Science is always what it is. Anybody who tries to corrupt or misuse the term isn't doing science, they're doing politics.
The answer's no different today than it was when Galileo said it 400 years back. . . "Yet it moves."
The Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
The answer's no different today than it was when Galileo said it 400 years back. . . "Yet it moves."
If scientists get funding based on the outcome of the research in One Direction but not in another….is it still science with a predetermined outcome? Yes it’s science but it’s not exactly unbiassed. If the winds of politics and Wokeness determined in advance who gets funding and who doesn’t with respect to science…. it would definitely influence The direction of research….in a publish or perish world of science.
A recent example of the pivot from science to social justice comes from the journal Nature and its sister publications. Last month, it announced changes to its ethics guidelines that allow censorship of research deemed politically incorrect.
Ethics guidelines traditionally protect individual study subjects from being harmed in the course of scientific research, but Nature’s editors hope to extend this protection to address “potential harms for human population groups who do not participate in research but may be harmed by its publication.”
The journal even called on researchers to “respect the rights of non-human life, tangible and intangible heritage, natural resources and the environment.” The implication here is that science should be informed not only by evidence, but social movements and cultural history, as well.
Researchers looking to publish in the top journal will have to “carefully consider” the impact of their work on various groups of people. Authors must use “inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language” in their work. They’re advised to follow the bias-free language guide of the American Psychological Association (which declared that “traditional masculinity” was harmful to men back in 2019).
This is a problem.
OK, I admit I was unaware any serious (or even frivolous) scientist was researching One Direction. Boybandology is a new field for me.
And the answer is "no." Any new knowledge gained is valid regardless of what other new knowledge is not gained (yet).
It is a slippery slope, & once that can of worms is opened where does it stop? Once blatant influence (you don’t get funding if you’re researching in this direction, and even if you manage it you don’t get published because Wokeness and politics) intrudes….try to prove where it does and doesn’t happen. On that note I understand Dixie Cup’s position though I don’t agree with it.
This will influence opinion & trust in the outcome of “science” & research results and we have been seeing this for quite some time now.
Scientists advance human knowledge by publishing their work in research journals like Nature. It’s one thing refuse to publish research that is racist and unscientific (like phrenology and Holocaust denial), or use demeaning language in their articles, though it’s hard to imagine that such things would be published in a prestigious journal like Nature, even in the absence of the new guidelines.
Nature, however, is going a step further by creating a set of broad, and overly vague, guidelines that threaten to hinder legitimate research, especially surrounding topics that may be uncomfortable, but are nevertheless beneficial to society. This can be anything from COVID Guidelines to the whole Global AGW Warming/Cooling/Changing thing and many things in between.
Was it "wokeness" that funded the atomic-bomb research, or the decision to go for the fission bomb instead of the fusion bomb?
Away with your whining. The Catholic Church tried to stop Tycho Brahe and Galileo. The proponents of phrenology and racism produced reams of shit purporting to be science. How'd that go?
I’m not whining, but just pointing out that political and woke interference into the funding and publishing aspect of “Science“ is a very real thing and a factor to be considered when weighing and measuring information.
Again, so I do not agree with the position that Dixie Cup holds, I do understand it for this exact reason. Are you saying that “Progressive Politics” now is the catholic Church of yesterday with respect to Scientific research?
Simply "create" an image of Science to flog a product. Just like Febreeze and "National Sleep Foundation" that says Febreeze help you sleep better with "Sleep Serenity".
CINCINNATI — Febreze has launched the new Febreze Sleep Serenity collection, the brand’s first line of scents specifically designed for the bedroom to help consumers achieve better sleep, the company stated.
Research by the National Sleep Foundation concluded that 74% of respondents who said they went to sleep quickly every night or almost every night over a two-week period said they felt more relaxed when their bedrooms had a fresh, pleasant scent.
Researchers at Febreze also recognized the important role scent can play in achieving quality rest, and experimented with different fragrances to identify which scents consumers associated with sleep-enriching benefits. They found that lavender is known to decrease the heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in a deep sleep and incorporating jasmine during sleep can increase levels of alertness throughout the next day. Joyful memories and reassuring feelings like the ones evoked from smelling milk and honey induce the production of serotonin, which creates the sensation of well-being and relaxation, the company noted. This research led to the launch of the Febreze Sleep Serenity collection
CINCINNATI — Febreze has launched the new Febreze Sleep Serenity collection, the brand’s first line of scents specifically designed for the bedroom to help consumers achieve better sleep, the company stated.
Research by the National Sleep Foundation concluded that 74% of respondents who said they went to sleep quickly every night or almost every night over a two-week period said they felt more relaxed when their bedrooms had a fresh, pleasant scent.
Researchers at Febreze also recognized the important role scent can play in achieving quality rest, and experimented with different fragrances to identify which scents consumers associated with sleep-enriching benefits. They found that lavender is known to decrease the heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in a deep sleep and incorporating jasmine during sleep can increase levels of alertness throughout the next day. Joyful memories and reassuring feelings like the ones evoked from smelling milk and honey induce the production of serotonin, which creates the sensation of well-being and relaxation, the company noted. This research led to the launch of the Febreze Sleep Serenity collection
But i thought you said the science always is what it is? And that you'd never heard of boybandology?
Ron is quite right. Science, is a method. The method can be seriously corrupted by accidental or intentional bias very easily. Some people believe science is some sort of 'pure' method of distilling facts but that simply isn't the case. How the question is framed, how the results are interpreted, and how the information is published (or not) radically affects the out come, and those are all human inputs. And humans are bias.
Fun joke about 'science' that is often used to show how it can be flawed:
A scientist trains a flea to jump. Every time he says "Jump!" it jumps.
He then pulls a leg off the flea, and says "Jump". the thing hobbles up and jumps.
He continues this, one leg after another, and on the last leg he says "jump" and the flea manages to get it's one leg beneath it and hops up a little.
The scientist pulls the last leg off and says "Jump!" The flea just lays there. He yells JUMP! JUUUUMP! (please jump?) JUUUUUUUUUMP. Nothing
The scientist records in his journal: "Through scientific testing i have proven my theory that if you pull all the legs off of a flea, it causes it to go deaf."
The several takeaways being:
a) - faulty theories and faulty test models may SEEM to produce accurate results but often don't.
b) - Testing and experiments produce data and results - but knowledge comes from the interpretation of those results and that is subject to human flaws
c) - Scientists are kind of dicks.
A scientist trains a flea to jump. Every time he says "Jump!" it jumps.
He then pulls a leg off the flea, and says "Jump". the thing hobbles up and jumps.
He continues this, one leg after another, and on the last leg he says "jump" and the flea manages to get it's one leg beneath it and hops up a little.
The scientist pulls the last leg off and says "Jump!" The flea just lays there. He yells JUMP! JUUUUMP! (please jump?) JUUUUUUUUUMP. Nothing
The scientist records in his journal: "Through scientific testing i have proven my theory that if you pull all the legs off of a flea, it causes it to go deaf."
The several takeaways being:
a) - faulty theories and faulty test models may SEEM to produce accurate results but often don't.
b) - Testing and experiments produce data and results - but knowledge comes from the interpretation of those results and that is subject to human flaws
c) - Scientists are kind of dicks.
Whenever you condemn one "side" and not the other that does the same thing, you're whining.I’m not whining, but just pointing out that political and woke interference into the funding and publishing aspect of “Science“ is a very real thing and a factor to be considered when weighing and measuring information.
Again, so I do not agree with the position that Dixie Cup holds, I do understand it for this exact reason. Are you saying that “Progressive Politics” now is the catholic Church of yesterday with respect to Scientific research?
As I've pointed out, forces left, right, and center; political, religious, and business; have always tried to control science and suppress its findings.
Science don't care. Neither does engineering (applied science). I have absolutely no fucking doubt when Ogg worked out that fire-hardening his sharp stick gave it better penetration and less vulnerability to splitting, the medicine man said "The spirits demand that sharp sticks be pure, not burnt!" and some fuckwit started babbling that the fire HURT the sticks!
So Ogg and his family ate better, with less effort, than anybody else in the band. And a few years later all the hunters were fire-hardening their sharp sticks and the medicine man and the stick-lovers found something else to bitch about. Cuz they like to eat, too.
And so it has gone ever since.
The 'other' side isn't in control of achedemia at the moment. And no, it's not 'whining' to point out what one side is doing without pointing out the other. You can say "what this group here is doing is wrong" without listing all the groups in history who have done it as well. I can say 'the nazi's were wrong" without pointing out the Communists were basically the same.
Science ALWAYS cares. The only question is how much influence bias has in any given science.
When there is minimal bias or influence then science tends to be relatively accurate. When there is a lot, we get skewed results.
Your "oog" example is cute, but silly. However we can look at climate change science as a more practical example. Projects that start with the hypothisis that climate change is man made tend to get funded. Projects that intend to examine other causes are not. Projects that attempt to look at the future damage if nothing changes are well funded, but projects that tend to look at how humans might adapt to such changes instead of reducing them are much less likely to.
And projects that prove the worst and most drastic results get the most love and that team tends to get more future funding. Have you noticed that it's ALWAYS the case that more recent research shows previous estimates were wrong and it's "Much Worse/badder than we ever thought! (yikes!)" .
So we will wind up with a body of 'science' that is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate and doesn't present all the options available. Science cares.
And don't worry - i don't expect you to reply. I understand that i intimidate the hell out of you and i get why - but honestly you should never be afraid to engage with someone just because they may be a little smarter. Challenging yourself like that is how you grow.
Am I truly condemning one side, or am I pointing out that there’s an issue, and poking you with a blunt stick to have a little fun?
And it is “settled science“ and anyone who doesn’t believe or follow this or questions it must be a heretic & a troglodyte!!
We should enforce a mandate on these anti-snoozerz! OBEY THE SCIENCE!!
WHAT! Thats it. We're declaring the emergency act. What's your bank account number pls?
I also go to various news sources to determine what is what because the mainstream media does not usually provide accurate information.Science is what it is….except when it isn’t.
As Tec was saying… get your information from many sources, Weigh and measure it yourself…. and make the most informed decision that you can.
Science “shouldn’t” be influenced by politics….but political influence decides who gets funding and who doesn’t.
Jamie Sarkonak: When science goes woke, people will suffer — National Post
Science journals and funding agencies are changing publishing guidelines and adjusting research funding policies to favour progressive viewsapple.news
Health researchers in Canada, and elsewhere, are facing more and more pressure to be politically correct. Those who care about science — and depend on it to inform our health-care system — should be concerned.
The pressure to infuse progressive politics into scientific research is coming from science journals and funding agencies. They are exerting influence by changing publishing guidelines and adjusting research funding policies to favour progressive views. Such measures are inappropriate because they violate academic freedom and are fundamentally unscientific.
Anyway, The rest of the above link. We’ve seen this most recently with respect to the COVID 19 information and guidelines, in the “Follow the Science” lines that flip-flop depending on what’s politically expedient at any given moment, but this has been happening for a long time. I can give other examples but political influence decides funding which alters outcomes of what should be something clean like science and research.
Most of the time, when one purviews many sources, one tends to get a general idea of what is happening; i.e. who is lying, what is factual as opposed to propaganda and/or are personal views being exploited as actual "news" etc. So you're right - one needs to be open to many news sources before coming to a conclusion. Sometimes it's pretty obvious; in other cases not so much. But with due diligence, one can usually ascertain what is the truth of the matter and what is ideologically driven.
Whenever I see we’re someone or other is accused of some horrible foopaw I try and watch the whole interview , speech or whatever . It is amazing how close to reality the reporting isn’t.
Outrageously true. I have been involved in MANY news stories - some important some trivial. But i have NEVER seen one reported without significant error. Most don't matter in the grand scheme, but reporters are NOT good at getting the facts 100 percent correct And i doubt most of that was 'intentional' it's just the way it is.
So always with a grain of salt until you hear it from every angle.