Interview 1177 – Judith Curry on The Republic of Science

by | Jun 10, 2016 | Interviews | 4 comments

Dr. Judith Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology who went from the “high priestess of global warming” to a “climate heretic” after realizing she had been duped by the IPCC. Today she joins us to talk about her recent breakdown of Michael Polanyi’s 1962 article “The Republic of Science.” Topics discussed include the science/policy nexus, the breakdown of the old norms of scientific research, and how the internet is helping to revolutionize science.


Dr. Curry Testimony to the US Senate December 2015

The Republic of Science (Polanyi article)

The Republic of Science (analysis at

Science on the Verge


  1. Haha. I don’t know whether I wish I had seen this before I had written this week’s newsletter or not, but at any rate let’s just say this is highly relevant to what I’m about to publish.

  2. As a scientist, I can certainly relate to Dr. Curry’s comments. The best I have ever read on science and its real role in culture was written or spoken by Adi Da Samraj.

    Here is an example:
    • In truth, the only thing that can be affirmed absolutely is Reality Itself—Which Is Truth Itself. No mere “point of information” can be absolutely affirmed. Therefore, any mere “point of information” is simply a subject of further “consideration” or discussion, and should only be tentatively affirmed as something that may be the case, as something that seems to be the case based on some level of evidence.
    • Making absolute affirmations is not a proper disposition for any exercise engaged from a scientific perspective. However, scientists frequently make absolute affirmations, as if they have some sort of absolute “knowledge”, whereby they are entitled to absolutely affirm that such and such is, or is not, the case. To indulge in absolute affirmations—including the affirmation of scientific materialist philosophy—is a gross misuse of the “authority” of science.
    • Science is not in a position to make absolute affirmations. True science is the “method” of enquiry-without-prejudice—and that “method” of enquiry enables science only to make propositions that are tentatively affirmable, and that must, necessarily, be tested by all yet future evidence. In the realm of science, further investigation is always required. The basis of all right and true science is this: Nothing absolute can be “known” (or, otherwise, said) about conditionally arising phenomena. (From The Aletheon, by Adi Da)
    • Cock-a-mamie science is about appearances, about the investigation of broken light. It is a philosophy being propagandized. It really should be a mode of free enquiry. Free enquiry doesn’t have a point of view in that sense.
    • Brain chemistry is also a species of light. Human beings are material, yes, but are also energy, light—changeable, but indestructible, a play of light, in a state of indivisible Unity—and this is the basis for true science.

  3. This link wont work for Australians shroo-boob wont allow it. Any one found a torrent yet?

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member