Posted on 08/07/2018 1:35:53 PM PDT by Heartlander
Triple backflip on the double-negative decreasingly increases my inability to see that sentence as consistently inaccurate.
Conservatives are skeptical of scientists because the conservatives are scientists in their own right and know that many of the claims made will not pass a true scientific test.
It is quite right to hold utter disdain for SINOs who declare that there are 50 different genders.
Goof find! Thanks for the post.
Conservatives are distrustful of scientists because a lot of “peer reviewed journals” aren’t.
Conservatives are distrustful of scientists because a lot of “science” is blatantly agenda driven.
Conservatives are distrustful of scientists because a lot data is fraudulent or massaged to fit the hypothesis.
Any more?
The durability of Conservatism has depended, to a great extent,
on it being a disposition rather than a philosophy.
What marks Conservatives out, across the generations,
and whatever the environment they operate in,
is an attitude of mind rather than an adherence to dogma.
And that disposition
- skeptical, cautious, pragmatic, sensitive to the local and the particular
- has been politically successful because it has been in tune with human nature.
Michael Gove
I’ve worked as a research scientist for over thirty years, from large-scale government projects to independent research for corporations. The trend has definitely been towards bad science becoming the rule rather than the exception.
I can also say that, in my experince with government funded research, politics ALWAYS trumps science. ALWAYS. Meanwhile, corporations that actually produce a product are much more interested in good and true science. Government research only cares that you give results that support their predetermined conclusions. That has been my experience.
Throw on top of that the fact that you only get funded if you have the "correct" hypothesis and only get future funding if you have the "correct" results.
Also consider continually contradicted research. I forget, is coffee good or bad this month. Just read the research papers and see both "proved".
When I get home I'll add President Eisenhower's farewell address warning about the dangers of letting government control science or science control government.
A couple of weeks ago, there was an FR post citing a paper from the Smithsonian Journal. This paper was published almost 3 years ago. The Smithsonian paper did not deal with bias. Instead, it stated that (1) scientific peer review had collapsed, (2) very few studies could be reproduced, (3) this is partially true because papers did not include information about the methodology employed, (4) original data was not made available for either peer review or validation via replication and, (5) there was far less money available for attempting to replicate the research of others and, (6) far more interest and money for producing original research.
The authors of the Smithsonian paper had surveyed a large swath of biological studies to reach their conclusions. So they weren’t even talking directly about areas where bias would normally be injected.
So between these two articles we find a rather complete breakdown in the scientific community: bias, as cited by this paper, and unreproducible findings as cited by the Smithsonian.
If you don't mind my asking, what is your field of research?
I am a scientist, although I moved from research to administration a while ago. I do not find that the research where I work fits any predetermined conclusion. We are funded to work on specific projects, and that's as far as it goes.
Perhaps our different perspectives stems from different scientific specialties. Some disciplines are more subject to manipulation than others.
When CO2 was declared a pollutant, they went of the deep end..................
I first heard that in the ‘90s and when I realized it wasn’t satire I instantly knew that everything about Global Warming was a hoax and always had been.
I also worked as a contracter/researcher for over 30 years at at a government research laboratory. For the most part I agree that the sponsors are usually only interested in the answer that answers the political question, or a solution that moves them into the next higher job.
but when the dems were in charge often the questions we were answering didn’t seem to connect to the public release. The republicans usually had us answering something that was at least connected to the press release.
Case in point: talk to a liberal about research on the genetic component of IQ.
But most scientists know better than to even get near a research project whose conclusions might be politically incorrect.
My understanding of where that article was headed increasingly decreased.
But I think they concluded that Conservatives are right to be skeptical of Scientists because the Scientists have become liberal.
Wow. Great news. I’m going to celebrate with a big meal of eggs and oatmeal. I figure the cholesterol harm from the former will be balanced by the cholesterol benefit of the latter. Oh, wait...
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Who pays the piper, calls the tune...
The scramble for grants is relentless and a feverish process...Never doubt a “conclusion” to be proven is among the strings attached to the grant money...
Re: Fraudulent and Massaged Data: A corollary”...Figures don’t lie, but liars figure...
Being first and foremost people, with human nature being what it is, never doubt a “scientist” (individual and/or in groups) would work backwards from a hypothesis, massaging and discarding the data that doesn’t fit along the way, at the behest of and to “prove” the pet theory of his patrons...Especially with the present leftward lean in academe, and “the end justifying the means”...
They’re saving the planet, dontcha know...What’s a big lie in comparison...
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.