Do you trust the scientific establishment?

Ar Scion said:
I was reading an article recently about a white knight out to save people from the biggest plague to hit the media: balance in journalism. His name is Simon Singh.

Simon Singh implied that we must trust scientists and only scientists for our information.

This makes sense on its face.

But is science trustworthy?

I don't mean scientific principles and the scientific process.

I mean the institutions, whose research is funded by interest groups. I mean scientists whose reputations, careers, wealth and funding is dependent, directly or indirectly on a particular group or agenda. I mean scientific establishments that tend to resemble a political arena rather than a scientific organization.

Is science trustworthy?
Click to expand...

- Thanks for the post. The sad fact is the average person these days trusts scientists as much as people trusted the clergy hundreds of years ago.

I was lucky. I was raised by slightly religious scientists ( 3 masters degrees + a phd between them).

They challenged us to question EVERYTHING - the preacher on Sunday as much as the Scientist on Monday.

I read somewhere that it takes anywhere from 10-50 years for something to go from being proven in the labs as a physical fact to being generally accepted by the masses.

I bet you see the implications here...

At this point there are probably dozens of things the average person (probable even we as well) consider "true" (read fact) that aren't even true anymore.

Scientists are human beings not klingons subject to the same jealousy, envy, prejudices, etc as anyone else.

We were talking about this on physicsforum.com a while ago. There's a lot of research out there that the establishment doesn't like.

Plus questions that are swept under the rug. Take the "measurement problem" for instance in physics.

These days I pretty skeptical about anything that's accepted as fact by the masses....

You should check out this dude - Brian Josephson's home page

(Cambridge PHD, Nobel Prize in his 20s). Well apparently he had a bit of a "nonmainstream" experience that started making him question conventional science. All of a sudden there was a huge backlash against him.

And boy does the establishment hate on him because he isn't some crackpot he's a Cambridge PHD who won a Nobel Prize in his 20s!

comment on Nature review of Radin

Makes you think....red pill or blue pill...red pill or blue pill....
 


A lot of science can't be skewed. It doesn't benefit anyone money-wise to know the composition of a certain star, or the spin of a mu lepton etc.
 
Papajohn- Money is always involved. Commercially non-viable research receives millions of dollars in funding.

Then there is the issue of individual and institutional reputation. Conformity ("peer pressure") also comes in. All important issues that are hidden from the public.

riddarhusetgal said:
- Thanks for the post. The sad fact is the average person these days trusts scientists as much as people trusted the clergy hundreds of years ago.

I was lucky. I was raised by slightly religious scientists ( 3 masters degrees + a phd between them).

They challenged us to question EVERYTHING - the preacher on Sunday as much as the Scientist on Monday.

I read somewhere that it takes anywhere from 10-50 years for something to go from being proven in the labs as a physical fact to being generally accepted by the masses.

I bet you see the implications here...

At this point there are probably dozens of things the average person (probable even we as well) consider "true" (read fact) that aren't even true anymore.

Scientists are human beings not klingons subject to the same jealousy, envy, prejudices, etc as anyone else.

We were talking about this on physicsforum.com a while ago. There's a lot of research out there that the establishment doesn't like.

Plus questions that are swept under the rug. Take the "measurement problem" for instance in physics.

These days I pretty skeptical about anything that's accepted as fact by the masses....

You should check out this dude - Brian Josephson's home page

(Cambridge PHD, Nobel Prize in his 20s). Well apparently he had a bit of a "nonmainstream" experience that started making him question conventional science. All of a sudden there was a huge backlash against him.

And boy does the establishment hate on him because he isn't some crackpot he's a Cambridge PHD who won a Nobel Prize in his 20s!

comment on Nature review of Radin

Makes you think....red pill or blue pill...red pill or blue pill....
Click to expand...

A+ post.

I have to ask though, what can be done to publicize the reality of what goes on behind the scenes, and can any real oversight be instituted to make sure scientists and their research are not being treated unfairly?
 
Ar Scion said:
Papajohn- Money is always involved. Commercially non-viable research receives millions of dollars in funding.
Click to expand...

Of course. But certain things just really can't be skewed too much unless it's fudging data to force a result or something.
 
papajohn56 said:
Of course. But certain things just really can't be skewed too much unless it's fudging data to force a result or something.
Click to expand...

You're right, hard data can't be fudged around with. But data is only one facet of the problem.

If there is one pre-established dogma of "acceptable theory" that scientists have based careers and reputations on, there is a natural aversion to research anything else that might prove it wrong, regardless of how accurate the data may be.

This happens very often. Research that contradicts accepted dogma is marginalized, with scientists trying their level best to debunk it. Scientists who do this research face a ton of pressure from the mainstream dogma-followers to stop or risk destroying their careers.

Not only does it hurt scientists, it hurts progress.
 
Ar Scion said:
You're right, hard data can't be fudged around with. But data is only one facet of the problem.

If there is one pre-established dogma of "acceptable theory" that scientists have based careers and reputations on, there is a natural aversion to research anything else that might prove it wrong, regardless of how accurate the data may be.

This happens very often. Research that contradicts accepted dogma is marginalized, with scientists trying their level best to debunk it. Scientists who do this research face a ton of pressure from the mainstream dogma-followers to stop or risk destroying their careers.

Not only does it hurt scientists, it hurts progress.
Click to expand...

<==Amen brother. IMHO scientists these days are like clergy in yesteryear, and I maintain that. Ask the average Joes on the street if they've questioned something that's been "scientifically proven" and they will look at you like someone 500 years ago who said to someone else "you know the church says the world is flat, but how do we REALLY no that?..."

When I started really digging into this stuff I was blown away by how political the peer review process can be - along with what gets into the scientific journals. Seriously. I mean think about it. A room full of people who've been told all their lives they are "geniuses" disagree - c'mon that's a recipe for ego....

I mean I suspect we all have a little of that problem (lol) but I just think like most people I really thought it was a Klingon like process based exclusively on "logic" and "fact".


Thanks for starting this thread. It's good to know there are other people asking these kind of questions too.....


Anyway, you might find this interesting ==> Video & Audio: Life, Extended Mind, and Fundamental Physics - Metadata



Description: Lecture given by Professor Josephson at an event in celebration of his 70th. birthday (lecture date, May 5th, 2010) Created: 2010-09-03 13:22 Collection: Brian Josephson's lectures Publisher: University of Cambridge Copyright: Prof Brian Josephson Language: eng (English) Keywords: extended; mind; life; unification; physics; organisation; chaos; Credits: Performer: (speaker) Prof. Brian Josephson, Physics Anchor: (introduction) Prof. Judith Driscoll, Materials Science Editor: (video editing) Brian Josephson Photographer: (videocamera) Andrew Marin Author: (organisation) Device Materials Group (J. Driscoll) Abstract: Note: an improved version of this video was uploaded on Sep. 3rd., but it may be some time before it is processed by the Media Service and available for viewing. If parts of this video are very dark it may be worth coming back later (in the original version the slides look a little 'dirty', while in the new version the background of the slides is white).
---
The problem of how life came into existence is a major challenge for biology. I shall argue for an explanation involving the idea that a more elementary form of life, not dependent on matter, existed prior to the big bang, and evolved at the level of ideas in the same way that human societies evolve at the level of ideas. Just as human society discovered how to use matter in a range of technological applications, the hypothesised life before the big bang discovered how to organise energy to make physical universes, and to make fruitful use of the matter available in such universes. In addition, our various creative abilities are in part expressions of aspects of this original life. NB: some historical material not relevant to the lecture as a whole has been removed from the start of both lecture and introduction.
Video & Audio: Life, Extended Mind, and Fundamental Physics - Metadata
 
It's better to trust than religion.. without trust in science or religion i'd be confused as fuck.
 
In a word... no.

Although a most scientists are hardworking, dedicated and ethical, the unfortunate necessity of having to hold a job down means they have to cut corners now and again.

Examples of how this is done:


1. Images are from things like DNA Gels are photoshopped
2. Test results are fudged to match the data they're looking for
3. Results are massaged using spurious statistics.
4. Peer reviews are very prone to cronyism. They're meant be anonymous and often aren't.
5. It's all about the £££. Even if you're a Uni researcher, you still have to get grants. And the grants are given to people doing work which "matches the objectives" of the funding body.
 
Falsified Research - A Meta Analysis Of Scientific Misconduct
in depth: PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

in practice: Merck published fake journal - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences
Journals 'regularly publish fraudulent research' | Society | guardian.co.uk
UCSD Claims Scientist Falsified Heart Research - Los Angeles Times
Doctor says he falsified sleep data while at Harvard - White Coat Notes - Boston.com
Fraudulent research widespread in modern medicine | GP2GP.INFO
Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck
How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

in print: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Us-Were-Experts-Manipulates/dp/158542059X]Amazon.com: Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and gambles with Your Future (9781585420599)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deception-Government-Genetically-Engineered/dp/0972966587/ref=pd_sim_b_82]Amazon.com: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating (9780972966580)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=pd_sim_b_4]Amazon.com: The Fluoride Deception (9781583227008)[/ame]


worth repeating:
Sharksfan said:
The scientific method can be trusted.
People, on the other hand, are not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
 
"The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research." - Science Daily

The medical world has been different from the rest of the scientific community for some reason, and for some time now. I really don't know what the cause of this is, but I think it again is just the money motive in it. People go to med school thinking they can make tons of money. When you go for a PhD in particle physics, you don't exactly expect this.
 
papajohn56 said:
The medical world has been different from the rest of the scientific community for some reason.
Click to expand...

to an extreme sometimes, and damned if it isn't about money. if a company is willing to sell HIV if it's profitable to do so, what should you reasonably expect from the research they pay for and aim to profit from?


one more problem solved** by paying our educators and scientists like we pay athletes and entertainers. remove reliance on grants and you've got a bunch of people doing what they really got a degree for -- the pursuit of truth, not truth-at-any-price.

**some assembly required. may contain up to 23% post-consumer recycled communism.
 
The reason science can't always be trusted is because people can't always be trusted. People in general are stanky piles of shit, and scientists are just people. Anyone who's ever worked around people should know how petty they can be when trying to get the admiration of their peers, or get that raise, etc.

But science is by far the best we have and probably will ever have. And non-peer reviewed science is really not much science at all. This is the sort of science that has non-disclosure agreements, secret patents, etc. If everyone can't openly test it (and actually do it) then you have a new dangerous drug, etc.
 
What I find strange is that you want to disassemble "Science" into the "scientific community" and the "scientific process".

The scientific method is an inherent part of science. It is its system of checks and balances.

Thsi would be like asking "Do you trust the open source community? Please do not discuss the merits of looking into the source code."

So yes, the community is as greedy, fallible, gullible, crooked as any other. The scientific process of peer reviews and constant scrutiny is what drives progress and disassembles crooks and liars.

Admittedly, it takes time for some cases to be discovered and ridiculed.
But this still is one of the most infallible systems devised by mankind. Basically all of our wealth and prosperity rests on the shoulders of science.

Think of it the next time you start your computer.

::emp::
 
emp said:
What I find strange is that you want to disassemble "Science" into the "scientific community" and the "scientific process".

The scientific method is an inherent part of science. It is its system of checks and balances.

Thsi would be like asking "Do you trust the open source community? Please do not discuss the merits of looking into the source code."

So yes, the community is as greedy, fallible, gullible, crooked as any other. The scientific process of peer reviews and constant scrutiny is what drives progress and disassembles crooks and liars.

Admittedly, it takes time for some cases to be discovered and ridiculed.
But this still is one of the most infallible systems devised by mankind. Basically all of our wealth and prosperity rests on the shoulders of science.

Think of it the next time you start your computer.

::emp::
Click to expand...

Good post, agree 100%
 
Emp, you do realize that peer review and constant scrutiny is not infallible right?

In fact, peer review and scrutiny are often used by crooks to perpetuate their aims while attempting to malign research that goes against them.

Remember the climategate emails?
 
Never said it is infallible. I said it is still the best we've come up with.

::emp::
 
I think it can be a lot better if we inject some oversight into the process.

It's important to know when research is rejected because it's bad research versus "because his research will reduce the grants we receive", or "because his research reflects a political ideology I don't agree with".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom