Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: smart on 18/12/2016 22:45:20
-
The radicalisation of science is a fabrication of our modernized civilisations to research and develop new technologies to polarize society into distinct classes. For example, modern psychiatry develops new drugs with potentially harmful side-effects while generating maximum profit from poorly educated people conditionated to believe in the necessity of psychiatric medication to heal themselves. I think this mental conditioning can result in the radicalisation of scientific research, were profits and revenues from the selling of synthetic drugs (ie: antipsychotics) undermine the potential to research novel technologies for social order purpose.
In addition, scientific research based on capitalism is strictly bound to an ideology which discriminates the value of true scientific progress in exchange of a capitalist-like system. This closed order (capitalism) may also discriminate the scientific method used by scientists expecting to believe into the rationality of their judgments and may affect the whole experimental process.
Hence, the radicalisation of modern science is a controversial subject and its motivations should be further defined to avoid the captivity of society into a specific capitalist order.
eVil StOner
-
Several interesting points here. But I think it deserves a more sophisticated analysis.
Bad capitalism: creating an artificial market for unnecessary crap. Can be harmless (perfume and jewelry advertisements), self-limiting ("art"), mildly dangerous (illegal addictive drugs) or very dangerous (legal addictive drugs).
Good capitalism: bringing useful products within reach of the majority in a competitive market. Generally better than a controlled economy because you can innovate on a whim and the market will eliminate weak products (in principle).
Science is a useful tool for any of the above activities. It's always "radical" because it is inherently fundamentalist and not tied to any particular school of thought or process.
-
Bad capitalism: creating an artificial market for unnecessary crap. Can be harmless (perfume and jewelry advertisements), self-limiting ("art"), mildly dangerous (illegal addictive drugs) or very dangerous (legal addictive drugs).
Good capitalism: bringing useful products within reach of the majority in a competitive market. Generally better than a controlled economy because you can innovate on a whim and the market will eliminate weak products (in principle).
These morph from one to the other over time. For example, good capitalism brings a product such as mobile phones to the market, but sooner or later the market becomes saturated, and then manufacturers have to devise ever more ways of inducing people to throw away serviceable products and buy new ones. When that extends to a large part of the economy that's bad for both the environment and society.
-
I think imperialist capitalism is dragging modern science into radicalism by adopting a techno-economical system based on the imperatives of the market. The neutrality of science is depending on the "elites" promoting liberal research which polarize society into "consumers" of technology, rather than focusing on fundamental scientific knowledge. The politicisation of scientists striving to meet their liberal requirements can lead to scientific radicalisation by discriminating socialist-based science.
-
Fine words, but bollocks. "Socialist science" has had an appalling history under Nazi and Communist regimes, and government-funded engineering projects always seem to run over budget and under performance. Alan Shepherd's black joke about "ten million moving parts, each built by the lowest bidder" has an upside in that NASA managed the manned moon program to a tight budget by introducing a quality management system that guaranteed compatibility and performance from competitive contractors, but that was a rare example compared with the disasters of Lysenko, the R101 and carbon credits.
Most beneficial scientific discoveries are made during the investigation of failures of products or systems, and are thus driven by market forces. Pursuit of knowledge at public expense rarely generates actual benefit. I am going to commit a major heresy here and state that in my opinion the mapping of the human genome has been mostly a waste of time and money. We can now make statistical predictions of the likelihood of individuals contracting certain diseases but these odds are little better than could have been estimated from family history, and get us no closer to preventing or treating the disease, whereas commercial production and distribution of smallpox vaccine has competely eliminated a major killer.
-
You say that Alan, but the data from the genome is immense. Who knows what hidden algorithms are at work.
In his book Freakenomics, Stephen Levitt shows how he analysed the drop in crime rate figures in America mid to late 90's. It came across as very amusing when he proved that these radical drops in crime rate could not be due to 'improved police strategies' as the government 'spin' pronounced.
Levitt drew parallels with Romania where abortion was outlawed under the Chow Chesku regime and women were forced to have babies, resulting in a sharp rise in crime wave figures some 20 to 25 years later.
Levitt proved that the missing and unexplained percentage of value of the drop in crime figures in the USA could be directly linked to the 1973 change in abortion laws giving most American women the right to choose, and it was the fact that 43 (?) or so million unwanted children had not been born that America was experiencing a drop in the crime figures.
The genome data will undoubtably be rife with such hidden cause and effects. For instance if there were a correlation between people who are susceptible to autoimmune diseases being more susceptible to falling sick and dying of small pox, then the eradication of small pox would explain the rising figure in autoimmune disease being reported. (a loose analogy you realise)
What is pretty worrying is the genetically modified stuff that is going on. Spider goats and the like! Does that qualify as scientific radicalism? I'm uncertain of the definition.
Modified corn containing strains of genetic codes that the living body does not recognise as food because those strains do not exist in nature. Modified foods then modifying the genes of the ingester.
Does this qualify as scientific radicalisation?
-
What is pretty worrying is the genetically modified stuff that is going on. Spider goats and the like! Does that qualify as scientific radicalism? I'm uncertain of the definition.
Modified corn containing strains of genetic codes that the living body does not recognise as food because those strains do not exist in nature. Modified foods then modifying the genes of the ingester.
Does this qualify as scientific radicalisation?
Yes. The abuse of genetics is a potential consequence of a deficient capitalist system to direct scientific research into a non-materialist (neutral) order. See: http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science
-
Good capitalism: bringing useful products within reach of the majority in a competitive market. Generally better than a controlled economy because you can innovate on a whim and the market will eliminate weak products (in principle).
There is little evidence for this. Innovators are not rewarded in a capitalist system, only people who use innovations are. Thus the persistent use of market distortions in the form of copyright and other forms of intellectual property in supposedly capitalist economic systems. Additionally, in the powerhouse of innovation for pharmaceuticals, the USA, a great majority of research funding originates from the state, not the private sector.
-
I think the scientific radicalisation via Internet censorship degrades the neutrality of science and may prevent scientists to investigate independently. Systematic censoring of the Internet is oppression agaisn't the freedom to distribute, publish and create independent research. The radicalisation of Internet-based communication is an evidence of the failure of the network to allow content-neutral speech.
-
The radicalisation of science is a fabrication of our modernized civilisations to research and develop new technologies to polarize society into distinct classes. For example, modern psychiatry develops new drugs with potentially harmful side-effects while generating maximum profit from poorly educated people conditionated to believe in the necessity of psychiatric medication to heal themselves. I think this mental conditioning can result in the radicalisation of scientific research, were profits and revenues from the selling of synthetic drugs (ie: antipsychotics) undermine the potential to research novel technologies for social order purpose.
In addition, scientific research based on capitalism is strictly bound to an ideology which discriminates the value of true scientific progress in exchange of a capitalist-like system. This closed order (capitalism) may also discriminate the scientific method used by scientists expecting to believe into the rationality of their judgments and may affect the whole experimental process.
Hence, the radicalisation of modern science is a controversial subject and its motivations should be further defined to avoid the captivity of society into a specific capitalist order.
eVil StOner
To a certain extent I agree with you about psychiatry and psychotherapy. Studies and meta-studies of the effectiveness of massage therapy in treating depression and anxiety have proved beyond doubt that massage therapy is at least as effective as psychotherapy. Try Pubmed if you don't believe me. Or just google "massage meta-analysis depression" Yet how many depressed patients are diagnosed a course of massage???
On the other hand, turning this into a grand conspiracy theory narrative is counter-productive. You need to provide specific evidence for your narrative, otherwise you will come across as a bit loony. Studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with lower analytic thinking, delusional ideation, schizotypy, and mental disorders.
-
n my opinion the mapping of the human genome has been mostly a waste of time and money.>
I wouldn't quite go that far.
I would say that the Human Genome Project drove development of high-speed sequencing. The competition with Craig Venter led to the development of shotgun sequencing and associated algorithms.
The first sequenced genome provided a framework which makes it much faster to assemble the results of later genetic reads.
-
On the other hand, turning this into a grand conspiracy theory narrative is counter-productive. You need to provide specific evidence for your narrative, otherwise you will come across as a bit loony. Studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with lower analytic thinking, delusional ideation, schizotypy, and mental disorders.
I suggest you avoid using the "conspiracy theory" label. This term was coined by the CIA in 1967 to degrade the intellectual value of independent research: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
-
On the other hand, turning this into a grand conspiracy theory narrative is counter-productive. You need to provide specific evidence for your narrative, otherwise you will come across as a bit loony. Studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with lower analytic thinking, delusional ideation, schizotypy, and mental disorders.
I suggest you avoid using the "conspiracy theory" label. This term was coined by the CIA in 1967 to degrade the intellectual value of independent research: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge)
That's exactly the kind of thing conspiracy theorists say. At least 3 conspiracy theorists have pointed that out to me. Nowadays the term "conspiracy theorist" describes people who believe in all kinds of wacky conspiracies WITHOUT solid evidence, including anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists who believe vaccines cause autism, despite a complete lack of evidence for that belief, and masses of evidence which disprove any link with autism.
There is solid evidence that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with lower analytical thinking https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(14)00163-2 (https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(14)00163-2) , and various mental disorders. I'll post the links if you like.
If you believe something, you must have solid evidence, otherwise you are demonstrating lower analytical thinking. Please be a critical thinker and question your own judgement and your own beliefs. Don't trust yourself. Don't trust conspiracy theory websites. Trust in empirical evidence and the scientific method.
-
If you believe something, you must have solid evidence, otherwise you are demonstrating lower analytical thinking. Please be a critical thinker and question your own judgement and your own beliefs. Don't trust yourself. Don't trust conspiracy theory websites. Trust in empirical evidence and the scientific method.
You might be interested in this article on what is now being termed the post-truth era where opinion is being accepted as truth.
What does post-truth mean for a philosopher?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38557838 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38557838)
-
That's exactly the kind of thing conspiracy theorists say. At least 3 conspiracy theorists have pointed that out to me. Nowadays the term "conspiracy theorist" describes people who believe in all kinds of wacky conspiracies WITHOUT solid evidence, including anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists who believe vaccines cause autism, despite a complete lack of evidence for that belief, and masses of evidence which disprove any link with autism.
There is solid evidence that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with lower analytical thinking https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(14)00163-2 (https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(14)00163-2) , and various mental disorders. I'll post the links if you like.
If you believe something, you must have solid evidence, otherwise you are demonstrating lower analytical thinking. Please be a critical thinker and question your own judgement and your own beliefs. Don't trust yourself. Don't trust conspiracy theory websites. Trust in empirical evidence and the scientific method.
The term "conspiracy theory" is a negative label for independent research challenging the "official narratives". This is a undeniable fact supported by tangible evidences. You definitely need critical thinking to understand why independent research is critical to science. The neutrality of science is monopolized by the radicalisation of scientific knowledge.
-
Science is not self sufficient in terms of resources. Science is dependent on public and private sector funding. It is not like in the movie, Iron Man where a billionaire funds his own science, free of strings attached. Neither the private or public sector will give millions to science without some strings attached. These strings are based on the needs of power or profits.
The free market is useful to science, since it has the advantage of competition, allowing contrary research to be supported for the needs of market share. This can be useful to broadening understanding. But others aspects of the free market will think in terms of profits, first, which may mean less critical and more consumer driven research; better shampoo.
The private sector has little if any competition except by the other political parties. NASA funding was not as critical to the Democrats because NASA was centered in Republican territory; Texas and Florida. The public sector gives money to science based on politics and political agenda; solar power. This approach allows the preponderance of the evidence, to be generated by whomever gets the most funding, which can then be a function of shared political bias and even cronyism. This is why there are so many lobbyists; aeronautics.
If you look at climate change and global warming, Trump may not fund this the same way as did the Obama Administration. He does not have the same agenda, with respect to oil and climate. He may decide to a buy a different preponderance of the data, to support a different view.
Since science needs money, most scientists are mercenaries, and will go with the flow. People need to work and eat. Few will make a stand on truth and being willing to sacrifice creature comforts. If you lose your job for a cigarette company, you may enter a cancer research center, since a job is a job and the same skill may cross over.
-
That's exactly the kind of thing conspiracy theorists say. At least 3 conspiracy theorists have pointed that out to me. Nowadays the term "conspiracy theorist" describes people who believe in all kinds of wacky conspiracies WITHOUT solid evidence, including anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists who believe vaccines cause autism, despite a complete lack of evidence for that belief, and masses of evidence which disprove any link with autism.
There is solid evidence that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with lower analytical thinking https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(14)00163-2 (https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(14)00163-2) , and various mental disorders. I'll post the links if you like.
If you believe something, you must have solid evidence, otherwise you are demonstrating lower analytical thinking. Please be a critical thinker and question your own judgement and your own beliefs. Don't trust yourself. Don't trust conspiracy theory websites. Trust in empirical evidence and the scientific method.
The term "conspiracy theory" is a negative label for independent research challenging the "official narratives". This is a undeniable fact supported by tangible evidences. You definitely need critical thinking to understand why independent research is critical to science. The neutrality of science is monopolized by the radicalisation of scientific knowledge.
Perhaps you'd better learn more about language. Conspiracy theorist refers to people who believe in conspiracies. The word "conspiracy" in English is hundreds of years old, and comes from old Latin and French words which are thousands of years old. Words are used by different people in different contexts. The term "conspiracy theory" was used well before the 1960s. It does tend to have a negative connotation nowadays simply because so many conspiracy theorists believe wacky things without evidence for their beliefs.
Don't call yourself a conspiracy theorist, it indicates you have lower analytical thinking, which you are already demonstrating by alleging there is a conspiracy to radicalise science without providing any evidence for your claims, and also by showing such a simplistic understanding of the term "conspiracy theory".
In fact most scientific studies ARE independent studies, i.e. they are all conducted by different organisations for different reasons. There is no single scientific authority. Many studies, especially clinical studies, are monitored, approved and reviewed by independent institutional review boards (IRBs), which consist of a range of people who have no vested interest in the party conducting the study. The establishment and operation of an institutional review board is further overseen by an independent regulatory authority to confirm that it complies with principles ensuring neutrality and impartiality. Laboratories, institutions, manufacturers and distributors performing tests and studies are continuously subject to investigations and conformity audits by regulatory authorities and certifying bodies to ensure their scientific practices meet accepted standards of quality, rigour, precision, accuracy, consistency, to check that documentation and raw data such as test records and lab notes are consistent with test reports and submitted documents, to confirm that test equipment is maintained and calibrated accurately, and to confirm various other things.
Science includes all kinds of checks and mechanisms like this to eliminate biases and exclude imperfect data. The same cannot be said for conspiracy theorists' handling of evidence, ahaha.
-
I would say that at least two fields of Science have been "radicalised" - in the sense that no-one dares express a dissenting view.
These are:
1. Climatology
2. Anthropology
The reasons are obvious, but can't be told, as no-one wants to get arrested for thought-crime. Isn't it sad?
-
I would say that at least two fields of Science have been "radicalised" - in the sense that no-one dares express a dissenting view.
These are:
1. Climatology
2. Anthropology
The reasons are obvious, but can't be told, as no-one wants to get arrested for thought-crime. Isn't it sad?
Any evidence for your belief?
You do know that science and the scientific community is self-regulating, don't you? i.e. fake data always gets found out and any scientist who deliberately faked data can no longer have a career in science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruko_Obokata
-
I would say that at least two fields of Science have been "radicalised" - in the sense that no-one dares express a dissenting view.
These are:
1. Climatology
2. Anthropology
The reasons are obvious, but can't be told, as no-one wants to get arrested for thought-crime. Isn't it sad?
Scientists are not a group of people that would tolerate the notion of "thought crimes." Usually it is those who have much to lose if the truth gets out (those with religious, economic or political power that depends on a certain worldview) who levy charges of thought crimes against inquisitive scientists who question that worldview.
While I do think there has been a systematic shift in the way that science has been presented (due to the reign of the publish or perish landscape in much of academia), which has driven many individual scientists to overestimate the impact and underestimate their uncertainty, this is a far cry from anything I would define as radicalism.
Are there there scientific institutions or movements focused on violent suppression of the undereducated?
No.
Are there there scientific institutions or movements that conspire to defraud their benefactors?
No.
Are there there scientific institutions or movements that advocate overthrow of governments or extermination of religious minorities?
No.
Are terrorists, alone or organized, that commit terrorist acts on the behalf of science?
Not that I know of, and I feel like it would be headline news if a bunch of chemists and engineers decided to blow something up to make a point...
Scientists are a group largely made up of of people who spent about 10 years devoting themselves to education in their field (4 year Bachelor's and 6 year PhD), and then continue to work overtime for comparatively little pay so they can unlock the secrets of the universe for the benefit of the rest of their community and society at large.
-
Here's a relevant paper (http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/download/5308/2209) on the radicalisation of science. In my opinion, unilateral/clandestine geoengineering activity is evidence of the radicalisation of climatology. Hence, climate change is a "radical" movement. So I agree with you zx16... :)
-
Here's a relevant paper (http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/download/5308/2209) on the radicalisation of science.
This article was published in 1972 in the Socialist Register, and it is arguing FOR the radicalisation of science. Did you read the last section, "PERSPECTIVES IN THE ORGANISING OF SCIENTISTS"? It attempts to explain why scientists haven't been radicalised properly, and explain what needs to be done to radicalise them.
This is the last paragraph: "It is precisely because of the need for this political framework that the innovative developments of the last three years need consolidation within an organised Marxist group. The task can no longer be left to organisations of scientists, operating in a liberal-libertarian mould, or small theoretical groups. Scientists now need to bring their science into the area of activity of the Marxist groups, and the groups to accept their responsibilities for political work in science. This collective development is the way forward to a much wider and deeper radicalism amongst scientists than ever before."
-
Here's a relevant paper (http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/download/5308/2209) on the radicalisation of science.
This article was published in 1972 in the Socialist Register, and it is arguing FOR the radicalisation of science. Did you read the last section, "PERSPECTIVES IN THE ORGANISING OF SCIENTISTS"? It attempts to explain why scientists haven't been radicalised properly, and explain what needs to be done to radicalise them.
This is the last paragraph: "It is precisely because of the need for this political framework that the innovative developments of the last three years need consolidation within an organised Marxist group. The task can no longer be left to organisations of scientists, operating in a liberal-libertarian mould, or small theoretical groups. Scientists now need to bring their science into the area of activity of the Marxist groups, and the groups to accept their responsibilities for political work in science. This collective development is the way forward to a much wider and deeper radicalism amongst scientists than ever before."
That's a fair point. Thanks for pointing this.
-
Scientific radicalisation and obfuscation works together to drive modern science into elitism.
-
The fabrication of the "conspiracy theory" label is a major step back in the democratization of science. Independent research is critical to the democratic system to prevent the polarization and radicalisation of science.
-
The fabrication of the "conspiracy theory" label is a major step back in the democratization of science. Independent research is critical to the democratic system to prevent the polarization and radicalisation of science.
There's nothing wrong with independent research so long as it can potentially be verified and repeated. Conspiracy theories are usually unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be considered science anyway.