4 ms·

I think he was trying to point out that it's a credibility problem. For instance, where science aligns with political belief, it makes it harder for scientists

by araneae 16y ago

I think he was trying to point out that it's a credibility problem. For instance, where science aligns with political belief, it makes it harder for scientists to argue that they're impartial when they generally share the same political beliefs with eachother.

jbooth 16y ago
where science aligns with political belief What if it's more an issue of political belief aligning itself against science? We've all seen the numbers on which Americans believe the earth is 5,000 years old, right?
- araneae 16y ago
  Well clearly that's problematic too.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    I agree, and furthermore I'd say that if the one preceded the other (i.e. the Republican Party became anti-science first), it's sort of blaming the victim to say scientists should be more balanced. More balanced with what? We'll average 5k and 12 billion and posit that the universe is 6 billion + 2500 years old?
drKarl 16y ago
Science is based on facts, not in belief. Proving a scientific theory using a flawed logic to support a political belief would be fatal to the reputation of a scientific. Therefore, scientific credibility has nothing to do with political affiliation, religion beliefs (or lack thereof), colour of skin or any other personal treat. There were brilliant scientists amongst the nazis and amongst the soviet communists, so it has nothing to do with that. Political belief is a very personal choice and everyone has the right to choose, and also everyone has the choice to become a scientist. In my opinion this article is a poor defense of republican party.
- araneae 16y ago
  "Science is based on facts" is a nonsensical statement. Science is a method by which one tries to establish facts. The problem is that it is a process run by humans which have biases. Bias can influence many things in science, not least of which is hypothesis selection. Through no fault of their own, scientists who have beliefs may not come up with hypotheses that contradict them, and therefore fail to test them. They will select the better of the two hypotheses they have, but they may miss something. This is a flaw in the scientific process that goes way beyond bias, by the way. It's the part that not anyone can do: that requires creative thinking, and is limited by it. To emulate Churchill, science is the worst way to discover truth, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.

by araneae 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

where science aligns with political belief What if it's more an issue of political belief aligning itself against science? We've all seen the numbers on which Americans believe the earth is 5,000 years old, right?

araneae 16y ago
Well clearly that's problematic too.
- jbooth 16y ago
  I agree, and furthermore I'd say that if the one preceded the other (i.e. the Republican Party became anti-science first), it's sort of blaming the victim to say scientists should be more balanced. More balanced with what? We'll average 5k and 12 billion and posit that the universe is 6 billion + 2500 years old?

drKarl 16y ago

Science is based on facts, not in belief. Proving a scientific theory using a flawed logic to support a political belief would be fatal to the reputation of a scientific. Therefore, scientific credibility has nothing to do with political affiliation, religion beliefs (or lack thereof), colour of skin or any other personal treat. There were brilliant scientists amongst the nazis and amongst the soviet communists, so it has nothing to do with that. Political belief is a very personal choice and everyone has the right to choose, and also everyone has the choice to become a scientist. In my opinion this article is a poor defense of republican party.

araneae 16y ago
"Science is based on facts" is a nonsensical statement. Science is a method by which one tries to establish facts. The problem is that it is a process run by humans which have biases. Bias can influence many things in science, not least of which is hypothesis selection. Through no fault of their own, scientists who have beliefs may not come up with hypotheses that contradict them, and therefore fail to test them. They will select the better of the two hypotheses they have, but they may miss something. This is a flaw in the scientific process that goes way beyond bias, by the way. It's the part that not anyone can do: that requires creative thinking, and is limited by it. To emulate Churchill, science is the worst way to discover truth, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.