Can science be corrupted as easily as any other doctrine? Some here tend to think not. I'd really like to know why this belief exists.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Corruption....
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
I'm not very familiar with the subject and I'm usually reluctant to express myself on such weighty considerations for fear of ridicule but would I be safe here in asking if the belief could possibly be connected to the promise of money and power. I know it's a silly thought please forgive me, I don't know what's come over me this morning. I'll just be quiet and sit in the corner now, if that's alright.
All humans can be corrupted, including scientists and theologians.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor emeritus
Montclair State University
.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor emeritus
Montclair State University
.
I don't think doctrine is the right word for science. Though I like the point you raised. I think it needs clarification for starters. A fact is a fact and can not change. A belief can change at anytime. So there is the apples and oranges argument for starters.
But can someone take a position in the representation of a fact that is not what is actually the case? I think that is clearly possible. But that doesn't apply to the fact, only the observation.
Now knowing what a sneaky fu cker you can be, let's see you twist this sucker up the way you had intended and maybe I can fathom what you are in fact, getting at. :smile:
It depends on what you consider science. Scientific studies can certainly be faked and pseudo-scientists can be hired to promote a certain point of view. Examples of this are the false "scientific" studies pushed forward by the tobacco industry to prove smoking harmless; and the confusing nonsense promoted by the oil and coal industries in an attempt to refute global warming. However, it is difficult for all legitimate scientific studies to be completely repressed. Eventually the truth will out, just as Galileo was proved correct in spite of the proscription of his ideas by the Roman Catholic Church; and the findings of Pasteur and Lister were proved accurate in spite of resistance of many 19th century physicians. Denial of the truth can work for a time, but eventually real scientific evidence will win out.
The scientific community has had its ups and downs, there was once studies showing
people having withdrawal from pot for Gods sake. Science was corrupted for years with
the tobacco industry, and there are all kinds of other examples.
I think the reason is as old as the post middle ages. Religion had run the show for years.
When the church lost its power, science exposed many of the myths that persisted.
The sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat, the church said so, Our whole
universe turned out to be the size of a postage stamp compared to the rest of space and
it was evident that God did not create it in six days.
As the fables were unravelled people understood the process that science goes through
for answers. At present even theories are facts in the public's mind. The reason? Well
it is a new fact that perception is reality. People believe science because science does not
lie, even if it does.
Do you put more faith in churches and politicians or in science? That becomes the question.
people having withdrawal from pot for Gods sake. Science was corrupted for years with
the tobacco industry, and there are all kinds of other examples.
I think the reason is as old as the post middle ages. Religion had run the show for years.
When the church lost its power, science exposed many of the myths that persisted.
The sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat, the church said so, Our whole
universe turned out to be the size of a postage stamp compared to the rest of space and
it was evident that God did not create it in six days.
As the fables were unravelled people understood the process that science goes through
for answers. At present even theories are facts in the public's mind. The reason? Well
it is a new fact that perception is reality. People believe science because science does not
lie, even if it does.
Do you put more faith in churches and politicians or in science? That becomes the question.
Good morning grumpy. A lot can happen in six days given the near infinite speed of the driving power in the universe. For instance a fossil can be made almost instantly, you just apply heat and pressure and presto you got a fossil.
Science is a man-made construct and is as fragile and fallible as the folks that postulate the theories.
In retrospect, we can point to the science that held the Earth was flat, a Terra-centric universe or the great debate between butter/margarine. With that in mind; pure, independent scientific research is (almost) extinct in that someone is funding that research for a specific purpose.
Last edited:
The Big Bang is quite possibly the biggest science story ever. It has been falsified soooooooo many times but there it is, shoveled into students globally on a daly basis. It is literally the Synthetic God of All. A substitute offered in lieu of the real thing. Logically there is a real thing. So what is science doing obscuring the real thing and fighting tooth and nail to prevent discussion of that very real power? nix religion
To a degree, "science" has become the dominant religion of the 20th century and is following in the footsteps of "science" back when the Church was the predominant sponsor of all research. Back when the Church was running the show, dissent was not tolerated, much like today except, it isn't a religious body that condemns alternate ideas. The contemporary equivalent to the Church are the scientific communities and gvt that go on their witch-hunts to root-out the dissenters.
Of course it can, one example would be contaminated D.N.A. samples. Another would be failing to do necessary calibration on scientific instruments.
Not all science, I don't see anyone attempting to corrupt the Periodic table. However, I would definately say there are pressures from Governments and Liberal Art Departments in our Universities on certain sciences. To the extent that if anyone; such as the co-discover of the DNA structure, i.e. James D. Watson, goes against the recognized status quo than they may find themselves without a job or funding.
Of course science can be corrupted. It's a human enterprise and so suffers all the same weaknesses as all human enterprises, like ego, authority, habit, power, reputation, envy, vested interests, conflicting interests, dogmatism, etc. The story of Andrew Wakefield and the anti-vaccination movement is quite instructive in this regard. But since science is primarily a method for testing the truth content of ideas, and it undeniably works, it's probably a little more difficult to corrupt than most human enterprises. The methods demand things like replication, evidence, thoroughness, honesty, logic, and comprehensiveness, so eventually it'll correct itself. If, for instance, darkbeaver is correct about the electric cosmos and the Big Bang, and Alley is right about evolution (though current evidence overwhelmingly indicates they're not), science will eventually figure it out. Science has not accepted those claims essentially because the people promoting them haven't properly followed the methods.
I believe that the periodic table has had additions made to it over the years... That in itself is not corruption, however, the theories that were based on the earlier versions of that table may (in retrospect) be incomplete themselves. With that in mind, what were the pressures back in the day to explain those observations that would have relied on those later additions?
Periodic table, even when it was discovered by Mendeleiev, contained empty cells. They were for elements to be discovered several years later.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Fair enough. As I mentioned, there is nothing "corrupt" about that, however, the failing in the consequent theories/models, etc. is that they are based on incomplete foundations... You can see that as we travel down the slippery slope this initial omission/shortcoming beginns to have more highly impacting ramifications.
Science is the proven tool. Hiring, employing, bonding with money, brains/knowledge are a commodity, how many times did I hear that. So control and marketing of scientific knowledge goes to the highest bidder, which ain't disinterested scientists. Good confusing scientific knowledge is very much in demand because it acts to open and close the valve metering the flow of efficient scientific human innovation which is what controls the market. What is the economic efficiency we hear so much about if it isn't about extraction of wealth and maintenance of social the social order. Back yard logic says if you don't control the flow and quality of the information you don't control the show. It's obvious that the institutions of science have become the purveyors of disinformation in the service of money. Real scientific evidence wins every time for instance the flow chart for research money shows exactly who's pushing the buttons. Control is their interest not science. Galileo was offed in the public square today's heretic scientist enjoys a more civilized untimely death most often in his car or home. The guy who developed the MRI science was refused publication for it in Nature I think, and that wasn't long ago.
Science and the institutions of science are not at all the same things. One is the ultimate dependable tool (noun) the other is the tools shop (verb maybe?). When you don't make that distinction I can't understand what you're talking about.
One thing seems to eternal: humans hang onto the status quo tooth and nail, resisting change no matter what. The scientific community is no different. There are those at the top who will do anything to hold onto what power they have often at the expense of new data. Nobody wants to be proven wrong. Sometimes science has to wait until the old guard dies to advance.