February 1st, 2008, 10:50 AM
My first impression is that I don't blame them. No other employer would let you run around, speaking with the authority of their office, saying things that they haven't confirmed or approved. Findings should be reviewed, consensus reached, before they release a statement as being one from their department. We don't need waters right now muddied by inconsistent media declarations from the government scientists.
My first impression is that I don't blame them. No other employer would let you run around, speaking with the authority of their office, saying things that they haven't confirmed or approved. Findings should be reviewed, consensus reached, before they release a statement as being one from their department. We don't need waters right now muddied by inconsistent media declarations from the government scientists.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
February 1st, 2008, 11:39 AM
Science is science - it answers to tests and proof - not popularity, and certainly not politics.
If I am a reporter and I am doing a story on the impact of fish farms on wild stocks, and the fish farms are donating to the party in power, who do you think I am going to get a straight answer from? The unfettered scientists, who only threaten their positions if they make a claim unsupported by facts, or the "spin controlled" scientists, who are told to never mention sea lice if they want to keep their job?
If my research uncovers no mention of sea lice, how accurate will my story be? How well informed will my readers (the electorate) be?
This is the danger of muzzling scientists.
Pangloss
Science is science - it answers to tests and proof - not popularity, and certainly not politics.
If I am a reporter and I am doing a story on the impact of fish farms on wild stocks, and the fish farms are donating to the party in power, who do you think I am going to get a straight answer from? The unfettered scientists, who only threaten their positions if they make a claim unsupported by facts, or the "spin controlled" scientists, who are told to never mention sea lice if they want to keep their job?
If my research uncovers no mention of sea lice, how accurate will my story be? How well informed will my readers (the electorate) be?
This is the danger of muzzling scientists.
Pangloss
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,858
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
February 1st, 2008, 11:52 AM
Thank Goodness! I was worried for a moment that I would have to make up my own mind. God bless the government for taking care of me and what I think. My only wish is that this "good news" policy spreads throughout all other governmental departments so that all these troublesome bits of information are parsed from the media and we can get on with the important job of obedience and support of the party.
Thank Goodness! I was worried for a moment that I would have to make up my own mind. God bless the government for taking care of me and what I think. My only wish is that this "good news" policy spreads throughout all other governmental departments so that all these troublesome bits of information are parsed from the media and we can get on with the important job of obedience and support of the party.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,094
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 1st, 2008, 12:00 PM
Quoting karrie
They aren't government scientists they're public servents, we the public are thier employers not the government. Fascists always throttle journalism because they cannot survive examination in the press under the eyes of the literate citizenry. Fascists also always declare efficency and clairity of message as thier only purpose .That's not thier business it's ours.
My first impression is that I don't blame them. No other employer would let you run around, speaking with the authority of their office, saying things that they haven't confirmed or approved. Findings should be reviewed, consensus reached, before they release a statement as being one from their department. We don't need waters right now muddied by inconsistent media declarations from the government scientists.
February 1st, 2008, 12:05 PM
BS DB. Employees of corporations work for the shareholders but the common shareholder has no expectation that they can interview any employee about anything at anytime. The shareholder goes through the PR department or whatever channel is authorized. This is just silly to expect anyone be authorized to stand in front of a microphone and represent the organization, public or private.
BS DB. Employees of corporations work for the shareholders but the common shareholder has no expectation that they can interview any employee about anything at anytime. The shareholder goes through the PR department or whatever channel is authorized. This is just silly to expect anyone be authorized to stand in front of a microphone and represent the organization, public or private.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,543
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
February 1st, 2008, 12:28 PM
And let's not forget how many times science got things wrong and had to correct themselves over the years.
But that's for a different topic.
Perhaps if he was doing his damn job in the first place, he'd already be on top of it all....
Fat Bastard.
oops... I'm so sorry, that wasn't Canadian of me... it slipped out.
Quoting Pangloss
Naw, that's the overall danger in holding too much faith in the scientific process. Science is much like a religion, Good at finding answers for some things, but slightly worse in some aspects by their narrow observations and limited methods of study. Science is a leech religion, where it can take the beliefs of some religions or various concepts that many hold to be true, play around with a few tests, finds evidence which proves it to be true, and then claims it's "A Scientific Fact/Proven", claiming it as their own discovery ~ When it was already common knowlege to begin with.
Science is science - it answers to tests and proof - not popularity, and certainly not politics.
If I am a reporter and I am doing a story on the impact of fish farms on wild stocks, and the fish farms are donating to the party in power, who do you think I am going to get a straight answer from? The unfettered scientists, who only threaten their positions if they make a claim unsupported by facts, or the "spin controlled" scientists, who are told to never mention sea lice if they want to keep their job?
If my research uncovers no mention of sea lice, how accurate will my story be? How well informed will my readers (the electorate) be?
This is the danger of muzzling scientists.
Pangloss
If I am a reporter and I am doing a story on the impact of fish farms on wild stocks, and the fish farms are donating to the party in power, who do you think I am going to get a straight answer from? The unfettered scientists, who only threaten their positions if they make a claim unsupported by facts, or the "spin controlled" scientists, who are told to never mention sea lice if they want to keep their job?
If my research uncovers no mention of sea lice, how accurate will my story be? How well informed will my readers (the electorate) be?
This is the danger of muzzling scientists.
Pangloss
And let's not forget how many times science got things wrong and had to correct themselves over the years.
But that's for a different topic.
Quote:
I actually likes how E.Canada shared loads of information. The fact that John Baird may get a little pissy that he finds out something in the newspaper before he is directly told is BS and tuff titty for him.
.....(it) is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no "surprises" for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents......
......."It's insulting," says one senior staff member, who asked not to be named. She says researchers can no longer even discuss or confirm science facts without approval from the "highest level."
Until now, Environment Canada has been one of the most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.
It says all media queries must now be routed through the federal government, where "media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call; this could include: Asking the program expert to respond with approved lines; having media relations respond; referring the call to the minister's office; referring the call to another department," the presentation says.
......."It's insulting," says one senior staff member, who asked not to be named. She says researchers can no longer even discuss or confirm science facts without approval from the "highest level."
Until now, Environment Canada has been one of the most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.
It says all media queries must now be routed through the federal government, where "media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call; this could include: Asking the program expert to respond with approved lines; having media relations respond; referring the call to the minister's office; referring the call to another department," the presentation says.
Perhaps if he was doing his damn job in the first place, he'd already be on top of it all....
Fat Bastard.
oops... I'm so sorry, that wasn't Canadian of me... it slipped out.
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,858
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
February 1st, 2008, 12:42 PM
Quoting Kreskin
Just as ridiculous as expecting a politician or bureaucrat to be qualified to interpret data that is usually so complex the study of it is called a discipline?
BS DB. Employees of corporations work for the shareholders but the common shareholder has no expectation that they can interview any employee about anything at anytime. The shareholder goes through the PR department or whatever channel is authorized. This is just silly to expect anyone be authorized to stand in front of a microphone and represent the organization, public or private.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
February 1st, 2008, 01:41 PM
Social activists are just starting to wise up to this handy little tool.
Pangloss
Quoting Kreskin
Oops - not true. "Full, plain and true disclosure" means that any shareholder has the right to unbiased and unfiltered information about the company they partly own. Some stuff is exempted, such as trade secrets and formulas, etc., but otherwise, transparency is the rule.
BS DB. Employees of corporations work for the shareholders but the common shareholder has no expectation that they can interview any employee about anything at anytime. The shareholder goes through the PR department or whatever channel is authorized. This is just silly to expect anyone be authorized to stand in front of a microphone and represent the organization, public or private.
Social activists are just starting to wise up to this handy little tool.
Pangloss
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,094
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 1st, 2008, 02:13 PM
Quoting Kreskin
The PR department is a fascist invention Kreskin, read about it, it's history. You seem to have an unlovely need to restrict the publics right to know. Why do you confuse the private corporate with the public.
BS DB. Employees of corporations work for the shareholders but the common shareholder has no expectation that they can interview any employee about anything at anytime. The shareholder goes through the PR department or whatever channel is authorized. This is just silly to expect anyone be authorized to stand in front of a microphone and represent the organization, public or private.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,543
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
February 1st, 2008, 02:15 PM
Just like religion and how many followed each due to how well each explained life around us at the time of our level of understand, so too will science eventually become too restricted by it's own principles to answer everything we wish to know.
Don't forget, Science is still young and fresh compared to the other religions, and has plenty of time to use up before it hits the end of it's abilities.
Granted, there will always be a new way of thinking to replace the old..... I just don't follow general science as most do without question, as I have found in the past, many aspects missed in a report or study which if factored in, would have changed the whole situational outcome.
once again, another topic.
Quoting Pangloss
If you think so, keep playing then, but if another thread starts about this topic, perhaps I'll explain my positioning a little better, as Science has almost an equal amount of limitation set to it as most religions, just differently, all the while science has continually attempted to distance itself from relgion, claiming to be the be all end all method of understanding the universe around us.
Praxius:
Umm, no. Your reasoning is full of fail. Science is not "much like religion" - it is in fact the polar opposite of the religious intellectual process.
But hey, thanks for playing.
Pangloss
Umm, no. Your reasoning is full of fail. Science is not "much like religion" - it is in fact the polar opposite of the religious intellectual process.
But hey, thanks for playing.
Pangloss
Just like religion and how many followed each due to how well each explained life around us at the time of our level of understand, so too will science eventually become too restricted by it's own principles to answer everything we wish to know.
Don't forget, Science is still young and fresh compared to the other religions, and has plenty of time to use up before it hits the end of it's abilities.
Granted, there will always be a new way of thinking to replace the old..... I just don't follow general science as most do without question, as I have found in the past, many aspects missed in a report or study which if factored in, would have changed the whole situational outcome.
once again, another topic.
Council Member
Posts: 1,359
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 1st, 2008, 03:18 PM
Ah,... we slide even further into totalitarianism. It is becoming increasingly important to embrace that very Canadian ideology and "ignore the government." They are studying our southern neighbors too closely I fear and learning to manipulate the population with rhetoric, double think and abuse of abstract nouns like "safety." The only realistic defence is to block them out completely. When reading about government or some new edict they have cooked up, it is best to remember your dealing with the caprices of children. Freedom isn't possible unless you own your own thoughts. The propaganda machine isn't some conspiracy but a natural evolution born out of a government concerned with its own wants and desires and not of those they "govern." As money from "lobby" groups continues to flood in, destroying our democracy, the divide between freedom and control will shrink. It is very important to remember too that as we lose freedom we will see the reasonable arguments for the loss, but those arguments are completely designed to get government what it wants, not what we want. As this cancer progresses so too will our double think and duality of belief. Eventually it will devour us.
Ah,... we slide even further into totalitarianism. It is becoming increasingly important to embrace that very Canadian ideology and "ignore the government." They are studying our southern neighbors too closely I fear and learning to manipulate the population with rhetoric, double think and abuse of abstract nouns like "safety." The only realistic defence is to block them out completely. When reading about government or some new edict they have cooked up, it is best to remember your dealing with the caprices of children. Freedom isn't possible unless you own your own thoughts. The propaganda machine isn't some conspiracy but a natural evolution born out of a government concerned with its own wants and desires and not of those they "govern." As money from "lobby" groups continues to flood in, destroying our democracy, the divide between freedom and control will shrink. It is very important to remember too that as we lose freedom we will see the reasonable arguments for the loss, but those arguments are completely designed to get government what it wants, not what we want. As this cancer progresses so too will our double think and duality of belief. Eventually it will devour us.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
February 1st, 2008, 03:52 PM
Praxius:
To quote you:
as Science has almost an equal amount of limitation set to it as most religions, just differently, all the while science has continually attempted to distance itself from relgion, claiming to be the be all end all method of understanding the universe around us.
Just like religion and how many followed each due to how well each explained life around us at the time of our level of understand, so too will science eventually become too restricted by it's own principles to answer everything we wish to know.
Did you even pay attention during high school science?
Here's a very brief refresher: 1) observe the physical world. 2) create a hypothesis about what happened. 3) design a test of your hypothesis and make predictions about the outcomes. 4) observe the results of your test. 5) refine your hypothesis, changing those things that were falsified by testing. 6) test again.
Repeat 1 - 6 until you get a defensible theory. 7) Publish your results, including your methodology.
Others challenge your methodology, results and theory, attempting to falsify it. 9) You and/or others refine or disprove your theory - and on to the future.
In other words, there is a complete lack of dogma. There are theories with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy, and theories that have had greater or lesser testing - but everything is always open to falsification.
Now, to the religious method. There is a conclusion (some form of god exists) and then arguments are made confirming its existence. There is no testing - no attempts to falsify - any of the tenets of that faith. It is immune to reason, and the text of the faith is not subject to challenge, and is not asked to prove its assertions.
Remember, faith is certainty without proof. Religion is the ultimate "appeal to authority" - and do I actually have to remind you that is a logical fallacy of the first order?
Scientific knowledge is provisional, is constantly tested, and is always subject to falsification. If some unknown manages to construct a theory that utterly restates optics in a better way than Newton did, that new theory will replace Newton's. Try that with a pope sometime. Or even a priest.
That is why they are opposites.
But, based on the intelligence of what you have written elsewhere, I find it hardly credible you didn't already know all of this.
Pangloss
Praxius:
To quote you:
as Science has almost an equal amount of limitation set to it as most religions, just differently, all the while science has continually attempted to distance itself from relgion, claiming to be the be all end all method of understanding the universe around us.
Just like religion and how many followed each due to how well each explained life around us at the time of our level of understand, so too will science eventually become too restricted by it's own principles to answer everything we wish to know.
Did you even pay attention during high school science?
Here's a very brief refresher: 1) observe the physical world. 2) create a hypothesis about what happened. 3) design a test of your hypothesis and make predictions about the outcomes. 4) observe the results of your test. 5) refine your hypothesis, changing those things that were falsified by testing. 6) test again.
Repeat 1 - 6 until you get a defensible theory. 7) Publish your results, including your methodology.
Others challenge your methodology, results and theory, attempting to falsify it. 9) You and/or others refine or disprove your theory - and on to the future.In other words, there is a complete lack of dogma. There are theories with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy, and theories that have had greater or lesser testing - but everything is always open to falsification.
Now, to the religious method. There is a conclusion (some form of god exists) and then arguments are made confirming its existence. There is no testing - no attempts to falsify - any of the tenets of that faith. It is immune to reason, and the text of the faith is not subject to challenge, and is not asked to prove its assertions.
Remember, faith is certainty without proof. Religion is the ultimate "appeal to authority" - and do I actually have to remind you that is a logical fallacy of the first order?
Scientific knowledge is provisional, is constantly tested, and is always subject to falsification. If some unknown manages to construct a theory that utterly restates optics in a better way than Newton did, that new theory will replace Newton's. Try that with a pope sometime. Or even a priest.
That is why they are opposites.
But, based on the intelligence of what you have written elsewhere, I find it hardly credible you didn't already know all of this.
Pangloss
