3 ms·

Science is infused with power because it has been consistently shown to work, not because of the Machiavellian maneuvers of scientists. Unless you have hard pro

Science is infused with power because it has been consistently shown to work, not because of the Machiavellian maneuvers of scientists. Unless you have hard proof stop with your climate denialist nonsense, your word is utterly meaningless

erichocean 5y ago
> Science is infused with power No, science was infused with power for that reason 100+ years ago, back when it really was a "marketplace of ideas" and truth was the only way for an idea to win. (That's why it "worked" back then.) Now that "science" has been infused with power, it has become political and powerful ideas that are wrong (or only weakly right) beat out true ideas that aren't as powerful. It is what is. Science 100+ years ago was like a large, pristine, clean lake, and it took a long time for the toxic waste that is power to pollute it. Today, though, power wins every single time.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  Please provide evidence for any of your claims
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - erichocean 5y ago
    How about all of them? > The heat source for our planet is the sun. Source: https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat > Carbon dioxide content in air is only 0.03%, but it is highly soluble in water unlike oxygen and one volume of CO2 dissolves in equal volume of water, the solubility being higher at low temperature. Source: https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm > Social science [is] any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects. > Strictly speaking, the social sciences, as distinct and recognized academic disciplines, emerged only on the cusp of the 20th century. Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science > The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to World War I. > Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. > The Progressives were avid modernizers, with a belief in science and technology as the grand solution to society's flaws. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era ----- The Progressive Era is when the social sciences were created and then used to inform the actions of government. This gave those "sciences" power, and moved power to experts (which come from academia) and away from politicians. (At least, that was the goal.) Broadly speaking, any academic discipline with the word "science" tacked onto it is a social science, though harder sciences (e.g. biology) can be infused with power as well (c.f. Lysenkoism in the USSR). The Progressive Era goal makes intuitive sense: if you need to know what to do about a problem, ask the experts. The experts are in academia, and academia has this great track record for discovering the truth (aka the "marketplace of ideas"). Unfortunately, adding power to academia polluted that marketplace so that now ideas with power (that are only weakly true) outcompete strongly true ideas that do not confer power. Consider today how difficult it is for anyone to go against The Science™. I mean, who would even want to? If "science" truly still was a "marketplace of ideas", no one would. Now that it's actually become a "marketplace of powerful ideas", everyone should be suspect: Is this idea really true? Or is it merely powerful (and only weakly true)? Actually, there are science disciplines that aren't infused with power. Those disciplines have no policy component, i.e. politicians can (and do) ignore them. Astronomy is a good example. In the USSR, all of their hard sciences were still useful after the USSR fell. But those Progressive Era "social sciences" from the USSR? They're all garbage. Useless. Because they were "science infused with power", which doesn't reliably produce truth—only power.
- freemint 5y ago
  Rassenkunde (study of human races) was very much in vogue pretty much 100 years ago. This pseudo science is very much also infused by politics and power (to justify suppressing fellow humans). The problems in the medical trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculin were very much caused by political rivalry between France and Germany. > Science 100+ years ago was like a large, pristine, clean lake, and it took a long time for the toxic waste that is power to pollute it. I see no evidence to show that it is worse today then it was in the future. In fact due to things like preregistration of studies, double blind procedures the reliability has probably increased. It becomes harder and harder to cheat.

erichocean 5y ago

> Science is infused with power No, science was infused with power for that reason 100+ years ago, back when it really was a "marketplace of ideas" and truth was the only way for an idea to win. (That's why it "worked" back then.) Now that "science" has been infused with power, it has become political and powerful ideas that are wrong (or only weakly right) beat out true ideas that aren't as powerful. It is what is. Science 100+ years ago was like a large, pristine, clean lake, and it took a long time for the toxic waste that is power to pollute it. Today, though, power wins every single time.

wittycardio 5y ago
Please provide evidence for any of your claims
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- erichocean 5y ago
  How about all of them? > The heat source for our planet is the sun. Source: https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat > Carbon dioxide content in air is only 0.03%, but it is highly soluble in water unlike oxygen and one volume of CO2 dissolves in equal volume of water, the solubility being higher at low temperature. Source: https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm > Social science [is] any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects. > Strictly speaking, the social sciences, as distinct and recognized academic disciplines, emerged only on the cusp of the 20th century. Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science > The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to World War I. > Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. > The Progressives were avid modernizers, with a belief in science and technology as the grand solution to society's flaws. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era ----- The Progressive Era is when the social sciences were created and then used to inform the actions of government. This gave those "sciences" power, and moved power to experts (which come from academia) and away from politicians. (At least, that was the goal.) Broadly speaking, any academic discipline with the word "science" tacked onto it is a social science, though harder sciences (e.g. biology) can be infused with power as well (c.f. Lysenkoism in the USSR). The Progressive Era goal makes intuitive sense: if you need to know what to do about a problem, ask the experts. The experts are in academia, and academia has this great track record for discovering the truth (aka the "marketplace of ideas"). Unfortunately, adding power to academia polluted that marketplace so that now ideas with power (that are only weakly true) outcompete strongly true ideas that do not confer power. Consider today how difficult it is for anyone to go against The Science™. I mean, who would even want to? If "science" truly still was a "marketplace of ideas", no one would. Now that it's actually become a "marketplace of powerful ideas", everyone should be suspect: Is this idea really true? Or is it merely powerful (and only weakly true)? Actually, there are science disciplines that aren't infused with power. Those disciplines have no policy component, i.e. politicians can (and do) ignore them. Astronomy is a good example. In the USSR, all of their hard sciences were still useful after the USSR fell. But those Progressive Era "social sciences" from the USSR? They're all garbage. Useless. Because they were "science infused with power", which doesn't reliably produce truth—only power.
freemint 5y ago
Rassenkunde (study of human races) was very much in vogue pretty much 100 years ago. This pseudo science is very much also infused by politics and power (to justify suppressing fellow humans). The problems in the medical trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculin were very much caused by political rivalry between France and Germany. > Science 100+ years ago was like a large, pristine, clean lake, and it took a long time for the toxic waste that is power to pollute it. I see no evidence to show that it is worse today then it was in the future. In fact due to things like preregistration of studies, double blind procedures the reliability has probably increased. It becomes harder and harder to cheat.