Kiss That Freedom G'bye


Pangloss
#2
How frikkin' stupid. Yeah, goodness - of course scientific information needs to be parsed through political filters.

Do we really need to be controlled that much?

Pangloss
 
karrie
#3
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.
 
Kreskin
#4
I agree with Karrie. This is no different from any company or organization. The media is good at taking the most inncocent comment and turning into a controversy. The media should deal with the public relations department, not the other departments.
 
Zan
#5
In theory, Kreskin and Karrie you're right - if we're basing that assessment on a reasonable degree of trust in the 'filter'. .
 
Pangloss
#6
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
Last edited by Pangloss; Feb 1st, 2008 at 12:41 PM..Reason: Plurals/gender didn't agree.
 
Unforgiven
#7
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.
 
darkbeaver
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

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.

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.
 
Kreskin
#9
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.
 
Praxius
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

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

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.

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:

.....(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.

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.

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.
 
Unforgiven
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

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.

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?
 
#juan
#12
Come on guys....This is stupid. Scientists have to run their ideas by other scientists to get feed back from the broadest possible field. A gag order helps nobody, and certainly doesn't help science.
 
Pangloss
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

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.

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.

Social activists are just starting to wise up to this handy little tool.

Pangloss
 
Pangloss
#14
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
 
darkbeaver
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

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 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.
 
Praxius
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

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

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.

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.
 
Scott Free
#17
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.
 
Pangloss
#18
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
Last edited by Pangloss; Feb 1st, 2008 at 04:55 PM..Reason: An emoticon crept in - how odd. . .very odd stuff
 
Pangloss
#19
Ok, that smiley face emoticon - it's supposed to be the number 8 with an end parenthesis ")" after it - only it always came up as a smiley emoticon. Have I found a glitch?

Pangloss
 
Scott Free
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

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

What if the method is the dogma?

It is a dogma because it makes assumptions about the world around us that aren't supported except by our limited perceptions of the world around us. It assumes a level of stability that does not exist, it assumes causation within time and place - concepts that may not be as real as you think except that because that is how you perceive it, you have "faith" in that is how it is.
 
Pangloss
#21
I'm really not surprised you took only minutes to come up with that superficial and profoundly incorrect misreading of what I wrote.

Pour a coffee, read it again, think about how it might be right and what it would mean to your argument, and then try to refute it. If refuting is required.

This is just a suggestion. I'd hate to grow tired of one who writes so well.

Pangloss
 
Pangloss
#22
And to only state the crushingly obvious - the scientific method has many variants, and all are subject to modification and falsification.

My goodness, you really didn't pay attention in school did you? Or do they just not teach this stuff any more?

Pangloss
 
Tonington
#23
What a load of crap. Not only are they censoring information, they are firing and sacking civil servants all over the place.

Do you know what else happened this week? The closing of the Office of the National Science Advisor.

This is outright crap. Elected officials should keep their narrow minds out, and stop interfering.

What's next, appoint some blue ribbon conservative to Keen's position at CNSC?

Anyone know why the Chernobyl accident happened? It's because someone who didn't know what they were doing was placed in a position where they had control. "Increase the reaction rate!" Even though it's a cascading reaction. Very little response on the dials. "Remove the control rods!" Objections noted. Power starts to build, oh ****, it's going out of control. "Insert the control rods!" Reaction continues to spiral out of control.

Politicians should stick to what they know best, whatever that is these days...oh yah, interfering. Leave those who make it their lives work to know, to make the recommendations and conclusions of their own work.
 
Pangloss
#24
Good post, Ton.

Pangloss
 
Scott Free
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

I'm really not surprised you took only minutes to come up with that superficial and profoundly incorrect misreading of what I wrote.

Pour a coffee, read it again, think about how it might be right and what it would mean to your argument, and then try to refute it. If refuting is required.

This is just a suggestion. I'd hate to grow tired of one who writes so well.

Pangloss

I don't think there is really any reason to be hostile. I understand the hostility but I would rather avoid it. Hostility is almost always born out of conflicting ideals within a single individual.

I have done a lot of thinking on this subject and my quick response reflects only that. I read and understood your argument. I just don't think it is right. The reason is simple: that isn't how the human mind and language works. I already posted why I think this in another thread.
 
Scott Free
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

And to only state the crushingly obvious - the scientific method has many variants, and all are subject to modification and falsification.

My goodness, you really didn't pay attention in school did you? Or do they just not teach this stuff any more?

Pangloss

Again, my belief system is different than yours. I'm glad you have something to believe in.

Yes, I did pay attention in school, perhaps more so than you think.
 
Pangloss
#27
Two things jump out at me as I read your replies: arrogance, and a complete avoidance of the subject being discussed.

So sad. I thought you were worth writing with.

Pangloss
 
Kreskin
#28
If you were a shareholder of Biovail and you went to their production facility requiring answers from their scientists they will tell you to pound salt or come to the annual general shareholders meeting where you'll be perfectly welcome to ask questions to the executive board or whomever they authorize to answer your questions.

The scientists are paid to be scientists, not media relations officers.
 
s243a
#29
Why do we even have environment Canada? Why not give the money to Universities with not strings attached? That is the only true way to get scientific freedom.
 
Pangloss
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

If you were a shareholder of Biovail and you went to their production facility requiring answers from their scientists they will tell you to pound salt or come to the annual general shareholders meeting where you'll be perfectly welcome to ask questions to the executive board or whomever they authorize to answer your questions.

The scientists are paid to be scientists, not media relations officers.

A shareholder isn't the media, they're an owner.

Pangloss
 

Similar Threads

13
Looking Back-KISS
by sanctus | Jan 30th, 2007
0
Kiss me, Barlow.
by Blackleaf | Mar 28th, 2006
no new posts