Fascinating piece in the newspaper that also publishes Carole Cadwalladr and an unstoppable torrent of green demonology. https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/1252471821057896451

This familiar argument is equivalent to the idea that sin cannot be done by people doing (or claiming to do) God's work.

The piece argues that conspiracy theories are a conspiracy against science.

This is also a well-trodden path. It was the claim of Bob May and also Paul Nurse as presidents of the Royal Society.

But it's a conspiracy theory, without evidence.

We can know this, because when public figures have made the claim that "there exist well funded denial machines" (Bob May), I have asked them for the evidence. They have been unable to provide it.

It is the only explanation they have for disobeying institutional science.

That is to say that the very top strata of institutional science shows no more adherence to Jim's scientific values than any conspiracy theorist. They claim that (institutional) science can transcend petty ideology, but that is precisely what they are victims of.

For instance, there are few scientists with a poorer track record, yet with such political gravity around him than Paul Ehrlich.

The Royal Society rewarded his more than half century dedication to ideological science abuse. https://royalsociety.org/people/paul-ehrlich-11383/

It even points it out: "Paul is best known for his work as a prominent activist and commentator on overpopulation."

It is the Royal Society which has sought to advance an ideological agenda, and which has recruit activists to that cause.

It's not science.

Another for instance. Lewandowsky has made an art form out of projecting green conspiracy theories as 'science'. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/diversity-in-science/parent-carer-scientist/stephan-lewandowsky/

Lew' won a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society in 2013 -- after he made up some statistics "proving" that climate sceptics are more prone to conspiracy theories than other people. He was caught out.

Institutional science took no notice -- contra Jim's claim.

It is not a conspiracy theory to point out that institutional science is degenerate.

Jim Al-Khalili should address institutional science's failures before he puts it on a pedestal, to demand deference to it.

Those failures are not something Jim, the Royal Society, nor much of institutional science wants to talk about. At all.

They are preoccupied instead with the question of why people do not obey them.

Perhaps it is because they believe themselves to be above such a conversation.

Jim Al-Khalili's piece reflects that arrogance -- the belief that institutional science is the institutionalisation of "how science works". Papal infallibility has nothing on these guys.

There *are* conspiracy theorists. I daily mute/unfollow/block people who tweet Icke's 5G Corona theory.

But that's just it. I can do that. We can all do that. We can discriminate. We don't need institutional monolith to tell us what's a fact and what's a conspiracy theory.