And Mopping Up What?
- never mind the doctrine — that can be rationalised;
- nor the deities (principles?) — their wrath can be dared or deferred;
- what matters is to convince the rulers, redirect their wrath into profitable channels, and their vainglory into the most desirable investments in temples (institutions?) and public veneration.
- As long as you can sustain that for long enough, any sequel is someone else's problem: après nous, le déluge!
What less? We cannot have politicians tripping over their own tongues trying to make sense!
Horrors! Sack the blighter for crossing the border into politics.
Or if an engineer objects that an orbital launch is outside the parameters for acceptable safety?
Overrule him for inconveniencing management. Promote the manager to prove that seven deaths and billions of dollars were unavoidable, were even a praiseworthy outlay.
A climatologist remarks on the flat impossibility of certain glaciological speculations?
Oh dear! Tsk! Can't sack him because he is not accessible.
There even are para-parasites of science, the scientifically illiterate Proxmires who directly attack the real scientists, because it is safer and more profitable than the meta-parasitical role of attacking the crook scientists, who are politically more formidable and better prepared and funded for confrontation.
Finnish. How did Finnish get into this?
Only obliquely I blush to admit. My studies in that language have advanced in the years since I saw that sign and by now I know at least three Finnish words offhand, though my spelling might rely on some charity in Fennophone readers. I know the Finnish for "wolverine", for a toast equivalent to "cheers", and for "thanks". All the same, at an average rate of vocabulary acquisition of less than one word per decade, I still would find the typical road sign in Finnish as bewildering as ever.
Apart from the sheer distastefulness and stupidity of the whole affair, it is by now so familiar that I may spare myself yet another rehashing (terms such as "analysis" would be so over-delicate as to be misleading); there are plenty of accounts and discussions on the Internet. For example one might begin at:
Imagine someone on trial for an aggravated crime, say witchcraft or murder. Imagine that they hang the accused on evidence that afterwards is revealed to be substantially fictitious with fraudulence aforethought.
In brief I don't know who could reasonably have expected them to take the rights, wrongs, and ethics of the matter seriously. They never have been equipped for comprehending or caring for such things any more than the facts of the case.
And possibly foremost, what is to be done to begin from scratch, the long, weary journey of re-establishing a perception in students of science, that once was taken for granted? Remember the perception that once was important? That they should think not only that the logical and ethical underpinnings of their discipline are materially worth observing, but that there is genuine value to paying genuine respect to the appropriate craftsmanship, logic, and ethics of scientific procedures?