• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is science corrupt?

Is science corrupt?

  • Yes, science is corrupt and bias

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
14,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you think science is corrupt? Do you think the scientific community is bias or corrupt?
 
There is a bias in Scientists, but not Science.

Science is objective. Scientists try to be objective, but they eventually create dogmatic principles which they hold onto religiously.

It's all complex.
 
Nothing is free from corruption. However, science is generally less corrupt that your average political, religious or business organization. The peer review system is fairly de-centralized, and the empirical nature of science make it much easier to show objective proof. Thus, people who lie or cheat tend to be caught by their peers fairly often. However, certain areas like statistical analysis, when sufficiently motivated by corporate greed or ideological issues are quite problematic. Corporate funded drug studies are absurdly corrupt. In its defense however, most of the scientific community doesn't support such behavior, but they are rather powerless to stop it.
 
The question doesn't make any sense. Of course science isn't corrupt.

Many scientists, however, are corrupt.
 
No.

Science is a formal method of connecting evidence and theory to discard bad theories.

Scientists may be corrupt, like those who destroy their raw data so others can't check on their bogus global warming conclusions, but they are not "science".
 
It is not possible for science to be corrupt, as "science" is simply a method of thought.

The people who are scientists, on the other hand, can obviously be corrupt, as they are…people. As far as I am aware, only people can be “corrupt” in the sense you use it here.
 
Scientists are human beings like anyone else.

Like anyone else, scientists can be subject to all manner of faults: greed, jealousy, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, stubborness, desire for fame or recognition, ambition, fear of failure or shame, and so on.

These faults can lead to the work of some scientist being flawed, or even fraudulent. It has happened before; it is happening now; it will happen again.


The competition to publish peer-reviewed papers (and get favorable reviews for those papers), for tenure, funding, research grants, positions, recognition, money, fame... all these things can corrupt or bias the scientific process.

Just like any other endeavor where humans are involved.
 
As has been said before. Scientist are corrupt. Science is not.
 
Real Scientist is not corrupt but the Scientist is corrupt by the Government.
 
No.

Corrupted by what, anyway?
 
The question doesn't make any sense. Of course science isn't corrupt.

Many scientists, however, are corrupt.
Come on Dav, don't get technical. If scientists are corrupt, then so is their science.
 
Come on Dav, don't get technical. If scientists are corrupt, then so is their science.
"Scientists are corrupt" is a crude and brutal generalization of people by their choice of work.

Some may be corrupt, others may not be corrupt, they are judged as individuals and not as a collective, a person who chooses to become a scientist does not become corrupt.
 
Do you think science is corrupt? Do you think the scientific community is bias or corrupt?

No and no.
You can falsify data, interpret facts from a preconcieved viewpoint, or just plain make **** up.

But none of that would be considered science, that's religion.
 
It's not corrupt. It's incorrect.

If the scientist is corrupt than the data or observations can be corrupted.

Fortunately most of the time science is also self correcting.
 
All science is flawed. Science cannot build accurate models of reality as it requires too many assumptions.
 
Science cannot build accurate models of reality as it requires too many assumptions.
That was the belief of the Greek scientists, why they have never made any assumptions, and why have they stopped advancing at some point of time.

Assumptions were required to make, even when inaccurate, in order to advance in research and technology.
It is true that as a result of assumptions drawing the achievements were not 100% accurate.
They were only 99.99999% accurate, and that is fine with the modern world of science.
 
no, science is not corrupt, nor are scientists, except on vary rare occasions
 
That was the belief of the Greek scientists, why they have never made any assumptions, and why have they stopped advancing at some point of time.

Assumptions were required to make, even when inaccurate, in order to advance in research and technology.
It is true that as a result of assumptions drawing the achievements were not 100% accurate.
They were only 99.99999% accurate, and that is fine with the modern world of science.

Useful, but it is still flawed. Only reality provides fidelity.
 
Not corrupted, co-opted

cor⋅rupt  /kəˈrʌpt/ [kuh-ruhpt]

1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.


Corrupt.

Going to argue with the dictionary now?
 
Last edited:
All science is flawed. Science cannot build accurate models of reality as it requires too many assumptions.

Thats why those assumptions are called "Theories". And are subject to change.
Those theories work. Try holding a cement block over your foot and letting it go if you doubt their effectiveness.
 
Thats why those assumptions are called "Theories". And are subject to change.
Those theories work. Try holding a cement block over your foot and letting it go if you doubt their effectiveness.

Science wouldn't be useful if theories didn't predict nature, but it is still flawed. This is why you can't calculate a complex flow network for chemical engineering, for instance. You have to have feedback networks to measure performance.
 
There is a bias in Scientists, but not Science.

Science is objective. Scientists try to be objective, but they eventually create dogmatic principles which they hold onto religiously.

It's all complex.

Very good points!

Science is a lot like history...it simply 'is'. Its what people do with it that becomes corrupt.

Anyone that has been around research scientists understand the drill. Have a theory or hypothesis, then set about to PROVE your theory or hypothesis so that you can be published and most importantly...funded. They have research assistants that are put in charge of creating studies and compiling data. In the University setting...those research assistants graduate degrees usually depend on the work they do for them. The research is invariably skewed to achieve a result.

ALL scientists? nah...of course not. But a majority? you bet.
 
"Scientists are corrupt" is a crude and brutal generalization of people by their choice of work.

Some may be corrupt, others may not be corrupt, they are judged as individuals and not as a collective, a person who chooses to become a scientist does not become corrupt.
Get a grip on yourself. We're talking about the poll. Why are you derailing discussion with your emotionalism?
 
Back
Top Bottom