4 ms·

If anyone on the left was paying attention they would know that it isn't science -v- anti-science as they demonize it but politicized science -v- independent sc

by dmfdmf 10y ago

If anyone on the left was paying attention they would know that it isn't science -v- anti-science as they demonize it but politicized science -v- independent science. It is amazing to me that the same people that dismiss "tobacco" or "soda industry" science/scientists have no problem accepting "government" science at face value. That govt now funds the vast majority of scientific research in the world it should come as no surprise that a lot of it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power. This is not an explicit policy or devious strategy but implicit outcome of govt funded science performed by real human beings who respond to incentives. Read Ayn Rand's "The Establishing of an Establishment" in "Philosophy:Who Needs It" for a good explanation of the process. The politicization of science is destroying the credibility of science which should come as no surprise. NB: Before anyone jumps to conclusions; not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him. Also, I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest.

craigvn 10y ago
If you dismiss government funded science and industry funded science as both being conflicted there is not much left. > "a lot of it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power." Is this really true, or does the science suggest actionable outcomes that you are confusing with power. I suppose the scientists could just say do nothing, but with so much to learn that would seem very regressive.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Why would you dismiss either? Accepting an argument as being produced solely for the purpose of advancing the agendas of the people financing that argument isn't a reason to dismiss any argument that is not statistical in nature. Statistical arguments, however, are sensitive to the suppression of negative results, fuzzy classification schemes, and p-hacking.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > If you dismiss government funded science and industry funded science as both being conflicted there is not much left. With good science, one can anonymize the authorship and still have something useful to work with. I want to eliminate argument ad hominem, not pick a better ad hominem.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
Good luck doing any kind of fundamental science without government funding. > Read Ayn Rand's [...] for a good explanation of the process lol That pretty much explains it.
- dmfdmf 10y ago
  <Good luck doing any kind of fundamental science without government funding.> This is exactly the issue that Rand addressed in her article regarding the Establishment. It is insidious and (eventually) undercuts even an honest researcher. <That pretty much explains it.> Yes, yes she did.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
humanrebar 10y ago
The fact that you need the disclaimer at the end of your post is discouraging. I think you did well to put it in there, but it doesn't bode well for objective reason and thoughtful discourse. And that is directly relevant to the skepticism surrounding science in pop culture and mass media.
stouset 10y ago
> I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest. Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I assume you're not a climate scientist. So, 95%+ of climate scientists (and realistically, more than that) believe that the threat is dire and also believe that our current models are accurate within reasonable margins of error. Given this, isn't it hubris to think you know more about this topic than they? Consider Dunning-Kruger. The people who've spent their lives studying the climate are the ones most skeptical of their own understanding of the problem, and yet they're also the ones sounding the alarm as loud as they can. What's the tipping point where you decide to accept the findings of essentially everyone in the field?
- nice1 10y ago
  Why do you say 95%? Where is that number from? My own estimate is 15%, if you substract people who make these claims only so as to get grant funding which they would not get otherwise.
- sien 10y ago
  The IPCC says: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire. The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different. That is the consensus.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
tzs 10y ago
> It is amazing to me that the same people that dismiss "tobacco" or "soda industry" science/scientists have no problem accepting "government" science at face value. When a scientist working at a lab in a tobacco company gets a result that puts tobacco in a bad light, the result likely won't get published. When a scientist working at an academic lab gets government funding, and gets a result the government doesn't like, the result likely will get published. That's a huge difference.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence supporting this claim?
  - tzs 10y ago
    The notable lack of very many papers from tobacco company labs reporting results that go against the interests of the company that owns the lab, and the large number of papers from academic scientists whose results are against the interests of the governments that funded them.
    - belovedeagle 10y ago
      Do you have examples of goverment-negative papers? Do you have data to back up the other claim? I don't think you've grasped the concept of "evidence" here.

by dmfdmf 10y ago

craigvn 10y ago

If you dismiss government funded science and industry funded science as both being conflicted there is not much left. > "a lot of it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power." Is this really true, or does the science suggest actionable outcomes that you are confusing with power. I suppose the scientists could just say do nothing, but with so much to learn that would seem very regressive.

pessimizer 10y ago
Why would you dismiss either? Accepting an argument as being produced solely for the purpose of advancing the agendas of the people financing that argument isn't a reason to dismiss any argument that is not statistical in nature. Statistical arguments, however, are sensitive to the suppression of negative results, fuzzy classification schemes, and p-hacking.
humanrebar 10y ago
> If you dismiss government funded science and industry funded science as both being conflicted there is not much left. With good science, one can anonymize the authorship and still have something useful to work with. I want to eliminate argument ad hominem, not pick a better ad hominem.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

Good luck doing any kind of fundamental science without government funding. > Read Ayn Rand's [...] for a good explanation of the process lol That pretty much explains it.

dmfdmf 10y ago
<Good luck doing any kind of fundamental science without government funding.> This is exactly the issue that Rand addressed in her article regarding the Establishment. It is insidious and (eventually) undercuts even an honest researcher. <That pretty much explains it.> Yes, yes she did.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

humanrebar 10y ago

The fact that you need the disclaimer at the end of your post is discouraging. I think you did well to put it in there, but it doesn't bode well for objective reason and thoughtful discourse. And that is directly relevant to the skepticism surrounding science in pop culture and mass media.

stouset 10y ago

> I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest. Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I assume you're not a climate scientist. So, 95%+ of climate scientists (and realistically, more than that) believe that the threat is dire and also believe that our current models are accurate within reasonable margins of error. Given this, isn't it hubris to think you know more about this topic than they? Consider Dunning-Kruger. The people who've spent their lives studying the climate are the ones most skeptical of their own understanding of the problem, and yet they're also the ones sounding the alarm as loud as they can. What's the tipping point where you decide to accept the findings of essentially everyone in the field?

nice1 10y ago
Why do you say 95%? Where is that number from? My own estimate is 15%, if you substract people who make these claims only so as to get grant funding which they would not get otherwise.
sien 10y ago
The IPCC says: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire. The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different. That is the consensus.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...

tzs 10y ago

> It is amazing to me that the same people that dismiss "tobacco" or "soda industry" science/scientists have no problem accepting "government" science at face value. When a scientist working at a lab in a tobacco company gets a result that puts tobacco in a bad light, the result likely won't get published. When a scientist working at an academic lab gets government funding, and gets a result the government doesn't like, the result likely will get published. That's a huge difference.

belovedeagle 10y ago
Do you have any evidence supporting this claim?
- tzs 10y ago
  The notable lack of very many papers from tobacco company labs reporting results that go against the interests of the company that owns the lab, and the large number of papers from academic scientists whose results are against the interests of the governments that funded them.
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    Do you have examples of goverment-negative papers? Do you have data to back up the other claim? I don't think you've grasped the concept of "evidence" here.