Yes, scientific authority has its iron fist in a velvet glove. People submit to scientific authority and love doing it. That’s because the authorities are as clever as they are powerful.
And they wag the lower researchers around like a dog’s tail. Researchers chase the latest fad like women caught with a closet full of last seasons midi skirts or guys with nehru shirts. Theories are fully funded one season, and dead the next (like string theory).
I suspect most of the high priests of Science have little faith in it, but would never admit it. When people like me speak out, they issue pro formalfatwas and accusations of heresy, but they’re really more concerned with funding their next project, lining their pockets (keeping the Church of Science going) than with truth. They have shown themselves to be “any way the wind blows” kind of people, and that kind of submission to authority is rewarded.
Is this news to anyone? Don’t be afraid to admit this is news to you. Authority has done a great job of keeping you in the dark.
Name any current scientific gadflies, to prove me wrong.
“An open mind is the devil’s workshop” --BillyTheMountain
Your comparison of science to “the church” is hardly relevant. Of course science follows trends…one person discovers something, and a bunch more jump in to help further the course of that discovery. You speak as if they’re all conspiring against us or something.
Everything has current trends. I think the idea is to learn things that already have been discovered and reviewed and concluded upon. Science needs to keep advancing, but “cutting edge science” is often less than accurate, due to its experimental nature, and lack of review. It doesn’t mean someone’s conspiring to deceive us.
So who are “the authorities”? The majority of scientists are NOT government employees, but rather university professors and privately funded researchers. Besides, behind the whole scientific system is PEER REVIEW which ensures that any “discoveries” made under less than scientific standard conditions will not be accepted by the scientific community, and exposed as such.
Although nobody should follow anything or anyone blindly, I think science is the least of our worries.
I fail to see your point other than “I don’t like science.”
Opinions can be wrong, and dare I say, I’m pretty sure yours is.
Why do a bunch more jump in? Most likely they are following the money, so who is providing the money? And more importantly, what do the scientists need to “discover” or verify that will continue the flow of money?
University professors are government employees, and they receive most research funding from the government. Even if the majority of researchers are in the private sector with completely private funds, there is too many researchers receiving public funds, which does overly pollute the scientific community.
It doesn’t ensure it. It can help strengthen a case, but it’s still vulnerable to the economics and funding of it.
In a society where over half the wealth production is taken from the people to be used as “public funds”, you have less confidence in the data and discoveries presented to us.
The scientist makes a new discovery, the tech guy comes up with an application for it. Once businessmen learn to sell it, they are interested in funding the scientist.
Governments role is to step in and make profitable lines of inquiry that are not yet profitable. The private sector is driven only by short term profit goals. If that were the only funding scientists received, we would become a third world nation. We must not forget the realities of international patent competition.
It is for the public good that we fund general science with our taxes. So what if most of the bets are bad ? Look at all the good that has come from this knowledge. Is anyone trying to make the case that we spent to much money obtaining the knowledge we have obtained so far ?
Do scientists submit to authority ? Of what use is a gadfly ? There are plenty of uneducated nut jobs pushing perpetual motion, unintelligent study of biological design, and the practical applications of astrology. I wish them luck, are they your gadflys ? They are not in short supply at all.
I can’t list on this page all the useful discoveries that science has made this month. There isn’t space , and I am to ignorant to understand them if there was.
My challenge to science bashers, is to name a single useful discover made by the religious without using the scientific method EVER. Since the beginning of scribbling on paper, I can think of absolutely nothing.
Religion is nothing but a hustle wherein the clever sell death to the stupid in an attractive pitch. Swindles and ornate con halls do not count. Name a single productive application to come from the life of a priest. It can’t be done.
I think his point is somewhat satirical in nature. I think he’s showing that, in reality, religion and science aren’t that different:
often people become devout followers of one to the point where they shield themselves from the other. Such as using the fact that science explains things as proof that God doesn’t exist, or using the bible as proof that science is wrong.
Both science and religion go through fads
Both have money flowing into them, and proponents of each try to show that as evidence of the other’s evil, selfish, greedy nature.
And I can sell you on really quirky ideas, like quarks and electrons, things you’ll never experience, if I tell you its backed by Scientific Authority.
That seems to be the sentence that the rest of your statements have a basis on. But it’s completely false. The private sector is driven by risk and reward. If I have a project that has a very high probability to bring in 1000 times in 10 years than what my investment today is, then the private sector will still be very likely to follow that path, because the risk is low and the reward is very high. The time frame does not matter, except in that it only adds to the risk component.
It’s money taken away from projects that are less risky and/or have a higher return for society. You say so what to that? I’d rather have money spent in the most efficient manor, because that means the fastest economic growth, which benefits all of us.
How can the government efficiently “make profitable lines of inquiry that are not yet [seen as ever being] profitable”? Do they somehow have more knowledge than the market does? And if so, how do they have more knowledge? I suppose the only knowledge they have is in what way they may extend their coercive power and limit the market in the future and therefore make it more risky for the market to take on longer term projects.
The free market isn’t going to do some important things
Well, only sort of. For instance, international government is spending max billions on fusion electric power. It is a proven theory, the H bomb, the sun etc. The future payoff is incalculable trillions of dollars worth of electricity into the infinite future. But private investment in research has been nil. Why ? , because the certainty of a huge investment up front, without the promise of a short term payoff means that even the most deep pocket companies have left this project to publicly funded academia. Their share holders would kill them if they tried otherwise.
There is also the looming specter of the unknown. Basic materials research. The Hadron collider is sure to cost billions. What it may discover is worth what ? So I posit it is good for the public to fund basic science, in the interest of the public good, without the surety of profit, as required by the private sector. We would all be much poorer in the future if such practice were stopped. We just can’t say by how much.
Perhaps in 20 years your cancer will be cured because of a discovery made by someone at a public university. Then you will be glad.
We rely on public institutions to test and create new cures from old, unpatentable drugs and processes. Do you expect Pizer to do that ?
46 years ago, John F. Kennedy said “We choose to go to the Moon” and we did. Sparing no expense, I have no idea what it cost, and we did it for political reasons. No expense was spared.
So we’ve been to the Moon. So what? We created whole new sciences. There were huge developments in too many areas to name. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of technologies or improvements to technologies, that are direct results of our race for the Moon. It was a wild investment with unknown returns (other than the political objective). Fortunately it paid off in spades.
I don’t think Billy submits blindly to scientific authority. I know I don’t.
It’t not that I don’t question things. It’s that I when I read something, and then read it in another magazine, online article, book, or what have you, I generally accept it. Given peer review, I feel pretty confident that its not junk science, and that I can place weight on that discovery. I trust it is true because, more than likely, it is. I can’t believe that the vast majority of scientists out there are trying to deceive us. Of course there will be exceptions where the scientists are wrong/deceitful, but that is not the norm.
It’s true that many of these things are things I’ll never experience, but the same could be true for most about anything. For example, it’s pretty hard to “experience” the world being round. Or “experience” that the gas I’m breathing is oxygen. Thus, I cannot KNOW that these things are real, since I did not directly experience them (and even if I did, this is assuming our senese give us accurate descriptions of the world). By the same logic I cannot KNOW that anything I have not perceived is real. I do not KNOW that plasic is created using gasoline, I do not KNOW that fiberglass is made up of tiny little plastic bubbles. Heck, I can’t even KNOW that I wrote the original post. I’m not directly experiencing it, so how can I know. Continuing down this philosophical route will bring you just about nowhere (all in the journey, right?). Its senseless to disregard scientific discoveries just because you personally cannot directly experience those discoveries. One must have FAITH in science and FAITH in other people.
You shouldn’t disregard someone else’s experience just because its someone else’s.
Regardless of what I can or cannot know for sure, I believe in what is probable and PRACTICAL for daily life. Many of these recent scientific discoveries do not directly impact my daily life (like string theory, dark matter, quarks, all those crazy theories about light), and thus it isn’t that important whether they are all true or not.
I’m probably only being this bold due to the anonymity the internet provides, but you’re wrong. University professors aren’t government employees. They are university employees. They may receive funding from the government, but that does not make them government employees. There is a difference.
If scientists were not getting money from governments and private companies, where would the money come from? Science would come to a near standstill.
I DO “question scientific authority,” in that I check sources and seek related publications corroborating any discovery. I do NOT “question scientific authority” because I do NOT automatically mistrust and/or reject discoveries that I read/hear about.
I’m curious to know, how do you define “questioning scientific authority?”
My discussion in this post is a bit disjointed but I think my main point is that either it doesn’t really matter to your daily life if the scientific discoveries are true/deceptive or not, or that it’s completely impractical to believe that scientists are just out to deceive us.
Scientists have been fooled. They drank the kool-aid.
An admirable call for greater TOLERANCE of scientists and their kooky beliefs, my friend. I like it!
But I think its going too far that they let them teach this stuff in “science” class, don’t you? I mean, at least not in public schools, supported by taxpayer $$.
Isn’t that what our founding fathers meant when they said separation of Church of Science from State?
Let them do that in parochial schools.
Ah, good. You, my friend, are a pragmatist!
You recognize too many sermons in all the Science classes are truly useless, except to create more High Priests of Science.
You are very clear, my friend. Many of the Scientists are not so much out to decieve us, they themselves have been fooled, they drank the kool-aid.
The private sector does not need certainty, nor does it need a short term payoff.
The real problem is that the risk is too high for the private entity to compete against an institution that has no risk. This institution, the government, has no risk because they receive their funds through coercion and force. Can you easily compete with that?
Again, there is no surety of profit needed in the private sector. Would we be poorer if the government stopped stealing from the private sector and didn’t do their own projects? The thing most people fail to understand is that the government took the resources away from someone else that would have used them to their benefit. So what would have happened with those resources had they stayed in the private sector? Now with government not funding some things and no longer competing with the private sector, you can imagine that it would open it up for the private sector to go in to these areas and they would have to be more efficient at it.
Maybe, but maybe that would have been done in the private sector if the government wasn’t taking the resources away from them and competing with them.
Cool. But what if that huge amount of resources were used by the private sector? We probably would’ve created whole new sciences, huge new developments, and tons of new technologies and improvements…
The real argument is whether the market would’ve used the resources more efficiently than the government.
Take for instance the case of Ritalin. Ritalin is an amphetamine type drug that is used to treat a ‘condition’ called Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Leaving aside the debate about whether there is an actual ‘condition’ called ADHD or whether it is rather a way of being that does not fit in with our current schooling system, the case of Ritalin is itself interesting.
There was a big multi centre study a few years ago in the US looking into the treatment for ADHD. The study was the ‘gold standard’ type of research used in social science research - the randomised controlled trial. The study concluded that the administration of Ritalin was the best treatment for ADHD and that treatment outcomes could not be improved by using other interventions (such as therapy or behavioural interventions).
The results of this study were widely embraced and thousands upon thousands of active American and British children were medicated. It seemed to have escaped most people’s noticed that the study was actually carried out by the manufacturers of Ritalin
Woops because more recently scientists are coming out and admitting that actually they were wrong. Actually, Ritalin has no benefits for use for longer than an 18 week period. And actually there is no improvement in learning for people who take Ritalin. All the Ritalin does is damp down the behaviour of everyone who takes it.
Peer review is NOT a garuntee for good science as this research was fully peer reviewed and was also the ‘gold standard’ for research in the area but it was still completely flawed.
^^^ Good point by Cath. You always have to look at where the money comes from. This has lead most arguments to become a “My left-funded study against your right-funded study”. Putting all science into a partisan playing field.
Who do you believe? Most people will believe the study that reflects their core beliefs best.
On another note; Most scientists will tell you “For every answer we discover it opens up a thousand more questions”
That’s just great, especially if the master you serve is science.
Hmmm…maybe you have heard of the the Muslims, who have invented darn-near everything we use today, wiki-link: List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia. Thousands of inventions, too many to list here. Some used a version of scientific thought, but most probably not.
The catholic monks kept the sciences alive during the dark ages and advanced many disclipines while the rest of the world was just trying to survive. ever heard of beer?
In the words of The Bard;
Everybody has to serve somebody.
My point wasn’t that religious people never do good science. Every day, USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. That doesn’t count. My challenge is to name a single positive thing that has ever been learned from the religious method.
For example, Joe Smith discovered a religious truth reading magic gold plates reveled to him by god. This told an amazing story about the history of north america. A history totally at odds with all archaeological evidence. Fabricated bullshit, or Mormonism, in other words.
Show an example where, say, Jesus said unto them,“hell with me healing a few folks, let me show you how god showed me a way to make penicillin from bread mold.”
I know I’m asking way to much. An instance where a holy bullshit artist actually came up with something using the method of divine revelation. Anything, a cure for hick ups would do. They are and were all full of shit. Wraping death like a gift and selling it for big $ to the stupid. Besides enrichening themselves and building splendidly artistic con halls, name one useful discovery provided to us by divine revelation. It can’t be done.
And that’s the problem with letting kids get exposed to Science so early on. Science has their brain. They only let Brothers and Sisters with degrees from the Church (University) teach in those “public” schools, so it’s like the brainwashed leading the brainwashed.
Your core beliefs were taken from you in pre-K.
It’s just great if you can discern the true “answers” from Church Doctrine. Unfortunately, you cannot, because you have been trained to inadvertently submit to scientific authority.
Not true either. Sadly, even the Bard is brainwashed and in submission to Scientific Authority.
ritalin IS an amphetamine. They “treat” “ADHD” with a variety of amphetamines, including dexedrine. any research that uses controls shows that amphetamines momentarily improves the performance of ALL kids. those in submission to science are blind to this fact, and have even used behavioral improvement as PROOF the kid HAS adhd.
It would be laughable if the Church of Science wasn’t guiilty of so much abuse on such a large scale. ADHD is the tip of the iceberg.
There is now a massive class action lawsuit filed on behalf of atoms by PETA. One part of the Church of Science abuses atoms by putting them into an “atom smasher” – no lie – powerful abusive scientists smashing tiny innocent atoms – and with wacky justifications.
Pretty soon, if we let them get away with this, there will be no atoms left. Then where will we be? Answer me that, will ya?
I guess I’m not understanding, but you say my view was naiive but I couldn’t draw from your response as to WHY you believed it was naiive.
Secondly, I never claimed that peer review ensured “good science.” I said that I “generally accept it”, “feel confident” and can “place some weight” on that discovery. It also must be noted that in a society ruled by “the buck,” there will always be scientific “mistakes,” be they intentional or not. Things are always going to “slip through the net,” regardless of how many safeguards there are. Given the immense numbers of “good science” discoveries, a few “mistakes” can hardly be grounds to reject and abolish the entire system.
Regarding ritalin specifically, I can’t make a strong argument one way or the other. I have read articles speaking negatively about the effects and overprescription of ritalin along with its illegal uses (snorting crushed pills). However, myself and my parents have witnessed the positive effects of ritalin on the son of my parents’ good friends. Thus, I cannot conclude one way or the other based on the information I have. Regardless, even giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming that ritalin is in all cases detrimental, it is still not a good enough reason to discount the entire scientific community because of a few greedy corporate scientists and executives.
Just because Muslims invented things, doesn’t mean those inventions were revealed to them through their religion. There’s a huge difference.
If not science, what SHOULD “have kids’ brains?” What should replace science class in schools? Sooner or later, smart kids would begin to ask how/why rain falls, why the sky is blue, why there are mountains, and why he has blue eyes when his parents don’t.
If my core beliefs were taken away from me, could you let me know what my core beliefs were?
Regarding the PETA lawsuit, are you being serious? That’s absurd, atoms are not alive, much less sentient.
EDIT: Couldn’t find anything on PETA’s website, leading me to believe you may be “baiting” me, or something. If not, please list your sources.
And yes ritalin may be the tip of the iceberg of scientific follies, but speaking of the Titanic disaster is also just “the tip of the iceberg” regarding ship disasters. Does that mean we should abolish the use of ships and boats?
