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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not all science, I don't see anyone attempting to corrupt the Periodic table.
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
Bar Sinister;1388238]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.
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.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.
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.