Govfall: Or, tell me again why federal courts are ruling on the validity of scientific theories?

The infallible inflexibillity of orthodoxy.

We in the US appear to be very close to becoming a theocracy.  The religion in question is not Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, nor is it even environmentalism.  It’s “government infallibilism,” or, as I like to call it, Govfall.  The central tenet of this religion is that government is competent to decide or rule on anything – anything at all, regardless of evidence or lack of it, knowledge or paucity of it, or understanding or dearth of it.

The branch of the US government that represents the proper use of Govfall’s main religious tenet isn’t always the same one (which, frankly, ought to be a clue for believers).  The judicial branch has been, as it were, on the throne of judgment for a number of decades, but Americans have also suffered a few presidents to seat themselves on it, like FDR and Obama.  (Contemporary accounts of FDR’s arbitrary morning decisions on what relationship the dollar should have with gold are a sort of emblem of that political theocrat’s brand of Govfall.)  Congress, which actually represents the people in their hamlets and villages, is rarely the infallible theocrat, but it has had its moments as well (and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi has certainly had a habit of speaking in a sort of goofy ex cathedra style).

The fundamental question is why we have come to accept this idea that government can and should rule on unproven theories about global cause and effect, and proceed to govern as if their propositions are “true.”  Setting aside the questionable nature of some theories, why should government take on this role?  Why should anyone?  What is it we think we know or need to accomplish, that we have agreed to submit our futures to this concept of Govfall?

The matter at hand is the D.C. court of appeals ruling on the EPA’s authority to kill economic activity in the name of global warmism.  The ruling describes the EPA’s opinion on global warming and greenhouse gases as “unambiguously correct” – which is a deeply silly formulation for characterizing any scientific theory, but would also have been considered, by our Founders and virtually all federal jurists up until the last 20-30 years, as comprehensively invalid language for any kind of judicial ruling.  Judges aren’t competent to make decisions for the public on this matter.  Their competence is in interpreting the law, not certifying scientific conclusions.

There is a difference, of course, between demonstrated harm and theoretical, yet-to-be-realized harm.  When trash piles up and emits gases into a local area, that can be detected and documented (although rarely “unambiguously,” which is a prohibitively humongous claim in the skeptical realm of science).  When toxic substances are detected in dead fish or decrepit urban trees – substances that actually kill forms of life, not just substances that advocacy groups don’t like – that too is often more certifiable than not, if not necessarily “unambiguous.”  The tradition of empirical, non-religious-based law has some remedies for demonstrated harm: property owners can sue polluters when the pollution, whatever it is, damages or impinges on the full rightful use of their property; legislatures can make laws prohibiting (or managing, as with fees and clean-up requirements) certain defined types of polluting activity.

But when there is no demonstrated harm, but only unproven theories about very generalized, potential, worldwide harm in the future, it is a central question why government, through any of its branches, should be doing anything about it.  This question gets at very basic things:  what we expect of our life in the world, and what we expect of government.

Do we expect human life in the world to need constant supervision from a central authority in order to ward off cataclysm?  Is our view of life pessimistic and fearful in this way?  Do we believe that we are an incontinent, destructive species, as unaware as infants of the damage we do?  Is there an unspecified cosmologic “judgment” hanging over us that we have to organize to avert?  Are we effectively insentient organisms in a system with predetermined processes and outcomes, operating in a universe of deadly limits and shortages?

As for government, do we agree that its job is to enforce on everyone a particular attitude about these matters?  We can’t agree among ourselves, from state to state or town to town, whether very present and material things like prostitution or abortion-on-demand should be legal, but we expect the central government to rule on an inchoate vision of what might happen in the future, however unlikely it may be, and then constrain everyone’s options – for just about everything – based on that ruling.

Why does there need to be an entity with the authority to do that?  We didn’t start our life as a nation with the idea that government should have that authority.  A state government, by its limited geographic nature, cannot effectively exercise such an authority, and our national idea is actually that the central government must not.  Our national idea is limited government and liberty of thought, conscience, and economic endeavor.

If we cannot behave, in our economic lives, as if we think catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a much-falsified theory waiting for some solid proof, then we are not effectively free to think it.  We are constrained to behave as if we don’t.  That situation differs only by the jackbooted thugs at the door from the lifestyle of people under communist rule, in which you’re free to “think” whatever you want, as long as you say and do only government-approved things, and never speak about or live by your own beliefs.

Sometime in the last century, the weight of sentiment among those who aspire to government jobs, in any role in any of the branches, tilted toward the religion of Govfall.  It has become unendurable to them to think of the people out here doing things they disapprove of, and they have diligently enlarged the purview of government to encompass ruling on ideas and theories – always invoking the supposed disasters and wrongs that government power is either averting or redressing.

In the oft-invoked Galileo v. Pope analogy, today’s Govfall faithful, however much they may want to see themselves as Galileo, are actually “the Pope” (or, technically, the Roman Inquisition).  The Govfall believers are the people insisting on a single, cosmological orthodoxy, in spite of the continued lack of evidence for it and the strong arguments against it.  In the matter of global warmism, their orthodoxy is throwing into informative relief not only their religious attitude about man and the natural world, but the dangers of the religion of Govfall in general.

Just as the papacy could not be infallible on the matter of the earth’s and sun’s places in the solar system, so modern government cannot be infallible on whether the globe is headed for a man-made natural cataclysm.  No human organization can be infallible on something like that.  Being “the government” doesn’t confer special powers of insight or prophecy; it just hands a gun and a badge (or a black robe) to a bunch of ordinary people no smarter than the rest of us.  That’s why our Founders wanted government to be limited and constitutionally restrained: because nothing good comes from expecting too much of the government, or giving it too much to do.

The end result for Galileo and the Pope was that Galileo’s theory became the accepted one, and the papacy eventually changed its policy on inquiring into, or taking sides on, scientific questions.  The Catholic Church was undergoing the “Counter Reformation” throughout the precise period when Galileo lived and wrote, and ultimately, one of that reformation’s chief casualties was the idea of putting the imprimatur of the Holy Church on the material conclusions of politics or science.  Galileo’s personal story had an impact on that, but the change in attitude came at least as much from the Protestant Reformation, the Church’s recognition of internal corruption, the successful revolt of England’s Henry VIII against Rome, and the political turmoil on the continent from the Protestant-Catholic rift.

I see an analogy to these events in the religions of Govfall and global warmism.  Govfall, a cult of central, infallible authority, is the basic problem, and it is the thing that will have to change.  Warmism may well be a focused, singular precipitating factor – one that will be especially memorable in the centuries to come – but there are a number of others that highlight the sclerosis and unsustainability of Govfall.  What history tells us is that a political religion like Govfall is unsustainable.  In one way or another, the people, over time, decide against it.

The American people are waking up to the absurdity of a federal appeals court proclaiming that warmist theory is “unambiguously correct.”  The Govfall religion sits wrong with us, and the evidence of its pervasiveness is piling up.  In the end, it will not be Govfall that triumphs.  The ruling public idea of government will change, in favor of the wisdom of our Founders – and Govfall will fall.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.

Note for new commenters:  Welcome!  There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam.  There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.


13 thoughts on “Govfall: Or, tell me again why federal courts are ruling on the validity of scientific theories?”

  1. The global warming religion -which is that, as all their terrible predictions fall flat – is a wonderfully apt example of the danger in assuming the govt knows more than you – it often doesn’t and sometimes knows significantly less.

  2. judges will do just that sort of stuff. there have been hundreds of ruling based on acceptance of the unproven clap-trap that was and is part and parcel of the tyranny imposed by Christians upon the rest and best of us

    1. Not to dispute the excesses of Christian morality such as blue laws but implicit to your use of the term ‘tyranny’ is the assertion that any societal morality shared by the majority and not agreed to by a minority of citizens is “imposed”…by that definition, social cohesion is impossible. With the inevitable long term consequence of balkanazation and tribalism emerging as the dominant social model.

      Over time, the resultant small countries that emerge then lack the resources to successfully resist the aggression of today’s dictators and totalitarian expansion.

      Given that unintended consequence of rejecting as ‘tyranny’, social norms such as the one man-one woman definition of marriage, what mechanism would you suggest for achieving agreement as to the social norms necessary to social cohesion?

      1. What’s “social cohesion”, other than some kind of vague abstraction? And why would a lack of it inevitably lead to “balkanization and tribalism”? And what’s wrong with tribalism? Don’t tribes, virtually by definition, have a far greater degree of social cohesion (whatever that is) than geographically huge and ethnically diverse nation/states made up of conflicting interest groups? Balkanization would seem to be a correction, the natural result of imperial decay, restoring to conquered and subjugated peoples their independence. Evidently, independence is not good. The Serbs and Bulgars should have been happy with their lot as voiceless helots of the Ottomans, then the Austro-Hungarians, and then the Titoist survivors of WWII. Ingrates.

        Today’s dictators and territorial expansion? That’s a contemporary phenomenon? Psychopathic adventurers have been a feature of the human experience for time immemorial. If only we had the history of each and every one of them to analyze. Perhaps we would then be able to more easily understand the reign of monsters like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

        1. Social cohesion is a broad term used to describe the bonds that bring people together in a given society. The term’s broadness and lack of specificity in no way lessens the reality and importance of the societal bonds it includes.

          Social cohesion is critical to the long term health of a society. The loss of societal cohesion inevitably leads to tribalism and the balkanazation of the prior larger societal grouping. Since as a species, human beings will always coalesce into whatever social grouping best fits their circumstances.

          The possible positive aspects of tribalism; such as close relationships between its members and direct interaction between leadership and those led, do not negate tribalism’s negative aspects; foremost of which is the perception that anyone not of the tribe is “the other”. Ask any anthropologist or student of anthropology about the dynamics of tribalism and they will confirm this assertion.

          The perception that anyone not of the tribe is “the other” leads directly to racism and ethnic strife. Come on, just look to Africa for a real world look at tribalism; famine, constant wars, genocide, poverty and the “rule of men” rather than law. Plus, a lack of the resources necessary to full participation in the modern world.

          Balkanized regions such as the former Yugoslavia demonstrate the same problems to both a greater or lesser degree. Plus, once conflict starts in such a balkanized region, conflict escalates to genocidal levels, which only ceases when one side or another is degraded to the point where it can no longer resist being driven out of the region or, when a larger entity imposes order.

          “imperial decay”? We’re primarily discussing the US, not Rome. Rome conquered and subjugated peoples, while the US, not since the 1880’s. Discussing a democracy devolving into balkanization, not Russia or China which maintain their size through the rule of force.

          Balkanization is the “natural result” of the loss of social cohesion within a nation-state.

          “Today’s dictators and territorial expansion? That’s a contemporary phenomenon? Psychopathic adventurers have been a feature of the human experience for time immemorial.”

          Never claimed it to be a modern phenomenon. Please don’t put words into my mouth or assert unsupported implications of my assertions.

          What is ‘a contemporary phenomenon’ about today’s dictator’s and totalitarian ambitions is modern warfare and WMD’s. Were the US to break up into balkanized regions, the wherewithal to resist Putin’s territorial ambitions and China’s global totalitarian ambitions would disappear and, from an historical perspective, we would quickly move into domination of the world by the criminal element’s “might makes right” and “the law of the jungle”.

          Had the US not existed as a nation state with a high degree of social cohesion, the Nazi party would now rule the world, as neither England nor the Soviet Union of the forties had the resources to stop Hitler. Nor would a balkanized US have had the high degree of social cohesion needed to mobilize sufficiently and make the extreme sacrifices called for to defeat Germany and Japan.

          Your evident inability to either see this or acknowledge it changes the historically inevitable result of insufficient social cohesion leading to balkanazation and tribalism…not a whit.

          Calling Lincoln, Wilson and FDR “monsters”…clearly discloses your flawed reasoning ability. Get some help, you need it more than you appear to realize.

          1. Over time, the resultant small countries that emerge then lack the resources to successfully resist the aggression of today’s dictators and totalitarian expansion.

            Never claimed it to be a modern phenomenon. Please don’t put words into my mouth or assert unsupported implications of my assertions.

      2. GB, my use of the word tyranny was part of my overreaction to the overreaction of the the overreactionary opticon in this most unserious little bit of bemoanalist nonsense she’s posted.
        the judge did as judges do, which is to make a judgment and assert that it’s near to a certainty.

        it’s much the same as that which the opticn does,, which is to make what she calls an analysis, and which most other people call cerrtainly incorrect.

        1. It’s an ‘overreaction’ to point out that a judge’s law school education does not qualify them to declare a scientific theory as “unambiguously correct” and then rule in favor of a governmental agency, which is issuing regulations based upon an unproven theory as ‘established fact’?

          It’s an ‘overreaction’ to point out that we have or are coming to accept the idea that government can and should rule on unproven theories about global cause and effect, and proceed to govern as if their propositions are “true.”?

          Do you dispute that the left is willing to use this ploy whenever it advances its agenda? That the economic and libertarian consequences of first establishing and then acting upon the flawed, highly disputed ‘theory’ of “global warming” are substantial?

          If you do not, then its hardly an overreaction to sound an alarm.

          If you do dispute these assertions then you reveal either a substantial degree of ignorance on the issues or a willingness to ignore fundamental facts which contradict an agenda…

          1. GB, judges render decision based on expert opinions from others quite often…. and whether they rule in favor of a govt ageny or regulation has no bearing on the matter.

            global warming IS indeed highly disputed, but generally accepted as more likely than not. calling it undisputed is nonsense, but ruling with it as a guide is quite supportable.

            we can live with it …. and likely will.

  3. Any judge who would pronounce a scientific theory “unambiguously correct” (except for the most basic mathematical truths) is unambiguously arrogant and delusional.

  4. Oh, the priceless irony! “Goofy ex-cathedra style” – I myself couldn’t have coined a better description of Dyers pontifications. At least Pelosi has a “cathedra” of a sort provided by the electorate.

    Has anyone told our “Goofy” that she is absolutely free to disbelieve in climate change, global warming, and evolution, irrespective of the evidence. In fact she is free in our wonderful democracy to believe that the world was created 4,000 years ago and is sitting atop a great big turtle.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: