True transparency in science, as in all ideas are equally as important.

A rather dangerous trend in the science of the world lately has been that whatever becomes political, only that side can ever have merit in scientific circles. This is the same kind of sociopolitical rational regarding science that kept people in the dark about the reality of the world and space. When government and science become too involved on an issue, truth regarding the science becomes horrifically skewed so that only one side ever gets any consideration and the other side is ostracized and ultimately rejected without being given it's due consideration.

This has happened today with numerous scientifically-based issues, some the most skewed of which are global warming, creationism and atheism, homosexuality, the differences between the sexes, e.t.c...

I believe we need to insist that true freedom be give it's say rather than one-sided liberty that only ever leads to autocracies and deadly inaccuracies.

All ideas need to be presented and given appropriate merit and freedom. For example, how many trillions have been spent on convincing us that humans are the cause of global warming, how many children indoctrinated on this belief, how many Democrats and leftwing groups got rich off of this at the greater expense of our personal and economic liberties, at even the liberties of the peoples of third world nations like Africa who's industrial development is largely discouraged by a world petrified of CO2?

Well, this has to stop. For the last 15 years global warming hasn't even been happening. For the last decade, the globe has actually been cooling. When were the records for this finally released so that the world could even know, in 2012, 14 years after the globe had actually stopped warming.

If this continues, a lot of powerfully rich people are going to crash and burn as they've built their empires upon convincing us that humans are causing global warming.

The shame is that this should never have even gotten to this point.

Do you know why it did, because for the better part of the last 3 or 4 decades, the political-scientific structure of the free-world, especially the U.S. has been rejecting and ostracizing scientists and others and their studies who have the audacity to challenge the popular left-wing opinion regarding global warming.

Now, all of this upset, all of this disparaging of developing nations, all of this that we've been indoctrinating our kids with might all have been for absolutely nothing, just to make a bunch of Democrats and irrational left-wing environmentalists extremely rich and powerful.

I cannot fathom that in a nation supposedly open-minded and free as we are, that we could have so easily tolerated such a concerted effort by any side of government to so dominate an issue that even our very science has become but mere propaganda.

The issue is this tendency modern societies have to take one side and run with it, rejecting all dissent regarding the issue, and this is what needs to stop. And we certainly should never ever ostracize someone because they present science contrary to popular science. Indeed, we should instead objectively focus on that and study it further, encourage the scientist to continue in that direction because fundamentally, that's what science is all about, objectively understanding all the facets of something, not just the ones most convenient for us while ignoring and actively suppressing those that present most "inconvenient truthes" for politicians and their special interest allies.



  • My bad, I went through this whole thing and didn't even propose a solution. I can't believe how liberal I'm acting.

    Here's my suggestion towards a solution. Double-blind funding of research from those associated with public institutions. Politicians, special interests, and anyone else does not know to which labs or scientists their money goes, only that it goes towards the field of research they have chosen. Likewise, the labs, scientists, and educational institutions who are being funded do not know which politicians, groups, or others are funding them, only that they're getting so much money for funding.

    I know, this will utterly ruin the incentives created by the grant system we currently utilize, but I can't think of any alternatives that won't lead to the same results, objective science right up to a point where politics get involved and suddenly only one side ever sees the light of day as far as research and support goes. And education and the nation suffers, truth suffers another blow.

    Maybe you have a better suggestion, but I don't know how you can ensure that funding will be fair and unbiased if people know who they're getting their funding from and the funders know where they money is going.

    I suppose that might work too. Those who do the funding can choose whom it goes too, but the researchers don't know who it's coming from. But that will just lead to backroom deals as those with the funds find those they want to fund in private and tells them in secret why they're funding them.

  • I know, how about private businesses can fund their own scientists they hire, but in order to fund any in public institutions, it has to be a blind funding.

    At least with the double-blind system of funding, the research scientist is not compelled to pursue certain more convenient avenues of research. And those who are researching something that is likely to oppose the popular consensus of the day don't have to worry that their funding will be cut short and the scientific community at large is not financially compelled to reject science that opposes the popular consensus.

  • Now, I'm all for fair and unbiased funding of science, but science isn't nearly as political as you make it out to be.
    There's good science, which is based on evidence, hypothesis testing and challenging one's own views.
    There's bad science, which is based on hard-held pre-existing convictions, wishful thinking and fraud. The former includes also scientists who diverge from the "status-quo". The latter does not deserve money and such scientists are shunned. I fear your double-blind solution will make for a lot more bad scientists or even very lazy scientists, if you don't even need to do anything to get funding besides saying you're a scientific institution.

    I fear however that we will disagree on which people publish the good and the bad science. I think the best way to tackle this, is for everyone to be able to publish (imagine for example a mainstream climate science journal and one in which global warming can be heartfully denied). These publications should be available to anyone for free (especially in third world countries). This will increase transparency. We need people to read the articles, access their sources and make informed decisions on who to believe, and allow for good debunking.

    There's a train of evidence leading us to formulate certain conclusions. This exists for the plate tectonics, the age of the earth, the theory of evolution and yes, global warming. The problem is that these facts do not fit in the world view of certain people, or prevent people from making money* and the fundamental science isn't easy to understand for the lay person. The real world isn't simple, so we need good educators to translate science and improve scientific literacy. "Good" as I described above will work for either side of the debates currently going on.

    * (I think if you research it, you would find more money has gone into denying global warming than into "promoting" it. No bunch of democrats and left-wing environmentalists have become extremely rich and powerful off global warming, that's nonsense)

    And Africa is not a nation. Don't ever say that again unless you want to be disqualified off the bat.

  • I have agreed to the title, not to the views expressed in the description and have voiced my concerns and alternatives.

  • I don't really see what you mean, but maybe it's a bit different in the UK. I see a lot of bad science, but most of it is promoted by so called celebrities or the tabloid press.
    Yes, sometimes bad science is promoted by a politician, but if it is they are soon called to task by the media, which is odd as they are usually the ones promoting it...

Similar Ideas: