3 ms·

I meant what I said. There is rarely enough consideration given to science (non NIPCC) and subject matter experts (non PR shills) in the full lifecycle of publ

I meant what I said. There is rarely enough consideration given to science (non NIPCC) and subject matter experts (non PR shills) in the full lifecycle of public policy: authoring, negotiation, implementation and revision. Special interest bias currently has purchased more than it's fair share of overriding influence. See also: Merchants of Doubt

acqq 11y ago
When you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt I fully agree with you. But note that it's not that we can't call "science" when, for example, the tobacco industry finances some scientific research. It's how these particular research results are obtained (if they are bad science) or how they are used that we have to care. And how "science" word can be used for something not automatically positive, we have both G. W. Bush example I quoted and the examples from "Merchants of Doubt" that you mention.
- bro-stick 11y ago
  Sure we can because dressed up Cato report clones "addendums" aren't science. Exposing the crap and bias is how to keep it real. Otherwise, inventing new names is passing the buck from critical thinking, awareness and fact-checking. They're the PR problem, not the scientific method. Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap and the talking head charlatans. Emperors new clothes lingo doesn't remove the jerks that condone personal threats to climate scientists.
  - acqq 11y ago
    > Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap We know that these communities are not funded for that. The other side however, is, and only with the mission to introduce the confusion.
    - bro-stick 11y ago
      Then their message won't be heard, and their research will be for naught if they cannot defend themselves in forums where it counts. A related principle: a company with amazing products (Hlaska and countless others) fails if no one knows about it.

acqq 11y ago

When you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt I fully agree with you. But note that it's not that we can't call "science" when, for example, the tobacco industry finances some scientific research. It's how these particular research results are obtained (if they are bad science) or how they are used that we have to care. And how "science" word can be used for something not automatically positive, we have both G. W. Bush example I quoted and the examples from "Merchants of Doubt" that you mention.

bro-stick 11y ago
Sure we can because dressed up Cato report clones "addendums" aren't science. Exposing the crap and bias is how to keep it real. Otherwise, inventing new names is passing the buck from critical thinking, awareness and fact-checking. They're the PR problem, not the scientific method. Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap and the talking head charlatans. Emperors new clothes lingo doesn't remove the jerks that condone personal threats to climate scientists.
- acqq 11y ago
  > Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap We know that these communities are not funded for that. The other side however, is, and only with the mission to introduce the confusion.
  - bro-stick 11y ago
    Then their message won't be heard, and their research will be for naught if they cannot defend themselves in forums where it counts. A related principle: a company with amazing products (Hlaska and countless others) fails if no one knows about it.