What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Science has a built in system to weed out political bias. It's called peer review and the righties hate it because the science doesn't agree with their policies.

While peer review is the one of the better mechanisms we have to attain scholarly objectivity and to guard against scientific fraud, if a scholar advances an unpopular or a truly revolutionary point of view, there may be considerable resistance within the peer group.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So the solution to an overheating economy is to cut taxes, resulting in further overheating?! That's bonkers Ned, and just the thing for a massive recession/correction. Seeing as how every expansion period has lead to greater tax revenues as more people get more money, your system eventually leaves the state with absolutely no taxes.

You still utterly ignore the huge braking effect taxes and a surplus have on the economy. The heat has to be taken off gradually.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
You still utterly ignore the huge braking effect taxes and a surplus have on the economy. The heat has to be taken off gradually.

Aside from the fact that they really don't have a "huge braking effect". As Drogue has constantly told you, 0 is just a number. It doesn't matter if you are 1 dollar over compared to 1 dollar under. Higher taxes do slow things down, but it has nothing to do with surpluses, and it isn't that large at all. After all, recall that taxes increased in 1993-4 in the US and the economy did not suffer.

The heat being taken off gradually does not mean exacerbate the problem!!! An overheating economy does not need tax cuts. That's a recipe for disaster and inflationary chaos. The proper thing is to raise interest rates, or if it can be done in time, raise taxes to slow down the growth. That's how you take off the heat gradually.

Your idea is to apply gasoline to the fire.

[Ned]

Originally posted by dannubis
Given the conservative right's past track record he is unfortunately correct you know

Dan,

Landsea was protesting the lead IPCC scientist, who with a group of other scientists at Harvard, flatly stated that the uptick in hurricanes was caused by GW. According history, the uptick was not unusual and fit a pattern. According to models, GW would have only modest effects on hurricanes 80 years out. So what the lead scientist did was lie.

Landsea protested to the IPCC and was blown off.

He resigned.

The ONLY politically motivated lying that actually is cited in this thread that I can recall is this incident. It has nothing to do with right-wing liars. Just the opposite.

There are cranks from both the left and the right out there. But, are these politically motivated scientist lying? As I said, the only known incidence of an outright lie of this nature is from the GW advocates.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Aside from the fact that they really don't have a "huge braking effect". As Drogue has constantly told you, 0 is just a number. It doesn't matter if you are 1 dollar over compared to 1 dollar under. Higher taxes do slow things down, but it has nothing to do with surpluses, and it isn't that large at all. After all, recall that taxes increased in 1993-4 in the US and the economy did not suffer.

The heat being taken off gradually does not mean exacerbate the problem!!! An overheating economy does not need tax cuts. That's a recipe for disaster and inflationary chaos. The proper thing is to raise interest rates, or if it can be done in time, raise taxes to slow down the growth. That's how you take off the heat gradually.

Your idea is to apply gasoline to the fire.

Imran, you acknowledge that taxes pull money out of the economy while borrowing is essentially neutral, as the borrower now has an note that can be sold on a market if necessary while the person taxed has nothing. But you continue to say that financing spending through taxing and not borrowing has no braking effect.

You are not being logical, Imran.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Science has a built in system to weed out political bias. It's called peer review and the righties hate it because the science doesn't agree with their policies.

The Cold Fusioners don't like it either. Actually most of what peer review inforces in terms of quality has nothing to do with politics. Surprising how many scientists still rage against it. When I see skeptics incapable of fighting in the rarified battles of true academic literature, it makes me that more doubtful of their PR-based campaigns.

I have found that being very simple and honest in papers, allows getting very inconsequential or very controversial things published. Where most scientists get tripped up is with a tendancy to omit potential flaws in work, or to overdramatize for PR purposes.

Anyone can do it. Clearly differentiate data from trends from inferences from suspicions. Follow the rules of clear writing and follow all instructions from the journal on formatting, etc. (have respect for the literature...your paper is a part of a permanent record...make it worthy of that.) Even if one particular journal won't let you in another (good) journal will. Just be honest.

I had a paper accepted without any revision which others thought would not get accepted, simply by this policy of honesty and of careful preparation. The paper was both controversial (in contradicting someone famous) as well as being done with older, less precise techniques, as well as being "datapoint" science (no spectacular discovery).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, you acknowledge that taxes pull money out of the economy while borrowing is essentially neutral, as the borrower now has an note that can be sold on a market if necessary while the person taxed has nothing. But you continue to say that financing spending through taxing and not borrowing has no braking effect.

You are not being logical, Imran.

The only reason you think so is because you can't read.

I'll quote my own post you quoted:

Higher taxes do slow things down, but it has nothing to do with surpluses, and it isn't that large at all.

if it can be done in time, raise taxes to slow down the growth

I think this is where someone would say PWNED. [Of course, most economists are of the opinion that a progressive tax system helps soften recessions because as people make more money in a boom period, they run up against higher tax brackets, which slows them down a small bit, leading to a smaller correction, if a correction is needed from an overheating economy, as opposed to continuing free spending, which would lead to a much greater correction in the market at some point when things get completely unsustainable.. for example the recessions we have now are much, much smoother than the recessions in the late 19th Century]

Nonetheless, your premise is entirely incorrect that the way to solve an overheating economy is to engage in activity that would further encourage spending. That would only lead to runaway inflation, and then a much bigger recession, almost as much as simply printing more money would (which is in effect what you are doing).

And don't forget borrowed money must be paid back at some point (and also lead to some crowding out of the private sector) and heaven forbid if Japan and China decide to call back all their loans at roughly the same time.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Nice little economy thread.

[Ned]

_BurRjacCi_, yeah, if you keep politics out of it, economics is a fun topic of discussion.

Imran, I think you have a point about progressive taxation. But it was the very high tax bill that took the bloom off the rose in April, 2000. We just seem to disagree as to whether cutting taxes just a bit to soften the tax blow would have prevented a recession or stoked to overheated economy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


The Cold Fusioners don't like it either. Actually most of what peer review inforces in terms of quality has nothing to do with politics. Surprising how many scientists still rage against it. When I see skeptics incapable of fighting in the rarified battles of true academic literature, it makes me that more doubtful of their PR-based campaigns.

I have found that being very simple and honest in papers, allows getting very inconsequential or very controversial things published. Where most scientists get tripped up is with a tendancy to omit potential flaws in work, or to overdramatize for PR purposes.

Anyone can do it. Clearly differentiate data from trends from inferences from suspicions. Follow the rules of clear writing and follow all instructions from the journal on formatting, etc. (have respect for the literature...your paper is a part of a permanent record...make it worthy of that.) Even if one particular journal won't let you in another (good) journal will. Just be honest.

I had a paper accepted without any revision which others thought would not get accepted, simply by this policy of honesty and of careful preparation. The paper was both controversial (in contradicting someone famous) as well as being done with older, less precise techniques, as well as being "datapoint" science (no spectacular discovery).

I've found that the smarter and more competent scientists are the more they act like this (approaching disinterested investigators)

Sinply saying exactly what you did, then stating your presumptions and where you feel flaws in your work may be found in the future is generally enough to take the politicisation and personality out of it.

[TCO]

I'm really getting sick of all the effort that goes into argumentation, at some times verging to sophistry (e.g. addressing non-essential points, avoiding critical ones)which I find a form of dishonesty. Makes me want to brace people up.

[Solly]

Originally posted by TCO
I'm really getting sick of all the effort that goes into argumentation, at some times verging to sophistry (e.g. addressing non-essential points, avoiding critical ones)which I find a form of dishonesty. Makes me want to brace people up.

There's nothing wrong with putting effort into arguing

[TCO]

Yes. If you answer a question that was not asked, attack strawmen or perform other such tactics, it debases the conversation and is a waste of time...and IMO dishonest.

[Solly]

Where have I made a strawman?

[TCO]

I don't know that you have.