4 ms·

You know, I feel like there's a connection between companies paying off scientists and growing anti-science sentiment. Am I wrong?

arvinsim 6y ago
There used to be a weight behind statements that are scientific. Most people would trust them without going into debates. I agree that corporate lobbying and academic corruption has certainly eroded that trust.
- throwaway8941 6y ago
  When was that? I don't live in the US, but just the other day I finished 'The Emperor of All Maladies' that someone recommended here. If I understood the book correctly, the link between tobacco usage and lung cancer was established pretty rapidly, but it took a very long time (and decisive political action resulting in massive propaganda campaign) to convince the public.
mrgordon 6y ago
When all the new buildings at MIT are named after Shell and Koch, you know they've infiltrated everything.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Tons of buildings worldwide named after the Sacklers as well.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
How would one go about proving or disproving this?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hegtor 6y ago
There is an interesting podcast by the bbc on this subject : https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/downloads https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/downloads
parineum 6y ago
I always chuckle to myself a bit when I see narratives of "trust the science" on various social media platforms. There seems to be no end of credible-to-the-layman scientitsts who have any opinion you want to hear and politicians and companies will find them. I'm not an antivax climate denier or anything but a single study or a single scientist isn't going to convince me of anything. I just tend to remain unconvinced a bit longer than most. The important thing to me is to recognize that I'm not an expert in most things and to remain open to having my mind changed in those things.
paganel 6y ago
And it is quite normal, these are not "bad" scientists, as in only "bad" scientists will receive money to spit out the "desired" societal results, this is how science generally works. If the society needs rockets in its arms' race against a foreign foe then said society suddenly "forgets" that the scientists involved are bad by definition (Von Braun was a Nazi, it doesn't get any more "bad" than that, his rockets had killed innocent British civilians) and it starts using their work for its societal needs. When some scientists start growing a spine and start realising the moral conundrum of their trade they're either treated as crazy or as communists (see Oppenheimer).

arvinsim 6y ago

There used to be a weight behind statements that are scientific. Most people would trust them without going into debates. I agree that corporate lobbying and academic corruption has certainly eroded that trust.

throwaway8941 6y ago
When was that? I don't live in the US, but just the other day I finished 'The Emperor of All Maladies' that someone recommended here. If I understood the book correctly, the link between tobacco usage and lung cancer was established pretty rapidly, but it took a very long time (and decisive political action resulting in massive propaganda campaign) to convince the public.

mrgordon 6y ago

When all the new buildings at MIT are named after Shell and Koch, you know they've infiltrated everything.

mikeyouse 6y ago
Tons of buildings worldwide named after the Sacklers as well.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

How would one go about proving or disproving this?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hegtor 6y ago

There is an interesting podcast by the bbc on this subject : https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/downloads https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/downloads

parineum 6y ago

I always chuckle to myself a bit when I see narratives of "trust the science" on various social media platforms. There seems to be no end of credible-to-the-layman scientitsts who have any opinion you want to hear and politicians and companies will find them. I'm not an antivax climate denier or anything but a single study or a single scientist isn't going to convince me of anything. I just tend to remain unconvinced a bit longer than most. The important thing to me is to recognize that I'm not an expert in most things and to remain open to having my mind changed in those things.

paganel 6y ago

And it is quite normal, these are not "bad" scientists, as in only "bad" scientists will receive money to spit out the "desired" societal results, this is how science generally works. If the society needs rockets in its arms' race against a foreign foe then said society suddenly "forgets" that the scientists involved are bad by definition (Von Braun was a Nazi, it doesn't get any more "bad" than that, his rockets had killed innocent British civilians) and it starts using their work for its societal needs. When some scientists start growing a spine and start realising the moral conundrum of their trade they're either treated as crazy or as communists (see Oppenheimer).