4 ms·

Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with. Perhaps. In general you are preaching to the choir. I don't follow the politics of climate change

by dhimes 9y ago

Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with. Perhaps. In general you are preaching to the choir. I don't follow the politics of climate change, however. Occasionally I'll see something about a denier paper funded by somebody with skin in the game (like an oil company), so I'm sure there are shenanigans going on. But there are a lot of people out there who have some idea of a boogey-man scientific power structure that is desperate to maintain it's supremacy and therefore will corrupt scientific research to protect it. It's the same boogey-man that gives rise to theories about evolution and the origin of the universe. Exactly what this power structure is they don't explain. These are not people who have ever been engaged in scientific research. They aren't stupid, just aren't in the field. Kind of like non-athletes who criticize an athlete who is probably in the top 100 people on the planet at doing what they do as "sucking." So they're easily distracted by arguments like it's "all political" and "both sides have a point," which, while true, miss a very important distinction. One side very clearly has a financial stake in the game, and their investors demand (by force of law) that they protect that stake. The other side stands to gain...I'm not really sure. Does the scientist who "proves" anthropogenic climate change make 15 million dollars a year for it? Does the lab stand to gain? Maybe some research funding to pay for more trips, but they're not flying first class. You don't make a name for yourself by saying what everybody else is saying. But maybe there is something I'm missing. Maybe you can explain it to me.

oldandtired 9y ago
Most work environments are "political" in nature. Within them, certain ideas are not to be questioned. Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. For example, in string theory research groups you will be expected to follow the party line of "string theory" as the basic viewpoint, and so your work will not be supported if you dispute string theory in any way. Whereas in other research groups you will be expected to discount any string theory model as valid and if you support string theory you will be frowned upon and not funded. So it is with many different research areas. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. If your research doesn't produce the results that support that view then it will quickly be removed from funding. It really doesn't matter what the subject matter is, if what you are doing doesn't follow "funding guidelines", it will be closed down. Before that happens, to keep their jobs, most people will follow the party line. This is a shame as "science should be fun" and a way to further our understanding of the universe around us. What I find interesting is that scientists, on the whole, seem to be trained to believe that some things are "truth" because the theories on which those "truths" are based seem to work and work well. In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. Occasionally after much time, some of these things seem to appear as based on their models. It seems to vindicate their belief in their theories and models. Yet, if one takes a few steps back and takes along hard look at the data collected, other things appear that raise questions about the validity of those theories and models. This is a good thing as it suggests that our theories and models may not only be incomplete but could be quite wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. I liken it to the geocentric to heliocentric viewpoints. Both had some level of workability, but both have been superseded by later data and observations. Instead of being a tool for exploration of our universe, science appears to be getting the veneer of a religious system of belief and a pantheon of gods to go with it. Oh well.
- dhimes 9y ago
  Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. That's because you usually believe it when you sign up. That's within a lab, not a field. You don't go play guitar for a group whose music you can't stand. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. This is where you either need to show some evidence or I'm not going to believe you. Outsiders say this, but the truth is usually just the opposite: If you have some results that are counter-establishment, the funding flood comes. Fifth force, earth angular momentum-coupling, cold fusion.... It's harder to get that evidence because, duh, if it were easy then that would be the norm- the standard belief of the field. This is the popular misconception that people have outside of research. It's one of those urban legends: sounds plausible, and somebody knows a guy, aligns with my belief system, therefore must be true. But the fact is, when something outside of accepted beliefs seems to have strong evidence, there is a lot of excitement in the field and people all talk about it and rush to be a part of it. Heady days! In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. I agree. As James Randi said, "Scientists, like everybody else, tend to find what they are looking for." It does take a while to break out of old theoretical frameworks. Look at the hoops that astrophysics is jumping through to explain their observations that are based on the idea that physical constants are truly constants as well as certain conservation laws. They are inventing all kinds of exotic, not-quite-self-consistent schemas for explaining their observations. But that's very different from the assertion that "if you don't buy into it you can't get funded." It is true that you'll have to have your ducks in a row (stars aligned? heh) to get that funding, but if you had a way to explain all of this shit in a simple, self-consistent way then you would be fine. But you wouldn't have to fight a bunch of politically-driven opinion-makers on that front because they don't GAF. With climate change you have to do exactly that- some politicians have forbidden even its discussion.

by dhimes 9y ago

oldandtired 9y ago

Most work environments are "political" in nature. Within them, certain ideas are not to be questioned. Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. For example, in string theory research groups you will be expected to follow the party line of "string theory" as the basic viewpoint, and so your work will not be supported if you dispute string theory in any way. Whereas in other research groups you will be expected to discount any string theory model as valid and if you support string theory you will be frowned upon and not funded. So it is with many different research areas. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. If your research doesn't produce the results that support that view then it will quickly be removed from funding. It really doesn't matter what the subject matter is, if what you are doing doesn't follow "funding guidelines", it will be closed down. Before that happens, to keep their jobs, most people will follow the party line. This is a shame as "science should be fun" and a way to further our understanding of the universe around us. What I find interesting is that scientists, on the whole, seem to be trained to believe that some things are "truth" because the theories on which those "truths" are based seem to work and work well. In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. Occasionally after much time, some of these things seem to appear as based on their models. It seems to vindicate their belief in their theories and models. Yet, if one takes a few steps back and takes along hard look at the data collected, other things appear that raise questions about the validity of those theories and models. This is a good thing as it suggests that our theories and models may not only be incomplete but could be quite wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. I liken it to the geocentric to heliocentric viewpoints. Both had some level of workability, but both have been superseded by later data and observations. Instead of being a tool for exploration of our universe, science appears to be getting the veneer of a religious system of belief and a pantheon of gods to go with it. Oh well.

dhimes 9y ago
Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. That's because you usually believe it when you sign up. That's within a lab, not a field. You don't go play guitar for a group whose music you can't stand. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. This is where you either need to show some evidence or I'm not going to believe you. Outsiders say this, but the truth is usually just the opposite: If you have some results that are counter-establishment, the funding flood comes. Fifth force, earth angular momentum-coupling, cold fusion.... It's harder to get that evidence because, duh, if it were easy then that would be the norm- the standard belief of the field. This is the popular misconception that people have outside of research. It's one of those urban legends: sounds plausible, and somebody knows a guy, aligns with my belief system, therefore must be true. But the fact is, when something outside of accepted beliefs seems to have strong evidence, there is a lot of excitement in the field and people all talk about it and rush to be a part of it. Heady days! In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. I agree. As James Randi said, "Scientists, like everybody else, tend to find what they are looking for." It does take a while to break out of old theoretical frameworks. Look at the hoops that astrophysics is jumping through to explain their observations that are based on the idea that physical constants are truly constants as well as certain conservation laws. They are inventing all kinds of exotic, not-quite-self-consistent schemas for explaining their observations. But that's very different from the assertion that "if you don't buy into it you can't get funded." It is true that you'll have to have your ducks in a row (stars aligned? heh) to get that funding, but if you had a way to explain all of this shit in a simple, self-consistent way then you would be fine. But you wouldn't have to fight a bunch of politically-driven opinion-makers on that front because they don't GAF. With climate change you have to do exactly that- some politicians have forbidden even its discussion.