What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[Jack_www]

First you cannot pass any law. Here in the United States and other democratic countries people have the right to free speech and to voice their beliefs, positions on political issues, and debate them with other people. If a group of scientists believe say that Gobal Warming is occuring because of the reasearch they are doing and want to do something about it, you cant just "defend against them." They have every right to do this, and so do the people who oppose them and think that there is no Gobal Warming or that it is happening and humans cant do anything about it.

The only solution is making sure that the general public is well informed and educated. The well informed part is very hard, because most people dont like to read, and would rather sit in front of the TV after a long day at work. Most people dont spend the time needed to inform themselves of what is going on in the government, and most just vote along party lines. In US if they see Replublican and they are one they always vote Replublican. Same with Democratics. There are some independent votes which at many times decided elections, but again they are not any more informed I think then most of the people that just blindly vote for one party all the time no matter what. In sort you have to change people from being lazy and not wanting to get informed, to people who want to stay informed and read up on the pending issues of the day. How do you do that? I have no idea.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

Originally posted by Zkribbler


There's plenty of evidence that the globe is, on average, heating up. I'm with the majority who thinks that this is due, a least in large part, to human actions. Others though, think we're observing just a natural cycle. How can other scientist check these theories in their labs?

SInce short sighted politicians have denied us the use of Mars as a control test planet then we're forced to fall back on computer models to test these hypotheses.

[Drogue]

Re: Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

Originally posted by Zkribbler
True...as far as it goes.

But Park Avenue might be one to something. Usually, scientists perform experiments which can be peer-reviewed by other scientists. I can remember the great break through in "cold fusion" in the late 80's, which crumbled when other scientists were unable to get the same results in their laboratories.

But what about when scientists are making projections? Someone above mentioned global warming, which is an okay example for the purposes of our discussion.

There's plenty of evidence that the globe is, on average, heating up. I'm with the majority who thinks that this is due, a least in large part, to human actions. Others though, think we're observing just a natural cycle. How can other scientist check these theories in their labs?

Surely it's the same process with projection? If a scientist projects something that isn't shown by the data, other scientists will argue against it. This happens all the time in economics. When someone says, for example, "academic ability is correlated with place of birth", others come out and say "I have this data that supports another conclusion". People analyse both the data and the inferences from that, get more data and analyse that, and over time a consensus emerges. Or doesn't emerge, if there is no clear conclusion.

The only problem is if the scientific community is completely biased to one side. However I think that's far fetched, as science teaches people to think critically about conclusions and analyse findings. By showing that something previously thought is wrong a scientist can make a name for themselves. Why wouldn't scientists try and prove each other wrong? It's this incentive and process that keeps science honest. Even if scientists have a liberal bias, unless scientists are all liberal, opposing views get aired and if shown to be true, accepted.

[Dis]

another example is with nutrition. Remember in the early 80's eggs were seen as a popular source of protein? They used to say you could put raw eggs into a blender with bananas and stuff. I used to do that. . mmmm- raw eggs. But then they said the cholesterol in eggs is bad for you and can cause heart attacks.

Well recently they are saying the choloesterol in eggs may not be so bad for you after all, and eggs are a good nutritional source.

Make up your minds

I sure could go for an omelet right now. I love eggs.

Anyways, none of this is really bad, because no policy was made from these scientific studies. Only recently have politicians been doing things with regards to nutrional advice put out from scientists. I'm mainly talking about the trans-fat ban in NYC. Although in that case, I think it will be proven out that trans-fat is indeed bad for you. I doubt they'll come out in 10 years and say it's good for you.

[LordShiva]

Eggs

[Chemical Ollie]

You should apply for omelettehood

[Solly]

Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

Originally posted by LordShiva


Peer review.

What if the peers have the same ideologically-driven bias?

[Ned]

We, we need more courageous scientists like Dr. Landsea who will stand up, protest, and if he is silenced by the likes of the IPCC, then he should publicly resign.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

[Solly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

Originally posted by Drogue

Surely it's the same process with projection? If a scientist projects something that isn't shown by the data, other scientists will argue against it. This happens all the time in economics. When someone says, for example, "academic ability is correlated with place of birth", others come out and say "I have this data that supports another conclusion". People analyse both the data and the inferences from that, get more data and analyse that, and over time a consensus emerges. Or doesn't emerge, if there is no clear conclusion.

The only problem is if the scientific community is completely biased to one side. However I think that's far fetched, as science teaches people to think critically about conclusions and analyse findings. By showing that something previously thought is wrong a scientist can make a name for themselves. Why wouldn't scientists try and prove each other wrong? It's this incentive and process that keeps science honest. Even if scientists have a liberal bias, unless scientists are all liberal, opposing views get aired and if shown to be true, accepted.

I'm glad someone brought economics up.

There is a good reason why debate is so fervent in economics - data is freely available, and the statistical methods used to interpret such data are well explained and not novel but standard and accepted techniques. The field is also therefore open to other fields of study to assess, and much less likely to be prone to ideological capture.

Reproducibility seems to be quite a good defence, then.

[LordShiva]

Re: Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

Originally posted by Doddler
What if the peers have the same ideologically-driven bias?

[Ned]

Let me ask all of you a question. In the last two years, have any of you heard about Dr. Landsea's protest resignation?

The problem with politics, is that science takes a back seat. The media will NOT report dissent if it is undermines their political agenda.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

Originally posted by Doddler
There is a good reason why debate is so fervent in economics - data is freely available, and the statistical methods used to interpret such data are well explained and not novel but standard and accepted techniques.

If the data is freely available and the methods to interpret it standard and accepted, then shouldn't this end any debate rather than cause it to be fervent?

[Ned]

Z, one example on economics. Since ancient times, a balanced budget, or even a surplus, has be the holy grail of governments. However, it is also demonstratively true that balanced budgets lead to economic stagnation, surplusses to depressions, and deficits to expansion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No... it isn't demonstratively true, so stop engaging in junk economics again Ned .

[Dr Strangelove]

Interesting. There was an article in the NY Times in February about some NASA scientists who complained that the administration was attempting to slow down or silence the publication of climate research data. Also public affairs officials outside of the scientific community of NASA have in some cases attempted to edit reports from NASA scientists.

Given the government's overwhelming control of funding for this type of science it would appear that it would not be very courageous for a scientist to criticize 'global warming theory'. In fact it could be downright profitable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th