Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Secrecy in science is a corrosive force

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:17 PM
Original message
Secrecy in science is a corrosive force
With no disrespect to sausages and laws, Bismarck’s most famous aphorism clearly requires updating. “Scientific research” is bidding furiously to make the global shortlist of things one should not see being made.

Understandably so. Sciences at the cutting edge of statistics and public policy can make blood sports seem genteel. Scientists aggressively promoting pet hypotheses often relish the opportunity to marginalise and neutralise rival theories and exponents.

The malice, mischief and Machiavellian manoeuvrings revealed in the illegally hacked megabytes of emails from the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climate Research Unit, for example, offers a useful paradigm of contemporary scientific conflict. Science may be objective; scientists emphatically are not. This episode illustrates what too many universities, professional societies, and research funders have irresponsibly allowed their scientists to become. Shame on them all.

The source of that shame is a toxic mix of institutional laziness and complacency. Too many scientists in academia, industry and government are allowed to get away with concealing or withholding vital information about their data, research methodologies and results. That is unacceptable and must change.

...


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well said.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Horse shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +2 on the Horse Shit comment
And once again, we agree...does this mean I have to make nice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. You can only open up scientific research so much

People will take raw data to mean anything, look at how politicized it already is.

Corporations withholding info is not science, it corporate malfeasance.

When scientists publish in a journal, they are expected to release all data that goes along with it, if they want to be taken seriously.

"The writer researches the economics of innovation and technology transfer at MIT and is a visiting researcher at London’s Imperial College"

Economics, figures. Not real science. More like voodoo bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. sausage laws
“Scientific research” is bidding furiously to make the global shortlist of things one should not see being made.
-----------
lol. Well, that depends on whether its the good or bad science your watching.


"Understandably so. Sciences at the cutting edge of statistics and public policy can make blood sports seem genteel."

No, that happens in places where science is used in conjunction with and as a tool of politics, but that is actually
fairly rare in occurence with real scientists.




"Scientists aggressively promoting pet hypotheses often relish the opportunity to marginalise and neutralise rival theories and exponents."

Absolutely true, it is a bitter crazy game out there of pack psychology, ochliocracy, and groupthink.


"The malice, mischief and Machiavellian manoeuvrings revealed in the illegally hacked megabytes of emails from the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climate Research Unit, for example, offers a useful paradigm of contemporary scientific conflict. Science may be objective; scientists emphatically are not."

it is meaningless to call those people scientists when they were merely middle managers and politicos involved in science endeavors.



" This episode illustrates what too many universities, professional societies, and research funders have irresponsibly allowed their scientists to become. Shame on them all."

True.


"The source of that shame is a toxic mix of institutional laziness and complacency. Too many scientists in academia, industry and government are allowed to get away with concealing or withholding vital information about their data, research methodologies and results. That is unacceptable and must change."

I agree, we need direct citizen oversight on all government institutions and more transparency in terms of evaluating whose science
rises to the top of the theory lists.

On the other hand, having read some of the emails, its abundantly clear that the actual major misunderstanding was a non scientist
whipping his dilbert to do evil things which the dilbert tried to explain was the wrong way to go about things. The evil red handed culprit here isn't even a scientist, hes a corporate hack. Fer gawds sake the whole "hide the cooling" he was trying to talk about was not hiding in that sense in the first place, and in the second place, he wouldn't be looking for ways to hide he cooling if he really understood the science because theres always a lull when you go past a new tipping point and into a new homeostasis.

All thats been proven about global warming here is that there are indeed some people to whom thats become politicized. It doesn't
discount the mountains of factual evidence, nor the absolute certainty thats been arrived at on the topic.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. You have to be kidding
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 08:10 PM by Confusious
"I agree, we need direct citizen oversight on all government institutions and more transparency in terms of evaluating whose science
rises to the top of the theory lists."

Your going to have Joe Bob evaluate the theory of relativity? I think he's more concerned with the theory of Bigfoot.

Right now it's based on whose theory is provable and has the evidence. Do you want people evaluating something they probably have no idea about?

I wouldn't want to evaluate heart surgeons, because I know nothing about it. There are alot more people out there that have seen Brittanies junk the know about the latest scientific theories.

And who is to say what the next big thing might be? String theory has alot of math, but nothing provable yet. Should we drop it? What if it *IS* the next big thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. Agreed- We have Joe Lunchbucket and The Church Lady doing that very thing with "Origin Of Species"..
look at what they're doing with that!?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. making hay; why this is a total waste of time to even discuss.
never mind the global science agreement on the facts of global warming. Forget climate. Imagine it didn't matter and that we could go on polluting forever and that jesus will just vaccuum it up for us when he gets back.

It still makes no difference for entirely different reasons. Everything that global warming says we should do to improve our society is also indicated by a mere perusal of our economy.

And there in lies the rub and all sorts of interesting crossovers. The denialists are fighting like mad against 3 cents for 500 miles. They are lined up like toy soldiers against a 10 dollar a year electric bill. They are fighting and fighting against hovercars
and george jetson like technologies, clinging to fossil fuels which are by any definition which knows science on the primitive end of the energy scale. Fossil fuels are killing our economy. And going green won't just releive the stress, it will boom the economy into the real and 100 years suppressed modern technology.

The truth is that the only way that fossil fuels of any sort compare favorably in a cost benefit analysis is to only compare extreme short terms. And yeah, it costs more to put up a windmill or those solar panels, but they aren't run dry or tapped out in ten years,
they keep on going and going. Geothermal power in particular is an energy resource which is baseload, potentially equall in yield to nuclear power per station, would cost a tiny fraction of nuclear to install, and then it runs for geological time, providing power
for all practical purposes to 10 generations down from us- instead of stealing any chance of life from those same descendents via our willingness to be sheepleherded by corporate greed.

So keep running the propaganda mills and talking about nothing while the real solutions pass you by...
Its only the future of every living thing on earth that depends on you getting serious and actually tackling the issues...


------------------------


1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.
7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.
9. The pros of oil are that ;
a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.
10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.
11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.
13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.
15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.
17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where
geothermal power would be too expensive.
18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.
22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.


23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Stop spamming
I've seen this copy-and-paste list on at least three different threads, and all it shows is that you have no idea how much power we actually use relative to how much your proposed sources can generate.


http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Obscureenergysources.shtml|Anything which, when fully deployed, generates less than ten gigawatts average (1010 joules per second) is useless for our purposes in terms of actually making a meaningful contribution to the total amount of energy we consume.>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. no - you stop spamming
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. junk reference
"You've got to start thinking really, really big."

and geothermal power is scalable, which means it beats solar or fossil fuels or nuclear power.

On that issue.

And every other.

Saying I am spamming is a bit of a joke when you are the one running around spreading nonsense and propaganda drivel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Confucius say. "Rowboats long in tooth, make big noise, go nowhere." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. still pink n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think there's so much secrecy because of profit potential.
Who knows what might new profit-making possibilities might be discovered while researching? If there's no secrecy, then there's no solid control over who profits from any potential new ideas.

Sad but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. The military is always in the offing, waiting to buy up something that can be used for...
... the obvious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. Stephen Brushed wondered if the true history of science should be rated X to students.
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 08:41 PM by aikoaiko

Should the History of Science Be Rated X?
The way scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for students
Stephen G. Brush Department of History and in the Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Applied Mathematics, University of Maryland, College Park 20742

I suggest that the teacher who wants to indoctrinate his students in the traditional role of the scientist as a neutral fact finder should not use historical materials of the kind now being prepared by historians of science: they will not serve his purposes. He may wish to follow the advice of philosopher J. C. C. Smart, who recently suggested that it is legitimate to use fictionalized history of science to illustrate one's pronouncements on scientific method (56). On the other hand, those teachers who want to counteract the dogmatism of the textbooks and convey some understanding of science as an activity that cannot be divorced from metaphysical or esthetic considerations may find some stimulation in the new history of science. As historian D. S. L. Cardwell has argued (57, p. 120): . . . If the history of science is to be used as an educational discipline, to inculcate an enlightened and critical mind, then the Whig view . . . cannot do this. For it must emphasize the continuities, the smooth and successive developments from one great achievement to the next and so on; and in doing so it must automatically endow the present state of science with all the immense authority of history.

He suggests that the critical mind might be inhibited by seeing the present as the inevitable, triumphant product of the past. The history of science could aid the teaching of science by showing that "such puzzling concepts as force, energy, etc., are man-made and were evolved in an understandable sequence in response to acutely felt and very real problems. They were not handed down by some celestial textbook writer to whom they were immediately self-evident" (57, p. 120).

The past may give some hints on how to survive the most recent recurrence of public hostility to science. Rather than blaming historians such as Kuhn for encouraging antiscientific attitudes, as one physicist did in a public address in 1972 (58), one might consider this criticism of the older style of science history, published in 1940 by W. James Lyons (59, p. 381):

The historians of science are responsible, it would appear, for the unpopularity of science among those most acutely affected by the depression. In their clamor to enhance the scientific tradition, and hoard for science all credit for the remarkable and unprecedented material advances which studded the century and a quarter preceding 1930, these historians have been more enthusiastic than accurate . . . science emerged as the most prominent force responsible for making this modern world so startlingly different from all preceding ages. Thus when, for many people, the modern world, in spite of all its resources, began to slip from its role of "best of all imaginable worlds," science came in for a proportionate share of blame. Had a more accurate picture of the part science has played been presented, science would not now be the object of so much suspicion and resentment.

In more recent times, hostility to science has been intensified by the image of the "objective," robot-like scientist lacking emotions and moral values. If the new approach to the history of science really does give a more realistic picture of the behavior of scientists, perhaps it has a "redeeming social significance." Then, rather than limiting the conception of science to the strict pattern allowed by traditional local standards, one might try to change those standards in such a way as to reflect the freedom that the boldest natural philosophers have always exercised.


Its never been pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. Academia worshippers don't want to hear it of course
Academia is above reproach apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. What a steaming heap o' ignorant anti-science anti-intellectual teabag horseshit
That is NOT the way science works.

All science is ***openly*** peer reviewed - from grant proposals to journal paper acceptance.

You can look up the abstracts for papers presented at scientific meetings on-line

any claim to the contrary is a fucking lie

Glenn Beck is an Asshole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Not in this case
The verdict is in - Warmers support censorship, data deletion, and politicization of scientific inquiry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Sorry that was Bush and Cheney - not the "warmers" or whatever...
enjoy your delusions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. not all warmers are one group of people
just because that may have happened to some extent with one group does not mean that is going on everywhere.

conflating all scientists in with one group is a pretty sorry logical fallacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Feynman. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bik0 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
17. Richard Feynman on scientific integrity
good stuff...

"But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results."

http://www.neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 09:04 PM by phasma ex machina
Too much Feynman. Need to dilute. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
22. Money is at the root of the problem
Misuses and abuses in the Peer Review and Grant Funding systems have been long known. The inability of a junior researcher to get published without a big name cosigning the submission or merely having the "Right Degree" to be concidered for publishing regardless of the merits. Were documented in MIT Tech Review back in the 80's.

What we see here is our dirty laundry. Not about a global conspiracy to bring about a single world government that the right predicts. But our jockeying to get more research funding, lab space, etc. And occasionally our own arogance to downplay anything or anyone who might not make the exact same conclusions about all the little details as we have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC