Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can the two co-exist on the same plane? and does one corrupt the other?
We have a global pandemic and it appears science and politics are at odds with each other and yet, they must share the same means to project information. One usurps the other and then the tide reverses. One seems to lead the way then is displaced by the other, but both travel the same path.
It's very confusing and necessary at the same time.
Is it true to say, science is just a refinement of everyday thinking.
Most of America knows about the latest conclusions of scientific research, not through reading scientific journals, or listening to university lectures, instead they glean their info from facebook, youtube, MSM news outlets, and extreme fringe media. It's pop science VS real science in most cases where the proles are arguing over their watered down versions of truth. We have huge political divisions, not over scientific revelations, but moreover, a struggle between those who can plumb the depths of complex issues and those who rely on BS passing for valid information.
We, see them on interviews espousing their fear of losing or altering one's DNA after getting a shot in the arm, we see them marching outside schools holding signs that proclaim, "take the jab and die," along with signs proclaiming their fears over losing their freedom, never mind that there are NO facts involved which would support their conclusions. Knowing that science allows for utilization of facts and data when attempting to reach reasonable conclusions, and knowing that politicians utilize drama and emotion when "advising" their constituents, makes one uneasy when looking for the truth of things..
Media brings forth sensationalist proclamations from dubious "experts," unqualified "doctors," extremists from both the right and left, and of course, politicians. Scientific journals on the other hand are eschewed by the masses who prefer their information to be on the "light" side, shallow on facts and data but heavy with drama and fear mongering. It's worth noting that in the case of the Covid outbreak, governors, mayors, and presidents, are turning to scientists to determine an appropriate path forward, and in many places, the rantings of facebook devotees and conspiracy theorists are serving to refute that science.
In today's society, anyone can sow the seeds of doubt, anyone can be an "expert" and worse, anyone can become the leader of these thoughtless sheep. The end result is an open sewer of disinformation which can be utilized by unscrupulous pols seeking to advance their "career." In short, science deals in fresh clean oats, and the media and politicians prefer the oats which have passed through the Horse.
Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science. - E. O. Wilson
Most of America knows about the latest conclusions of scientific research, not through reading scientific journals, or listening to university lectures, instead they glean their info from facebook, youtube, MSM news outlets, and extreme fringe media. It's pop science VS real science in most cases where the proles are arguing over their watered down versions of truth. We have huge political divisions, not over scientific revelations, but moreover, a struggle between those who can plumb the depths of complex issues and those who rely on BS passing for valid information.
We, see them on interviews espousing their fear of losing or altering one's DNA after getting a shot in the arm, we see them marching outside schools holding signs that proclaim, "take the jab and die," along with signs proclaiming their fears over losing their freedom, never mind that there are NO facts involved which would support their conclusions. Knowing that science allows for utilization of facts and data when attempting to reach reasonable conclusions, and knowing that politicians utilize drama and emotion when "advising" their constituents, makes one uneasy when looking for the truth of things..
Media brings forth sensationalist proclamations from dubious "experts," unqualified "doctors," extremists from both the right and left, and of course, politicians. Scientific journals on the other hand are eschewed by the masses who prefer their information to be on the "light" side, shallow on facts and data but heavy with drama and fear mongering. It's worth noting that in the case of the Covid outbreak, governors, mayors, and presidents, are turning to scientists to determine an appropriate path forward, and in many places, the rantings of facebook devotees and conspiracy theorists are serving to refute that science.
In today's society, anyone can sow the seeds of doubt, anyone can be an "expert" and worse, anyone can become the leader of these thoughtless sheep. The end result is an open sewer of disinformation which can be utilized by unscrupulous pols seeking to advance their "career." In short, science deals in fresh clean oats, and the media and politicians prefer the oats which have passed through the Horse.
Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science. - E. O. Wilson
Nicely written. There's another thread somewhere about why do we need printed encyclopedias anymore since we have the web. Your post reminds of that in the sense that today any damn fool can "publish" on the web, whether they have any actual qualifications or not. And as that happens, fallacy upon fallacy builds up and up until the average person can't figure out the truth.
Most of America knows about the latest conclusions of scientific research, not through reading scientific journals, or listening to university lectures, instead they glean their info from facebook, youtube, MSM news outlets, and extreme fringe media. It's pop science VS real science in most cases where the proles are arguing over their watered down versions of truth. We have huge political divisions, not over scientific revelations, but moreover, a struggle between those who can plumb the depths of complex issues and those who rely on BS passing for valid information.
We, see them on interviews espousing their fear of losing or altering one's DNA after getting a shot in the arm, we see them marching outside schools holding signs that proclaim, "take the jab and die," along with signs proclaiming their fears over losing their freedom, never mind that there are NO facts involved which would support their conclusions. Knowing that science allows for utilization of facts and data when attempting to reach reasonable conclusions, and knowing that politicians utilize drama and emotion when "advising" their constituents, makes one uneasy when looking for the truth of things..
Media brings forth sensationalist proclamations from dubious "experts," unqualified "doctors," extremists from both the right and left, and of course, politicians. Scientific journals on the other hand are eschewed by the masses who prefer their information to be on the "light" side, shallow on facts and data but heavy with drama and fear mongering. It's worth noting that in the case of the Covid outbreak, governors, mayors, and presidents, are turning to scientists to determine an appropriate path forward, and in many places, the rantings of facebook devotees and conspiracy theorists are serving to refute that science.
In today's society, anyone can sow the seeds of doubt, anyone can be an "expert" and worse, anyone can become the leader of these thoughtless sheep. The end result is an open sewer of disinformation which can be utilized by unscrupulous pols seeking to advance their "career." In short, science deals in fresh clean oats, and the media and politicians prefer the oats which have passed through the Horse.
Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science. - E. O. Wilson
So is accurate to say you position is... in this 'age', science and politics is governed by how the media, whether that be print-social-cable-etc , depicts the politics and science?
So is accurate to say you position is... in this 'age', science and politics is governed by how the media, whether that be print-social-cable-etc , depicts the politics and science?
I meant to point out that science operates on a far different intellectual plane than politics, or media. And in that realization we can see the disconnect between scientific conclusions and how those conclusions are watered down to the lowest levels of understanding. And, it should be no surprise that the dumbing down process is administered by politicians and their allies in media. Media governs the masses, but not science. Media and politicians are guilty of posturing as experts, and that can only happen in a society that has little understanding of complex issues.
If we allow political ideology to taint the findings of science, I believe it will be carried out by the media and pols, and not the scientists themselves.
Last edited by jertheber; 09-08-2021 at 12:24 PM..
Back in my geology days at university, I had a professor who had been working on a particular hypothesis about where a particular invertebrate fossil fit in the evolutionary sequence. As I recall he had even published an article about his hypothesis. Then, all of a sudden, the data took him in a different direction. He published a new paper outlined his error.
On the other hand, how often have we seen politicians paint themselves into a corner where they can't let themselves escape, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence of their past error(s).
That's not to say that every scientist is ethical, or that every politician is unethical. But I think we all know where the balance on the scales sits.
I meant to point out that science operates on a far different intellectual plane than politics, or media. And in that realization we can see the disconnect between scientific conclusions and how those conclusions are watered down to the lowest levels of understanding. And, it should be no surprise that the dumbing down process is administered by politicians and their allies in media. Media governs the masses, but not science. Media and politicians are guilty of posturing as experts, and that can only happen in a society that has little understanding of complex issues.
If we allow political ideology to taint the findings of science, I believe it will be carried out by the media and pols, and not the scientists themselves.
The dumbing down of science the tainting of science ... is it not true that science and the results is the refinement of everyday thinking? Is science just for the scientist? within a specific discipline?
While you say politicians administer the dumbing down, in fact, the complexity of science is made 'complicated' by politicians and the media? making it harder to comprehend, while science makes the scientific results/findings 'understandable'?
The dumbing down of science the tainting of science ... is it not true that science and the results is the refinement of everyday thinking? Is science just for the scientist? within a specific discipline?
While you say politicians administer the dumbing down, in fact, the complexity of science is made 'complicated' by politicians and the media? making it harder to comprehend, while science makes the scientific results/findings 'understandable'?
I sense a reluctance on your part to accept science in its pure form, instead, you equate the politicization of science as an integral extension of its findings. No, it is definitely not true that science is simply a "refined" form of everyday thinking. Delve into the depths of the latest research on AI, micro biology, astro physics, nanotechnology, etc.
Read the scholarly journals of these fields of study, see if you can find the thread in the material that would lead one back to some level of "everyday thinking," I'll save you the time and reading by stating the obvious--Science, at the research level, is definitely in the realm of peer discussion and would never be the stuff of interest or comprehension for the average person.
If one is having trouble understanding the pols or media explanation of recent scientific discoveries then one should never be entertaining thoughts about reading any scientific journals with any hope of comprehending the content. I feel that science is very complex at it's core, and yes, some scientists can and do offer a layman's explanation of things, but that, in no way, would be acceptable speech in the scientific peer group. The idea expressed in one of your earlier posts adequately sums up the issue you've been skirting here. And that includes your view of science as a corrupted collective..
This, from your posting history:
"Once science integrated politics, it was no longer science. The average American knows what's best for themselves and by the way... the average American are the ones that defend your ability to denigrate average Americans.".
To suppose that the entirety of science is somehow inextricably "integrated" into the realm of politics only demonstrates a limited view of modern day science, granted, some scientists are corrupted, but that doesn't extend to the whole of science or scientists.
I sense a reluctance on your part to accept science in its pure form, instead, you equate the politicization of science as an integral extension of its findings. No, it is definitely not true that science is simply a "refined" form of everyday thinking. Delve into the depths of the latest research on AI, micro biology, astro physics, nanotechnology, etc.
Read the scholarly journals of these fields of study, see if you can find the thread in the material that would lead one back to some level of "everyday thinking," I'll save you the time and reading by stating the obvious--Science, at the research level, is definitely in the realm of peer discussion and would never be the stuff of interest or comprehension for the average person.
If one is having trouble understanding the pols or media explanation of recent scientific discoveries then one should never be entertaining thoughts about reading any scientific journals with any hope of comprehending the content. I feel that science is very complex at it's core, and yes, some scientists can and do offer a layman's explanation of things, but that, in no way, would be acceptable speech in the scientific peer group. The idea expressed in one of your earlier posts adequately sums up the issue you've been skirting here. And that includes your view of science as a corrupted collective..
This, from your posting history:
"Once science integrated politics, it was no longer science. The average American knows what's best for themselves and by the way... the average American are the ones that defend your ability to denigrate average Americans.".
To suppose that the entirety of science is somehow inextricably "integrated" into the realm of politics only demonstrates a limited view of modern day science, granted, some scientists are corrupted, but that doesn't extend to the whole of science or scientists.
Lets start here.... According to Albert Einstein, who knew a thing or two about it, "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
I tend to trust his evaluation in disciplines of science.
I sense a reluctance on your part to accept science in its pure form, instead, you equate the politicization of science as an integral extension of its findings. No, it is definitely not true that science is simply a "refined" form of everyday thinking. Delve into the depths of the latest research on AI, micro biology, astro physics, nanotechnology, etc.
Read the scholarly journals of these fields of study, see if you can find the thread in the material that would lead one back to some level of "everyday thinking," I'll save you the time and reading by stating the obvious--Science, at the research level, is definitely in the realm of peer discussion and would never be the stuff of interest or comprehension for the average person.
If one is having trouble understanding the pols or media explanation of recent scientific discoveries then one should never be entertaining thoughts about reading any scientific journals with any hope of comprehending the content. I feel that science is very complex at it's core, and yes, some scientists can and do offer a layman's explanation of things, but that, in no way, would be acceptable speech in the scientific peer group. The idea expressed in one of your earlier posts adequately sums up the issue you've been skirting here. And that includes your view of science as a corrupted collective..
This, from your posting history:
"Once science integrated politics, it was no longer science. The average American knows what's best for themselves and by the way... the average American are the ones that defend your ability to denigrate average Americans.".
To suppose that the entirety of science is somehow inextricably "integrated" into the realm of politics only demonstrates a limited view of modern day science, granted, some scientists are corrupted, but that doesn't extend to the whole of science or scientists.
Excellent response to the other poster.
Naturally, like virtually everything else, science can be politicized. But most of the time, I don't think it's "real" scientists that are politicizing it. It's scientists like Donald Trump and Rand Paul who are politicizing science (and yes, on the other side there are liberal politicians who insist on politicizing it).
I think your paragraph about reading scientific journals is right on target. With a background in geology, I can't tell you how many journal articles I read back in the day, and they were not at all what the other poster seems to be suggesting. I read more journal articles now about health issues, and I'll tell you, it's not wading in shallow water.
As far as "The average American knows what's best for themselves", my response would be...like smoking cigarettes? Like the American diet? Like an epidemic in being overweight (and I include myself in that)? Like an almost universal understanding that a covid vaccine is important for the individual's and the nation's health?
There is an ongoing attempt by the right to dumb down and denigrate science, and the reason is often fairly obvious -- they wanna do what they wanna do, not unlike the philosophy of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".
Humans are political animals. Last I checked, all scientists are humans.
Those without a background in science, tend to miss all the internal politics that surround science topics.
The WORST are scientists that become amateur politicians due to their scientific expertise. Remember the Spotted Owl crises?
President Clinton selected a "scientist" to run the Forest Service. Fix all the politics in the agency!!
The choice was between saving the public lands timber industry or the spotted owl. The SCIENTIST accomplished a TWO-FER, yep, Dr. Jack Ward Thomas destroyed the public lands timber industry and sent the spotted owl well into extinction.
Society would have been better off having the politicians chose one or the other. At least we might have had owls or a public lands timber industry instead of 30,000 plus jobs lost, entire communities devastated AND the spotted owl headed for extinction.
The problem is most scientist know a LOT about a LITTLE.
Solving issues in society means knowing a LITTLE about a LOT. The are very few PhD's given in the sciences that cover knowing a LITTLE about a LOT.
The pandemic today, is another prime example of having scientists directing public policy without a understanding how the world functions.
Knowing a LOT about a LITTLE, will get you in trouble every time trying to solve a public crises.
Perhaps I am too old for debating but I am an excellent observer and I believe you are very correct in that many scientists (certainly government scientists) tend to know much about a little and little about a lot. You seem to have some work experience in this topic?
Unfortunately, most of the government scientists I've been exposed to were severely lacking in social skills and made very bad program managers. Many political problems became worse whenever a purely technical person without social skills was given charge of a program involving a wide range of people with varying skills and backgrounds.
Knowingly selected by an agency's Personnel for their outstanding scientific skills, government scientists' social skills seemed to be totally ignored at times. Some scientists I've met were such introverts they worked best behind closed doors and with little input from their coworkers. Some were totally disinterested in other topics.
Not to say that Dr. Jack Ward was a bit socially inept, but as a former biologist, I too remember the spotted owl fiasco. However I was never closely involved with that program.
And I also agree that scientists are human and ALL human are political animals. The scenario is extremely rare where pure science drives politics in any government program but, even where it appears to be the primary energy force, look for political hijinks to be the fire in that energy source.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
