23 ms·

You assume that the public has objective commitment to the scientific method. An example where this could be an issue is climate change. There is a significant

by PakG1 3y ago

You assume that the public has objective commitment to the scientific method. An example where this could be an issue is climate change. There is a significant portion of the public that is interested in showing that climate change is not really happening. I had a conversation just last week with someone who says that society should have more of a debate about climate change because he thinks that politicians are just making noise about it for personal political agendas and that reality is really still uncertain. He made it clear to me that his opinion was that climate change is absolutely not happening. We didn't get to the part where the debate for scientists is for the most part settled and reality is certain, and that conclusion just hasn't transferred over to public opinion for whatever reason. If we get public interest to be a factor, we risk biased thinking to sway what gets funded based on biased opinion, rather than scientific interest and scientific method.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
I don't really see where I've made such an assumption, but okay. I never implied public sentiment should be the only, or even a primary factor in funding decisions, only that considering it in a case like this where there are literally thousands of people who signed a petition for it might make sense.
- PakG1 3y ago
  If you're saying that it should only be a consideration that doesn't impact the process as a codified step of the process, I don't see how that's any different from what's happening already. The people making the decisions will naturally already see what gets public attention and what doesn't when there's enough of a groundswell. If you're saying that means that stuff with lower public attention won't get the decision makers to see how much attention there is, you're saying that there needs to be an official step to make the decision makers see how much attention there is. That codification of the official step would then have influence and then strategies around developing and weaponizing that influence would be in play. Better to not have it in play so that it only remains as outside noise. Sometimes the noise will penetrate the process anyway, but there is no need to welcome it into the process officially.

by PakG1 3y ago

Paul-Craft 3y ago

I don't really see where I've made such an assumption, but okay. I never implied public sentiment should be the only, or even a primary factor in funding decisions, only that considering it in a case like this where there are literally thousands of people who signed a petition for it might make sense.

PakG1 3y ago
If you're saying that it should only be a consideration that doesn't impact the process as a codified step of the process, I don't see how that's any different from what's happening already. The people making the decisions will naturally already see what gets public attention and what doesn't when there's enough of a groundswell. If you're saying that means that stuff with lower public attention won't get the decision makers to see how much attention there is, you're saying that there needs to be an official step to make the decision makers see how much attention there is. That codification of the official step would then have influence and then strategies around developing and weaponizing that influence would be in play. Better to not have it in play so that it only remains as outside noise. Sometimes the noise will penetrate the process anyway, but there is no need to welcome it into the process officially.