4 ms·
And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" to
by kls 10y ago
And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" today is once you inject advocacy in one little area and it is exposed people throw the baby out with the bath water.
Take environmental sciences for example, the CRU and other leaks where scientist where exposed colluding with other scientist to blackball legitimate skeptics tainted the whole industry. Now we are seeing an wholesale rejection of environmental sciences and the gutting of the EPA. In a manner this is good, because there was obvious collusion and political advocacy and intent to stifle real science. On the other had, we also got a wholesale rejection by the voting majority which is now set to put clean energy back decades.
I personally put the blame squarely on the scientist of the CRU and the NOAA pause buster scientists (they are a disgrace to the title). They cost us dearly by trying to advance their agenda. When you compromise the integrity of science the cost is just too great.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoWhen the logging industry finds certain invasive species on land it owns it clear cuts, chips and burns a few square miles just to be on the safe side. I have no problem with science taking that approach. At least it keeps it fairly pure.
- croon 10y agoDo you feel the same about the science rejecting portion of the population?
- npunt 10y agoScience 'rejects' the behavior choices of individuals all the time. Should we ignore the obesity epidemic because it 'rejects' those suffering from it? Science isn't about making feel comfortable, it's about following the scientific method. It often presents ugly or inconvenient truths.
- croon 10y agoI meant people rejecting science. I could've been more clear.
- microcolonel 10y agoI think it's naïve to think that the agenda is only held by the person who accidentally exposed it. I think a research team where a member can speak broadly about their group "we're going to.." versus "I'm going to" is tainted. What about the way people characterize the paid faux research commissioned by the tobacco industry? Generally it is bad enough that they paid for it, it tainted all the results of the study. I think it's bad enough if one researcher says that they and their entire team ("we're") are committed to corrupting the results of the study to reach a foregone conclusion. The state does not like citizens having guns, the state owns and operates the CDC and decides its budget and staffing. In a way, the research is about matters which the state has a vested interest in. If this were a private company, we would be ready to write it off entirely.