Posted on 12/14/2006 1:22:58 AM PST by kipita
"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."
WHile I agree with the words, I really doubt he meant them the same way I would have.
It would be especially refreshing to see studies where the data, untwisted and undistorted, supported the conclusions drawn, particularly in the areas cited.
However, as long as funding sources seek particular conclusions and grant money is at stake in publish or perish university environments that simply isn't going to happen.
I agree with some parts of the article and I agree with some of the comments stated by you and others. I think a lot of problems go back to Eisenhower's warning. The Military Industrial Complex has done some remarkable things and some of the best Americans still work within it infrastructure, however, his warning has merit.
I totally agree!
I happen to think Ted Kaczynski wasn't totally insane.
Here's a thought, Environmental is to science as Democrats are to American values. They both stand for nothing and represent entities that stand for nothing.
"Science" now includes computer models that are a farce. They are touted as "only a tool" for management of natural resources (water quality, global warming, etc.) but they are given the weight of reality. No one gets a good look at the assumptions made in loading the model, where common sense is most often absent and agendas abound.
Statistics can be bent to prove almost anything and so called scientists know how to manipulate the data to support a preconcieved agenda. "Science" on the Klamath is rife with politics. Presence/absence assumptions on coho are based on studies that did not span at least the 3 year established lifecycle of the fish. There can be a boom year or a bust year in any one of the three years.
In the upper Klamath, Dr. Hardy and his "science" has "proven" that more water should be going down the Klamath than is even naturally possible.
It's all politics. They like to make you believe that there is some empirical answer in science that can be relied upon as the "truth," but that is b.s. There is so much bias in the ologists that every fiding must be taken with great skeptisim.
"They" includes a lot of good scientist. Imagine if you majored in chemistry, which meant you had to study a lot and didn't quite have a social life. To get a job, you had to spend the next 4 years pursuing a PhD. Next, you work for low pay and long hours supporting projects that appear to be "junk science". You're now 30, and want to get married. What do you do as a human being, not an "evil scientist"? This is why Russia graduates 200,000 engineers to America's 50,000 and most of America's scientist are non-native Americans. They learn, "suffer", and return back to their countries with American knowledge. Meanwhile, America's best and brightest are heading from science and engineering into MBA programs and Law school. The global marketplace offers so much more, with a lot of money and power. The Benjamin Franklin's no longer exist and will probably never exist again. Maybe we don't need "them" anymore?
Qualifications to become a member are a checking account with the $25 membership fee.
Beautifully stated.
Whenever you see the words "Union of Concerned Scientists" or "Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)", a red flag should go up. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a global warming lobbying group and the CSPI represents the anti-Mexican food, anti-popcorn wackos.
IOW, to be a Concerned Scientist, you need not be a scientist. (Or, presumably, concerned.)
I know. CSPI is a Ralph Nader outfit, BTW.
Of course anyone with integrity would be concerned about twisted logic and warped thinking about science. But, IMO, there is no more or less untoward interference today. I am concerned just about the opposite; that the 10,000 researchers are attempting to force their warped thinking onto scientists of true integrity and honesty. Questioning questionable science is NOT political interference!
"I suppose it is even more difficult to produce good science when its only purpose is to support the policies you have blind faith in."
This is surely one motivator, but the bigger motivator is the desire for continued funding. The decision makers in the funding for things like climate research, and AIDS research, and other favorites of the left are typically lefties and "panels" of academia types. Thus, if you want more funding, you have to spout their nonsense.
It's a somewhat false dichotomy between science and engineering and the MBAs and lawyers. What happens more often here is the MBAs catch up with talented amateur scientists to bring ideas to market. Doesn't mean there isn't room for "real" scientists, but I suspect Ben Franklin would be more at home in a startup than cranking out global warming propaganda in exchange for grant money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.