3 ms·
Yes, there is also a huge mismatch between what politicans want from "science" and what "science" can provide. Any legitimate scientific field is in a constant
by constantcrying 3y ago
Yes, there is also a huge mismatch between what politicans want from "science" and what "science" can provide.
Any legitimate scientific field is in a constant faction war, on various issues and making serious political decision based on that is insane. And the consequence is various highly suspect policy decision which were essentially purely based on some "scientific" subfaction gaining political power and enforcing their beliefs. The effects of these decisions are usually, likely by design, impossible to measure and subject to an enormous amount of confounders. "Success" and "failure" thus become largely up to chance and a "consensus" emerges, which is in truth largely based on coin tosses and more or less meaningless.
- cshimmin 3y agoYes! In the US particle physics community, they came up with a solution to this. Every ten years, the field as a whole gets together and sets an agenda for the field that self-prioritizes funding, before making a case to the national funding agencies and Congress. The idea is that if the high energy folks are computing with the neutrino folks, and things get nasty to the point where people on each side are saying stuff like "neutrinos suck, here's why you shouldn't fund them and fund us instead!"... All the suits are going to hear is "physics sucks here's a bunch of reasons we shouldn't fund them". The process/report is called P5 (particle physics projects prioritization panel), and it's actually happening right now to form the coming decadal report.
- walthamstow 3y agoAssume you meant competing rather than computing? Either could work!
- naasking 3y agoSounds like a great way to setup an echo chamber.
- geraldhh 3y agoconsensus chamber?
- Swizec 3y ago> making serious political decision based on that is insane Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, sometimes talks about this on his podcast. In his experience, politicians make the decision first and seek supporting scientific evidence second.