they'll just have to start using the name "and hope it catches on." A Vermont scientist notes how this illustrates "the large and obvious can be overlooked in science." And in journalism. The case for Zealandia has been built for more than a decade. For now Earth still has seven continents.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Science traditionally requires experiment, observation, evidence, reproducible results, double-blind testing, formulation and testing of hypothesis, all generally under the pseudo-defined scientific method -- not voting in an opinion poll and campaigning for favored terms, definitions and results. Doing so should disqualify a person from using the label "scientist," but since no scientists are "officially" in charge of "rubber-stamp" naming new scientists, the term can get used with some slacktivism.

The planet Pluto, you may recall, was voted out of our solar system by a slim majority of a small number of voting astrophysicists who couldn't agree on the science of the matter. The vote was 237 for removal out 424 voting, or 55.9%, in what now passes for science. The "news" media dutifully carried the story, giving "scientists" credibility, while sacrificing what little credibility the media had left.

Scientists today, some so bereft of reason and viable subject matter they are literally contemplating their navels, are getting funding for studies and work no rational person would ever justify, and publishing results scientists themselves are starting to question. Sometimes. Naming continents no one can see is a candidate for an award that has yet to be named. No indication of funding for this ten-year and ongoing expense was revealed in the report, but surely someone paid for it, or real work sat idle. Like serving fries with that burger.


John Moore

While I agree with your definition, I think you are missing something in this case.

The scientists are essentially arguing about the definition of continent. Such a definition is not based on observation, experiment or hypothesis - it is meta-science, not science, and it is necessary.

I think that the climate charade has led people to believe that all of science is infected with this "consensus determines scientific results" nonsense. But, that is still just a political argument by climatistas. The work they do is not determined by consensus, but by more classical scientific means - hypotheses and experiment. I know a bunch of these folks, and while I think their reliance on climate models is deeply flawed, they otherwise are acting like scientists.

Also, some science is immune to a lot of experiment - it is more observational. Some of geology falls into this - nobody creates a continent by experiment. But, they can create a hypothesis, which is then tested against known facts and facts yet to be determined.

A good example of this is evolution. Most of the science of evolution is a result of testing hypotheses by observation, not by experiment. In more modern times, we can do some experiments... but nobody can create an experiment to evolve a monkey into a man... it would take way too long and involve far too many organisms. So not all science is a result of hypothesis -> experiment -> attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!