What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[Ned]

Imran, I HAVE cited articles that have demonstrated what I said they demonstrated. What you can say, perhaps, is that there are those who disagree. But, in all these arguments on THIS topic, I can recall no one citing any articles in support of their opposition to the theory. They just attack me as if that were enough to prove their point. You, Imran, are a prime example of this phenomena as illustrated in your post.

[Ned]

Strangelove, governments are political. The question here is not whether governments are political. The question is what defense do have when scientists are political.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, I HAVE cited articles that have demonstrated what I said they demonstrated. What you can say, perhaps, is that there are those who disagree. But, in all these arguments on THIS topic, I can recall no one citing any articles in support of their opposition to the theory. They just attack me as if that were enough to prove their point. You, Imran, are a prime example of this phenomena as illustrated in your post.

Please... that's your common m.o., cite biased articles and when people point out the holes complain they aren't providing any proof, just attacking you.

If you wish, I can link you to monetarist economic philosophy (ie, Milton Friedman's stuff) to show you why ultra Keynesianism (which is what you are expounding - not just deficit spending for recessions, but all the time) isn't the best of economic theories.

You of course also ignore that thing called inflation, which loves the deficits.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by 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.

Where did you come up with this? What you are saying is that government all arround the world should always enage in defict spending to keep their economies growing. When a government spends money, it is taking it out from the economy, even in deficit spending. During deficit spending they have to barrow money, this also makes the availble money that business could use to barrow for things like expanding their business more expensive since there is less of it. I fail to see how any kind of government spending can help a economy, even during the great depression the US government spent billions of dollars trying to end it, and that did nothing untill World War II came along.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned
Strangelove, governments are political. The question here is not whether governments are political. The question is what defense do have when scientists are political.

You cant "defend" against them. People have the right to have personal beliefs, so their is no law that you can pass or anything else you can do about it.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Doddler


My worry is that in our "enlightened" society, we are giving scientists and supposed experts too much power to affect policy and law, because after all, they're the scientists, and they know more than us.

Power, and all that...

In my opinion\experience, scientists are given in fact very little power to affect policy and law.
Politicians are lawmakers usually decide what to support without regard to science and then find the closest thing to science that they can get to support it.
Sometimes they're lucky and their position is supported by most scientists, and sometimes not and then they have to use less mainstream source.

Very few politicans let science get in the way of their agenda.

Think of all the debates about almost anything.
Pretty much everybody has science on their side...


EDIT : this is close to Dr Strangelove's point.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Strangelove, governments are political.

Then we're in deep do-do, because the US govenment is by far the largest funder of basic science in the world. However there are a number of supposed safeguards placed with the intention of keeping the government from interfering with the progress of science. Past administrations have recognized the potential harm that political interference could do to this country's ability to keep up with the march of science. For instance, projects are funded based upon the recommendation of peer committees of scientists. There are a variety of other mecanisms designed to protect scientists from political interference. This administration however seems to have found ways to bypass the safeguards.

The question here is not whether governments are political. The question is what defense do have when scientists are political.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Let's take away their voting rights and their freedom of speech!

More seriously let's sum things up: Most scientists don't agree with the conclusions of the your man, Landsea. You think this is political, a conspiracy, and you believe that we need to be 'protected'. However it would appear that the US government in fact supports your/Landsea's side of the arguement and is willing to interfere with scientific research in order to hinder the spread of the opposing argument. How then is it that we need protected? Which side is willing to sidestep traditional scientific ethics to further its cause?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack_www


Where did you come up with this? What you are saying is that government all arround the world should always enage in defict spending to keep their economies growing. When a government spends money, it is taking it out from the economy, even in deficit spending. During deficit spending they have to barrow money, this also makes the availble money that business could use to barrow for things like expanding their business more expensive since there is less of it. I fail to see how any kind of government spending can help a economy, even during the great depression the US government spent billions of dollars trying to end it, and that did nothing untill World War II came along.

Jack, this is where you fail to understand the point. FDR tried for balanced budgets. What he got was economic stagnation. Not until we unbalanced the budgets big time during the war years did we pull out of the recession.

[Imran Siddiqui]

FDR tried for balanced budgets

Though FDR should have engaged in a loose monetary policy as well as trying to engage in fiscal policy, though the monetarists didn't come around in full force until much later, so I guess he gets a pass on that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Please... that's your common m.o., cite biased articles and when people point out the holes complain they aren't providing any proof, just attacking you.

If you wish, I can link you to monetarist economic philosophy (ie, Milton Friedman's stuff) to show you why ultra Keynesianism (which is what you are expounding - not just deficit spending for recessions, but all the time) isn't the best of economic theories.

You of course also ignore that thing called inflation, which loves the deficits.

We agree on one point, you cannot inflate the money supply faster than economic expansion. But this certainly is no argument for balanced budgets per se.

Friedman, IIRC, wanted to control inflation through monetary policy. Kenyes talk in terms of fiscal policy. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can be complementary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
We agree on one point, you cannot inflate the money supply faster than economic expansion. But this certainly is no argument for balanced budgets per se.

Friedman, IIRC, wanted to control inflation through monetary policy. Kenyes talk in terms of fiscal policy. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can be complementary.

Yes they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE for those two, Ned. Friedman was against using fiscal policy to control the economy. He saw, rightly, that fiscal policy's enactment usually came far after what it supposed to correct, so it applied after the problem was fixed, causing a problem on the opposite pendulum. Friedman was very, very anti-Keynesian and many say that he proved a lot of Keynes' assumptions were wrong (part of the reason he got the Nobel Prize in Economics) They tend to get in each other's way more than not.

For instance, the Kennedy tax cuts you love to wax about came into effect in 1964!! It takes a looong time for fiscal policy to be enacted. Monetary policy is much, much quicker.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
More seriously let's sum things up: Most scientists don't agree with the conclusions of the your man, Landsea. You think this is political, a conspiracy, and you believe that we need to be 'protected'. However it would appear that the US government in fact supports your/Landsea's side of the arguement and is willing to interfere with scientific research in order to hinder the spread of the opposing argument. How then is it that we need protected? Which side is willing to sidestep traditional scientific ethics to further its cause?

Strangelove, you normally don't pull facts out of you a**. I am sure you must know that most peer-reviewed papers agree with Landsea, not the other way around. I am sure you were referring to the scientific method and not the kind of "science" which is grossly political crap.

As to politicians, they spin everything. Both (all) sides are guilty.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned


Jack, this is where you fail to understand the point. FDR tried for balanced budgets. What he got was economic stagnation. Not until we unbalanced the budgets big time during the war years did we pull out of the recession.

Government Spending can not simulate a economy. The government etheir has issue a tax or borrow money. That money has to come from some where, and it comes from the economy. So when the government spends money, it is just puting back the money it took out in the first place, money that would have been spent anyways by consumers. So how in the world can it simulate the economy? Also you cant just go on decifit spending for ever, there is only so much you can borrow before you start to run out of money to borrow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well in the short run, government spending can stimulate an economy (at the expense of future generations), but by the time it is enacted, the problem it was supposed to have fixed is probably part way (if not all the way) over.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well in the short run, government spending can stimulate an economy (at the expense of future generations), but by the time it is enacted, the problem it was supposed to have fixed is probably part way (if not all the way) over.

I agree with you point, I should have stated I am talking about the long run. Also everyone has forgotten about Japan. They tried to do what Ned says is the sure fire way to get out of a recession, spend their way out of it by borrowing 100 trillion yen. It did nothing for Japan, and they still have their problems. How do you explain that?