Skip to comments.
How science became politicized
Spectator ^
| 9/4/2022
| Toby Young
Posted on 09/06/2022 7:01:10 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: whyilovetexas111
When a scientist is penalized for not having the "approved" views, it ceases being "science".
Grades suffer, grant funding is withheld, legitimate studies are unpublished....
2
posted on
09/06/2022 7:04:48 AM PDT
by
G Larry
(Biden: Ignorant and Dishonest Before he was Senile.)
To: whyilovetexas111
Dr. Jason Fung: Financial Conflicts of Interests and the End of Evidence-Based Medicine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IO2DZjOkY
Concerns nutrition “science” but applies to all of it.
“Kealey is a former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, a professor of clinical biochemistry, a scholar affiliated with the Cato Institute, and author of the book Breakfast Is a Dangerous Meal. During his presentation, he discussed the myth of scientific objectivity, drawing examples widely from history as well as his personal experiences within many of the most reputable scientific institutions.
People will “very quickly rationalize and create a little paradigm to justify what they believe is true,” Kealey explained, emphasizing with a bit of wry humor that scientists are, in fact, people and engage in the kind of data-distorting practices he then went on to describe. “We commit to paradigms, and then we bend the data to it.”
The problem of science’s commitment to paradigms, Kealey claimed, is exacerbated by several factors, including government involvement and chummy funding practices whereby support is given only to those intellectual allies with whom one agrees.
“Now, you get money not for being right; you get money for satisfying the prejudices of the people who sit on the committees in the NIH and NSF,” Kealey said.”
Dr. Terence Kealey and the Myth of Scientific Objectivity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzcsxo-fhs
3
posted on
09/06/2022 7:10:58 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
To: whyilovetexas111
What does Lysenko think?…
4
posted on
09/06/2022 7:12:26 AM PDT
by
EEGator
To: whyilovetexas111
Better explanation...
here.
That clinking, clanking, clunking sound...
5
posted on
09/06/2022 7:12:48 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
(We need to repeal RCV wherever it's in use and go back to dumb voting machines.)
To: whyilovetexas111
Why does no one ever point out that these "champions of science" are the same people who endorse the "earth mother," Wicca, and indigenous shamanism (and perhaps even islam)?
Why argue with people with absolutely no credibility?
To: whyilovetexas111
Political Science is not science.
To: whyilovetexas111
“the science”
Just two words, taking their place in history with “fact checkers”, etc.
8
posted on
09/06/2022 7:13:45 AM PDT
by
cymbeline
To: whyilovetexas111
The sure sign of its presence was when the term ‘settled science’ came into the common lexicon. Is there anything less scientific than that idiocy?
9
posted on
09/06/2022 7:19:53 AM PDT
by
SES1066
(More & more it looks like Brandon's best decision was Kamala! UGH!)
To: whyilovetexas111
Why appeal to the authority of science to win support for a series of politically contentious policies — and then diminish its authority? Paywall prevented me from reading the writer's answer, but the real answer is that it was never about the science, it was/is about the push for totalitarian government.
10
posted on
09/06/2022 7:21:31 AM PDT
by
libertylover
(Our biggest problem, BY FAR, is that almost all of big media is agenda-driven, not-truth driven.)
To: whyilovetexas111
Two years? Let’s go back to “climate science”...
11
posted on
09/06/2022 7:28:20 AM PDT
by
bigbob
(z)
To: silent majority rising
Political Science is not science.
True story. When I was a sophomore at U of Chicago as a polysci major I had to take a common core sequence for three quarters in "physical science". So I signed up for a geology/meterology sequence. The teacher for the second quarter was the Pr. Fujita, the world's foremost expert on tornadoes (then and now). He was hard to understand, but very good otherwise. I had side issues and approached him about getting a chance for a redo on something.
His first and only question, "What your major?"
"Political Science"
"Political Science. Hah! That not science!"
I said nothing but adopted a posture and demeanor of "Yes sir."
He cut me the break.
The one line I remember was a quip he made, stating authoritatively that the U.S. gets 90% of the world's tornadoes, but few deaths, because when tornadoes hit, Americans go to basement, while Japanese take out camera.
12
posted on
09/06/2022 7:31:19 AM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
(What was 35% of the Rep. Party is now 85%. And it’s too late to turn back—Mac Stipanovich )
To: whyilovetexas111
We can no longer trust medical doctors. They would order dangerous, experimental injections or medications to keep their jobs with large hospitals. They would refuse prescribing lower-cost treatments or pills proven to work if their masters demand such conduct.
Science?
All the unexplained sudden deaths of even young people SHOULD trigger a massive, scientific, immediate search and public disclosure of the reasons. Instead, we are getting shrugs of the shoulders from doctors and a declining life expectancy of Americans.
“Oh well,” say the doctors to keep their incomes from being lowered or eliminated.
Americans’ fear of dying suddenly is far less important than the doctors’ fear of being fired suddenly.
Even funeral embalmers across America are being threatened if they publicly discuss the strange things they have recently found in the blood vessels of the dead.
That is NOT science.
To: bigbob
Exactly that was the start.
14
posted on
09/06/2022 7:34:48 AM PDT
by
pas
To: G Larry
When there are only two types of chromosomes and only two combinations of those two chromosomes that create a living being, it isn’t biology that is the main problem....it’s the mathematics. One can argue biology but Can’t successfully argue the math. Oh...sorry. forgot that math is racist and isn’t being taught any more. My bad.
15
posted on
09/06/2022 8:04:19 AM PDT
by
Qwapisking
("IF the Second goes first the First goes econd" LStar)
To: whyilovetexas111
Funding. Once researchers accept government funding, they have no choice but to become politicized, because government never does *anything* without making the debate over funding it political.
16
posted on
09/06/2022 8:04:30 AM PDT
by
Flatus I. Maximus
(If Black Lives Matter, how do you explain Chicago?)
To: Mr Rogers
“Now, you get money not for being right; you get money for satisfying the prejudices of the people who sit on the committees in the NIH and NSF,”
Y’all got that EFFING correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Democrat party needs to be eliminated from our society.
17
posted on
09/06/2022 8:22:53 AM PDT
by
rellic
To: silent majority rising
Neither is politicized science.
18
posted on
09/06/2022 8:23:09 AM PDT
by
CatHerd
(Whoever said "All's fair in love and war" probably never participated in either.)
To: libertylover
19
posted on
09/06/2022 8:26:56 AM PDT
by
CatHerd
(Whoever said "All's fair in love and war" probably never participated in either.)
To: whyilovetexas111
We have to remember that today’s “scientists” had to become Woke Snowflakes before they were given a “scientist” diploma.
20
posted on
09/06/2022 8:32:49 AM PDT
by
FlingWingFlyer
(I always thought a Merry Garland was a Christmas tree decoration.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson