4 ms·

Jeez, I think Scott Adams is barking up a wrong tree here. The reason science has lost credibility is because of vested interest groups who put money into labs

Jeez, I think Scott Adams is barking up a wrong tree here. The reason science has lost credibility is because of vested interest groups who put money into labs so as to get a result tailor made for them. Just as pattern recognition is one of our traits, fudging numbers and data is also up there. Add to it marketing which uses psychology to draw on our strings and play humans as puppets. I would be surprised if all this didn't amount to the fragmented society that we currently live in. Also Scott Adams is using very choosy topics to make his case against science which may not hold true in generality. The difficulty of getting sugar rich diet and drinks out of schools shows how obesity is not primarily due to lack of credible science. This also applies to Tobacco. I think this whole blog is a sensationalist piece which jumps from one extreme to another. > I’m pro-science because the alternatives are worse. (Example: ISIS.) ISIS is not an example of lack of science but an example of lack of empathy and humanity. I agree that the layman is not an idiot but there is a whole system built into society to patronize them and to make him/her feel that way. People are constantly told to rest their judgement and let the authorities tell them what it implies. This happens right from childhood where parents for the fear of being exposed of lacking knowledge on the topic use their authoritarian powers to suppress curiosity. A child who is constantly being exposed to that treatment will outsource his/her judgement for the ones put across by pundits in the media when they grow up. I think the "The Clean Room" episode [0] in NgT's COSMOS brings the fault in our system quite effectively by showing how Clair Patterson had to battle great odds to bring the ill effects of lead in Gasoline primarily because there was a big vested interest group who were against it. It's available on Netflix and I would recommend it highly. [0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3410940/?ref_=ttep_ep7 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3410940/?ref_=ttep_ep7

codyb 12y ago
He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often. And if what you say is the case, you present a stronger reason for skepticism of scientific claim than mere pattern recognition. The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. Walking in other people's shoes seems to be something many in the world have trouble doing. I know I've certainly met some quite militant science folks who think everyone who doesn't vehemently believe in the latest scientific concept is an idiot because p < 0.05. That kind of attitude wins no hearts and changes no minds of the "non believers".
- myth_buster 12y ago
  > He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often. He does it in a hand-wavy fashion. Its not that science is in the wrong, its the system that is at fault. What is perhaps needed is to get influence of money out of research as in with politics. Also perhaps more rigorous peer reviewed papers and penalties for the media if they state rejected/falsified theories as accepted ones. > The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. The alternate viewpoint is the inability of humans to grasp large scales of time, space and complexity. For example Global Warming had to be renamed as Climate Change because many people took the science as faulty at the first sign of plummeting temperatures at their location. Same can be said regarding the arguments about evolution. Weather predictions is a science which is often mocked because in general people didn't understand the complexity of it. I was one of them. A prediction of 40% rain on the next weekend which didn't materialize doesn't put the science at fault, it just means the model requires a few more cycles of evolution.

codyb 12y ago

He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often. And if what you say is the case, you present a stronger reason for skepticism of scientific claim than mere pattern recognition. The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. Walking in other people's shoes seems to be something many in the world have trouble doing. I know I've certainly met some quite militant science folks who think everyone who doesn't vehemently believe in the latest scientific concept is an idiot because p < 0.05. That kind of attitude wins no hearts and changes no minds of the "non believers".

myth_buster 12y ago
> He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often. He does it in a hand-wavy fashion. Its not that science is in the wrong, its the system that is at fault. What is perhaps needed is to get influence of money out of research as in with politics. Also perhaps more rigorous peer reviewed papers and penalties for the media if they state rejected/falsified theories as accepted ones. > The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. The alternate viewpoint is the inability of humans to grasp large scales of time, space and complexity. For example Global Warming had to be renamed as Climate Change because many people took the science as faulty at the first sign of plummeting temperatures at their location. Same can be said regarding the arguments about evolution. Weather predictions is a science which is often mocked because in general people didn't understand the complexity of it. I was one of them. A prediction of 40% rain on the next weekend which didn't materialize doesn't put the science at fault, it just means the model requires a few more cycles of evolution.