Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Right, left, wrong: People reject science because ...


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 05 October 2013 - 10:24 PM

You'd be forgiven for thinking science is under attack. Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics, vaccination rates are falling thanks to anti-vaccination movements, and GM crops are pillaged by anti-GM activists. But what determines why people take these positions?

Posted Image
Foremost is a person's "worldview", their basic beliefs in how society should be structured and operate. Recent research has shown time and time again that people who endorse extreme free-market economics are prone to reject science with regulatory implications – such as the link between tobacco and lung cancer, or greenhouse gasses and climate change.

On the flip-side are speculations that the anti-GM and anti-vaccination movement are the domain of the political left. Some commentators have even referred to a "liberal war on science", and have claimed that both ends of spectrum have their own selective blindness to evidence.

So, is the rejection of science politically symmetrical? If people on the right reject climate science, do people on the left reject evidence inconvenient to their worldview?


Read more at: http://phys.org/news...cience.html#jCp

Edited by ohreally?, 05 October 2013 - 10:25 PM.


#2 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:53 AM

It is all a matter of "beliefs". Posted Image
Posted Image

#3 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:07 AM

World view is fine for general opinions. As some wit pointed out after the 1938 broadcast of Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds", people are stupid. There are two major classes of people in any belief system. Those who have something to gain from the acceptance of their position, and those who's belief system agrees to some degree with the first class. It is the first bunch that have to be watched as they are the driving force of any change that may occur. They may not even really believe in the issue, but it does steer the masses in the direction they want things to go.

This is not a moral judgment. Many movements will have a benevolent result, if not for the exact reasons that the issue is based, but on a more emotional basis. Rejection of increased greenhouse gasses is on the whole a good thing, but it might get there for very strange reasons, for example. The nay-sayers may truly be concerned about melting ice caps and increased storm activity, but the acceptance of warming will impinge upon profit margins. And the vast majority of people ebb and flow between the two moving forces.

The third group of people are the doers. And as history shows, they move right along in spite of all the outside hub-bub.

Can't Fall Off the Floor


#4 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:31 PM

The reason “science is under attack” is largely due to the fact that “science”, politics and religion have become interchangeable.

There was a time in the distant past that if there was an issue, then a “scientist” would gather data relative to the issue, interpret that data, and present a hypothesis based on that interpretation. Other scientists would then test that hypothesis, and prove it either right or wrong. If it were proven right, then it would be accepted as fact, and science would advance. If it were proven wrong, then the hypotheses would be either abandoned or modified, and the process would be repeated.

However, in the current climate, these archaic principles have largely been abandoned.

The current practice is for someone to formulate a hypothesis, then manufacture the data to support that hypothesis. This hypothesis and manufactured data are them passed around amongst friends of the author who provide the hypothesis with their stamp of approval.
On future occasions, when these “friends” come up with a hypothesis, the favor is returned.

As a consequence of this process, much garbage is produced under the guise of “science”.

However, most scientists have neither the time or the inclination to check the veracity of either the process or the results; and therefore accept the thesis on face value.

Once the thesis has been accepted, it becomes dogma and few will challenge it.

However, quite often the hypothesis becomes a matter of general interest. Under those circumstances, the thesis is shown to be bogus, and is discarded. However, in the process the entire scientific process becomes tainted.

The cumulative effect of this tainting of the process is that “science” in general has become suspect, and the general public, scientists included, have become very cynical of both “science” and “scientists”.

Given this corruption of science, and the cynicism of the public, it is hardly surprising that “science” and “Scientists” are bundled together with snake oil salesmen and charlatans. The general public have become distrustful of science and look elsewhere for their answers.
We have been observing this on this site with respect to “The Great Global Warming Scam”.

A number of individuals have put themselves forward in these threads as “scientists”, claiming some kind of divine superiority over the general unwashed masses. In reality, they have demonstrated that they have become caught up in the general corruption of science, and are no more knowledgeable than anyone else. Their opinions are of no particular value.

This has relevance to the topic of this web site: the supernormal.

The debate over climate has shown that those who purport to be scientists are no less prone to be belief driven than anyone else. On this site, this belief driven mentality has been demonstrated by the self-appointed spokesmen for science, manifest in their outright rejection of even the concept that there may be bodies of knowledge beyond the boundaries currently set by “science”.

In other words, they have formed opinions without any evidence, and then proceeded to defend those opinions.

Since this attitude is manifest throughout science, it is hardly surprising that science is “under attack”.

Scientists have to do a lot of work to clean up their act before they will be able to separate themselves from snake oil salesmen, lawyers and used car salesmen.

#5 loganinkosovo

loganinkosovo

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afghanistan

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:00 AM

The current practice is for someone to formulate a hypothesis, then manufacture the data to support that hypothesis. This hypothesis and manufactured data are them passed around amongst friends of the author who provide the hypothesis with their stamp of approval.
On future occasions, when these “friends” come up with a hypothesis, the favor is returned.

As a consequence of this process, much garbage is produced under the guise of “science”.



You forgot the part about where they rip off the tax-payers for Billions in Government Grants

and force more and more absurd, massively costly regulations designed to destroy western economies on those same tax-payers.
The only difference between Socialism and National Socialism is the snappy uniforms. - Logan "Aside from ending Slavery, Fascism and Communist World Domination, War has never solved anything!""For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute! But it's "Savior of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot." - Rudyard Kipling"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."---George Orwell"Always Remember-All Lessons in Life are Expensive.....and the last one costs you everything you have." - Logan"Socialism is just Communism without a Dictator....and you can always find a Dictator!" - Logan"An Armed Man is a Citizen. An Unarmed Man is a Subject. Subject to anything anyone wants to do to him." - Logan

#6 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 06:14 PM

For those of you who still cling to the faith that there is still integrity in "science":

Growing evidence of great climate change scams HERE'S some news to put a great big smile on your face: apparently, Arctic sea ice volume is up by 50 per cent. Have you cracked open the champagne yet? Did you ring all your mates? Me neither. In fact, to be honest, I couldn't care less whether it's up 50 per cent or down 50 per cent. It's just weather doing what weather does - changing all the time.

But you wouldn't guess this from the way it is reported in the media. Sceptical websites are presenting it as a vindication of their longstanding claim that all the fuss about catastrophic, man-made global warming has been greatly overdone. Warmist news outlets ("a rare piece of good news", declared the BBC) are greeting it as a sign of hope that maybe there is time left for us to save the planet from the Greatest Threat It Has Ever Known.

Both sides are missing the point. Let me draw your attention to three recent news stories that show why. The first comes from Britain, where reporter David Rose has revealed the extent to which certain politicians and high-level government advisers have benefited financially from the great climate change scam.

These include at least four members of the government's Climate Change Committee, the official watchdog that dictates Britain's green energy policy; Nicholas Stern, the accountant whose eponymous 2006 report (widely criticised for its flawed economics) was used to justify many of Britain's most aggressive and costly carbon emissions-reduction schemes; and the chief executive and chairman of the Pound3.8 billion ($7bn) taxpayer-funded Green Investment Bank.

In their official roles, these people have helped shape the government policy that has resulted in billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being diverted into subsidising green industries. Yet in their private roles these same individuals collectively have made many hundreds of thousand of pounds as special advisers and shareholders in green businesses whose profits are largely dependent on state-enforced subsidies.

The conflict of interest is shocking, yet what these troughers have been doing is apparently perfectly legal.

Next, let us move to the US where an even more egregious scandal has just been exposed.

The Environmental Protection Agency's highest paid climate expert John Beale has been found guilty of cheating his organisation out of nearly $US1 million ($1.1m) in salary and benefits across a 10-year period.

Beale was a US top environmental regulator, responsible for rewriting the 1990 Clean Air Act, leading the EPA delegation at UN climate conferences, negotiating carbon emissions reduction agreements with China and India.

Yet it now seems he used his job mainly as an excuse to travel first-class and stay in five-star hotels at taxpayers' expense, pretending to be a CIA operative.

Officials have described it in court documents as one of the most audacious, creative, federal frauds they have encountered.
Now to Australia and the speech made to the Senate this month on the subject of wind farms by the Democratic Labour Party's John Madigan. It describes, in eye-watering detail, the unhealthily cosy relationship between the wind industry in Victoria and senior members of the state government.

Madigan tells the story of the Waubra wind farm, a vast complex of 128 wind turbines, which began operating in 2009. Since then, there have been more than 1300 complaints about the noise irritation and health problems caused to local residents by the turbines. In at least 11 cases, families were driven permanently from their homes. So why wasn't anything done in response?

Thanks to Freedom of Information requests made by Madigan, we now know that although the Victorian government has long had more than sufficient grounds to close Waubra for non-compliance with noise regulations, it instead has been sitting on its hands.

As Madigan's speech damningly concludes: "Victoria's wind industry is churning out multiple millions of dollars' worth of renewable energy certificates it is not entitled to and is being allowed to rort the REC and LRET (the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target) systems. Banks and superannuation funds are lending billions of dollars for the construction of wind farms, exposed to serious risk arising from the planning permit non-compliance being orchestrated by the wind industry."

What should concern us about all three of these stories is not that they are rare aberrations but that they are depressingly representative of the corruption and malfeasance that are rife throughout the multi-billion-dollar global climate change industry.

I've been covering this territory as a journalist for nigh-on a decade now, reporting on issues such as the Climategate emails in which private correspondence by some of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's lead authors revealed them to have been twisting the evidence and abusing the scientific method to exaggerate the extent of so-called anthropogenic global warming.

But the conclusion I have long since reached is that the scientific debate about whether man-made carbon emissions are dangerously and unprecedentedly warming the planet is a poisonous distraction. It's nothing but an elephant trap, devised by hardcore environmentalists, shyster politicians, rent-seeking businesses and grant-troughing activist scientists to get everyone bogged down in trivial "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments about global temperature changes of a fraction of a degree.

Yes, the latest evidence suggests that the "warmists" are losing this debate too: sunspot activity is proving to be the weakest in 100 years, suggesting we are probably entering a prolonged period of global cooling, redolent of the era of frost fairs on London's River Thames.

Really, though, it doesn't matter which side of the scientific argument you sit on - whether you're an ardent true believer like Tim Flannery or an arch-sceptic like Ian Plimer. What should concern every one of us far more, surely, is the way that in the name of saving the planet so much corruption has been embedded, so much money wasted and so much public trust abused - all of it at our expense.

James Delingpole is a British journalist and author.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users