5 ms·

No. Science, like democracy, is based on the very principle of distrust. Instead, simply accept it. Accept that scientists are humans. Accept that the process i

by tybris 17y ago

No. Science, like democracy, is based on the very principle of distrust. Instead, simply accept it. Accept that scientists are humans. Accept that the process if often flawed. Accept that peer-review doesn't really mean that much. Accept that most theories aren't fully supported by the data. Accept that we have such a diversity in science that experiments are rarely repeated. Accept that it's hard to tell the good science from the bad. but most of all, accept that it is the best thing we've got. (scientist)

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I didn't RTA, but I find it interesting you compare science and democracy. In a good democracy, the politicians are assumed to be gaining the system for personal power. That is, the political system is built up to make it extremely difficult for power to centralize in any one spot for a long period of time. There are lots of ways to do this, checks and balances, term limits, parliamentary systems, etc. However in the current "scientific" system -- the system that allocates political and monetary power to scientists -- none of this seems to be in place. It's much at the same place democracies were in the 1600s or so; there is a lot of reliance on the "right" people being in power. I'm not at all trying to slam science -- it is truly the best thing we have -- but I found your metaphor very enlightening, perhaps in ways you didn't realize? Thanks for sharing it.
- tensor 17y ago
  Actually, the allocation of money has nothing to do with the idea of science, but is rather a simple necessity brought on by, ironically, politics. That allocation process also has many of the same safe-guards you mention. The part of the metaphor that is completely incorrect, is that democracy is a truth finding system at all! You can not vote the law of gravity out of existence, for example. As a truth finding tool, democracy is only as strong as the education of its members, and even then, it provides no strict framework for judging quality or correctness of results. In that sense, democracy has little at all to do with science. It is merely a tool for managing and controlling human actions.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by tybris 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

I didn't RTA, but I find it interesting you compare science and democracy. In a good democracy, the politicians are assumed to be gaining the system for personal power. That is, the political system is built up to make it extremely difficult for power to centralize in any one spot for a long period of time. There are lots of ways to do this, checks and balances, term limits, parliamentary systems, etc. However in the current "scientific" system -- the system that allocates political and monetary power to scientists -- none of this seems to be in place. It's much at the same place democracies were in the 1600s or so; there is a lot of reliance on the "right" people being in power. I'm not at all trying to slam science -- it is truly the best thing we have -- but I found your metaphor very enlightening, perhaps in ways you didn't realize? Thanks for sharing it.

tensor 17y ago
Actually, the allocation of money has nothing to do with the idea of science, but is rather a simple necessity brought on by, ironically, politics. That allocation process also has many of the same safe-guards you mention. The part of the metaphor that is completely incorrect, is that democracy is a truth finding system at all! You can not vote the law of gravity out of existence, for example. As a truth finding tool, democracy is only as strong as the education of its members, and even then, it provides no strict framework for judging quality or correctness of results. In that sense, democracy has little at all to do with science. It is merely a tool for managing and controlling human actions.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]