The Scientific Method and Its Misuse in Public Policy

By Lewis Loflin

The Scientific Method: A Path to Objective Truth

The scientific method, as outlined by Antonio and Elena Zamora, is a rigorous process for uncovering objective truth through observation, theory-building, prediction, and verification. It relies on reproducible, independently verifiable data—whether observing Jupiter’s moons with a telescope or debunking Martian canals when better tools showed no evidence. Zamora emphasizes that science uses both inductive reasoning (generalizing from specific observations) and deductive reasoning (applying theories to predict outcomes), as seen in Pluto’s discovery via gravitational perturbations.

Science demands testable theories and reliable instruments. Divining rods fail because no measurable force supports their claims, unlike telescopes grounded in optics. Zamora notes science’s limits: it can’t address irreproducible events (like car alarms triggered simultaneously) or subjective experiences (artistic greatness). The method thrives on isolating problems, but as Kurt Gödel proved, no formal system can capture all truths—sometimes requiring paradigm shifts, like Einstein’s relativity replacing Newton’s gravity.

Criteria for Science in Policy Making

When science informs public policy, it must adhere to strict standards to avoid bias and ensure integrity. Below are my criteria for ensuring science serves the public good, not ideological agendas:

• 1. Objective: Test multiple reasonable hypotheses;
• 2. Useful finding (effect size important for decision making);
• 3. Full disclosure of methods, data, all relevant information;
• 4. Comprehensive review of prior knowledge;
• 5. Valid and reliable physical data not computer models;
• 6. Valid and simple methods must be reproducible;
• 7. Experimental evidence based on physical data;
• 8. Claims must be clearly quantified not general;
• 9. Conclusions consistent past and present evidence;
• 10. Must reject social, religious, and politics.

Criteria for Compliance with Science for Policy Making
Source: www.lloflin.com

These criteria—objectivity, transparency, reproducibility, and rejection of social, religious, or political bias—ensure science remains a tool for truth, not control. Policy must be based on physical data, not untested models, and claims must be quantifiable, not vague assertions.

The Environmental-Industrial Complex and State Control

In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex—a nexus of government and industry that could erode liberty through unchecked power. He also cautioned against science becoming a captive of federal funding, where “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” Today, we face a parallel threat: the environmental-industrial complex, where Progressive politics and environmentalism, often cloaked as science, drive central planning.

Progressives wield science to justify their vision of societal control, from carbon taxes to land-use restrictions. Environmentalism, when not hijacked as a quasi-religion (see my Environmentalism as Religion), becomes a tool for state overreach. The high cost of research—often funded by government grants—creates a feedback loop where scientists, reliant on state money, produce results that align with Progressive goals, not objective truth.

The environmental-industrial complex distorts science by prioritizing models over data, ignoring past evidence, and injecting political bias—violating every criterion for sound policy science.

Restoring Science’s Integrity in Policy

The scientific method demands rigor: test theories, verify predictions, and reject untestable claims. Yet, Progressive policies often rely on computer models—like climate projections—that can’t be reproduced or validated against physical data. Zamora’s example of light’s wave-particle duality shows science’s strength: repeated, global verification. Contrast this with environmental policies built on unproven assumptions, where dissent is silenced, and transparency is absent.

Eisenhower’s warning rings true: when science is captured by government agendas, it ceases to serve the public. We must demand policy science that adheres to the scientific method and my criteria—objective, reproducible, and free of ideological taint. Only then can we prevent science from becoming a tool for tyranny.