Science and Politics

[myata]

Harrison Ford told a crowd Thursday to "stop giving power to people who don't believe in science". Though I can understand the rationale and respect the author, I cannot say that I agree wholly with the formula. Here's the reason why: science, it is not the Bible by another name and in a different format.

Science is a way of looking at the Universe, trying to make sense of it and describe it. It is not always a commandment, but a processes of thought, act and the result, connecting it into a logical chain that can be understood, repeated and verified. Science may not have known and prescribed answers in all cases and for all problems. And this is why "giving power to people who believe" in science would be just as wrong as to those who believe in any kind of things. Belief, in itself, in anything by itself is not a virtue and certainly should not be a qualifier for political power. The process: rational, objective and transparent is. Delivering results; being honest and open; never lying boldface and being caught on it again and again. This can be the qualifier for the new age responsible democratic politics. So no beliefs, those can be made and remade by the people who care nothing about honesty and results.

I do not want to live in a quasi-democracy run by hands of Dr Faucis making one questionable experiment after another for our own good that occasionally could run away even when they are told to stop, clearly. No no, we cannot worship the Idol of Holy Science any more that any and all the other ones.

Honesty. Openness. Transparency. Respectful, intelligent dialogue based on the facts and reason. Acceptance of negative results. Preparedness to be proven wrong: no idols; no one is perfect; a better option can be proposed by an opponent. This is the standard. And if and when it's failed I don't care for what reason and for the sake of which idol. It just cannot be right.

[herbie]

Sorry you feel that way. People who don't believe in science, when science doesn't give a Flying F*ck if you "believe" it or not simply reveal themselves as people you should never give up any power to.

 

[myata]

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

People who don't believe in science, when science doesn't give

"Believing in science" is an oxymoron: it undermines its very foundation that nothing should be "believed' and everything, has to be tested and retested and verified.

The standard of science is: anyone who runs this correctly will obtain the same result.

While the standard of belief is, anything is possible if I believe it (even if I run it and it fails 1 million times out of a million).

Now, do we want the essence and process of science, or another belief? Those are just two different things.

[herbie]

More or less referring to people who say the consensus wrong, they believe something they dug from the dregs of the Internet.

You know - the fact they walked around all night with green lights on their backpacks proves Sasquatch is real. Or the lack of a purely scientific explanation means whatever claim you make is valid.

 

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

More or less referring to people who say the consensus wrong, they believe something they dug from the dregs of the Internet.

You know - the fact they walked around all night with green lights on their backpacks proves Sasquatch is real. Or the lack of a purely scientific explanation means whatever claim you make is valid.

 

The idea of "consensus" in science is not scientific.  

When the media only presents scientists having one particular view, but there are thousands of scientists that have a differing view being censored, that's not consensus.  That's the illusion of consensus.

Example:

For years docs and scientists had the "consensus" that ulcers were caused by stress and/or spicy food.  Then, Drs. Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren discovered H. Pylori.  They were told, "STFU, you !d!ots. We have a consensus that it's caused by stress."

Turns out they were right and went on to win the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for the discovery.

Censorship in science because "consensus"...... is wrong. 

Stop supporting it, stop demanding it.

Nobel Prize for H. pylori Discovery - Gastrointestinal Society (badgut.org)

Until that time, so entrenched was the belief that lifestyle caused ulcers that, even with their evidence, it was difficult for these two researchers to convince the world of H. pylori’s role in ulcer disease. In fact, Alfred Nobel himself said in the late 19th century, “Worry is the stomach’s worst poison.” To provide even more conclusive evidence, in 1985 Marshall deliberately infected himself with the bacterium and established his own stomach illness.

Today, it has been firmly proven by many researchers world-wide that H. pylori causes more than 90% of duodenal ulcers and up to 80% of gastric ulcers. 

Edited August 19, 2024 by Goddess

[myata]

Really there are so many of these examples in the history of science. Yes, there are areas and disciplines where results are supported by enormous bodies of empirical evidence. They aren't the final truth from the gospel of Holy Science - remember Newton, but to overturn them one would need matching or larger bodies of evidence.

Then there are problems and fields that haven't attained such level of confidence. There are hypotheses and directions, some more popular some less, and it can change any time if new ideas are presented and shown to be a closer match to the evidence. An example is the astronomy field on formation of our solar system, where ideas dominant today simply did not exist some years back.

And then, there are problems that aren't solved yet, unknown. So what is there to believe in? Who can speak on behalf of science? Only the method, if it applied correctly, honestly, and rigorously.