• 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!

Kill the myth of the miracle machine

Lord of Planar said:
Just presenting a side that you unscientific types don't ever see, since you get your -not- facts from pundits.
Click to expand...
Actually, those of us who pay attention to science are well aware of all sorts of conflicts, issues and disputes within the scientific community.

Many of us also ignore the pundits, and pay attention to scientists. (E.g. I don't rely on Al Gore for detailed information on likely rates of GMSL rise; that's NOAA's job.)

And again, the author doesn't acknowledge that the same issues he identifies are not limited to basic research. There's tons of conflicts of interest, bad science, manipulated papers, data omissions, replication issues etc in applied research. The motivations are just as problematic -- researchers want their theories confirmed, their funding can depend on success, egos need to be fed, and so forth.

In fact, I'd say that your pet peeve -- climate science -- is a good example of the benefits of basic research. We know that sea level is rising, which means coastal communities need to have an idea of likely levels of rise, how to prepare, and in what forms the possible damage might come (e.g. daily erosion, storm surges etc).
 
Visbek said:
Actually, those of us who pay attention to science are well aware of all sorts of conflicts, issues and disputes within the scientific community.

Many of us also ignore the pundits, and pay attention to scientists. (E.g. I don't rely on Al Gore for detailed information on likely rates of GMSL rise; that's NOAA's job.)

And again, the author doesn't acknowledge that the same issues he identifies are not limited to basic research. There's tons of conflicts of interest, bad science, manipulated papers, data omissions, replication issues etc in applied research. The motivations are just as problematic -- researchers want their theories confirmed, their funding can depend on success, egos need to be fed, and so forth.

In fact, I'd say that your pet peeve -- climate science -- is a good example of the benefits of basic research. We know that sea level is rising, which means coastal communities need to have an idea of likely levels of rise, how to prepare, and in what forms the possible damage might come (e.g. daily erosion, storm surges etc).
Click to expand...

There are conflicts and unethical practices everywhere as it is part of human nature. I is important to point such things out, as it applies to science as well. With the billions of dollars the world political machine doles out to the climate sciences, to use as a weapon of control against the people, there are plenty of scientists willing to research and tailor a paper to the political desires.

Can you say IPCC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom