Posted on 10/04/2005 7:17:16 AM PDT by ZGuy
If every famous person stuck to their specialty, instead of pretending that their expertise in their specialty also made them an expert on political issues, the world would be a better place.
When MC speaks out on the scientific method, he's worthy of a hearing. If he were to pontificate on, say, suburban sprawl....who cares?
He may be demented on political issues, but in his desire to keep politics of any kind out of science, he's spot on.
True, and as we remember - figures don't lie, but liars figure.
Scientific advocacy has become embedded in our political debate - do fetuses feel pain? Is being gay genetic or learned? These issues are addressed, manipulated and spun by those with other agendas then allowing for unbiased research.
As a result, organization with august names, and the appearance of knowledgable authority have moved in the direction of pushing a political agenda - the Journal of the American Medical Association's unsupported and grossly biased attack on gun ownership, and others - the Union of Concerned Scientists, and even the American Pediatric Association have discarded reasoned discourse with the promotion of a clear agenda based on their pet causes.
Moral rules - those difficult personal choices and sacrifices we make - can be rationalized away in a heartbeat by those with mastery of sophistry, and "proven" by their weak minions looking for a moment of recognition and fame. Do not doubt the weakness and powerful vanity of those that consider themselves high priests of the god of knowledge. Like magicians and alchemists of the past, it is a small and easy step from attempting honest guidance to slipping into self-serving charlatanism. The answer is, instead, total honesty. Intellectual, ethical and moral honesty, for anything created with less will be in error.
Then I was the second. Puts me in good company.
A high school student who is familiar with scientific methodology could make the same points that Crichton makes. And be accurate. Policy should not dictate research results. And that's what too often occurs. Check Crichton's webpage for two talks he gave that go into great detail. It's a breath of fresh air.
What the problem is boiling down to these days is that science is expensive. The deeper we dig into the inner workings of the world around us the higher the equipment costs become, and somebody has to pay for that equipment. But nobody is going to sink millions of dollars into some kind of research without a vested interest, and researchers are getting a lot of pressure to respect their funder's vested interest. In theory that's what peer review and publishing raw data are supposed to take care of, eventually somebody is going to look at the raw data who isn't influenced by somebody's vested interest. But increasingly fear of that neutral 3rd party is causing scientists to avoid those things that make science useful.
So we shouldn't be fighting for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools? If we don't flex political muscle, 'science' will eradicate God, because faith does not fit into modern scientific thought.
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
All too common reply, best answered by "That's the basis of science.", "That's part of your job description.", "Must I FOIA you or can we do this like gentlemen"., etc.
If in Florida, "Because the Public Documents Acts says so."
Alas, who pays the Piper calls the tune. Due to limited, and often interlocking funding sources, most scientists are members of the "Great American Scientific Castrati Association."
They have been neutered to sing in the agency/academic institution chorus.
We pay taxes to support a scientific community where Agenda Uber Alles is as accepted as Deutschland Uber Alles was in the Third Reich.
***********
True. But scientists are human beings first, and subject to their emotions, just as we all are.
All scientists must go through the leftist liberal arts university system, where they will be exposed to such garbage as Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, and others whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the "traditional" American system.
As such, so many of these so-called scientists have a warped political bent which influences their research and conclusions.
The advantage of both the scientific method and logic is that one can avoid the fate of an earlier member of the Royal Academy of Science.
He attempted to prove that manned flight was impossible until the strength to weight ration of materials was increased by an order of magnitude.
This was, in effect, an attempt to prove a negative - which logic says is an impossibility.
He neglected to send a copy to Dayton, Ohio, the bicycle mechanics never read his paper, and the rest is history.
"Global Warming" is a tough places to start – to much difference of opinion within the scientific community.
Instead lets begin our program of rooting out shoddy work and fuzzy thinking someplace were there is virtually total agreement within the disciplines involved, and investigate the adherents of "Creation Science" instead.
If they could, the programmers would turn their attention to the stock market instead.
The fact that they don't do so is proof in itself that their models are worthless.
I read the speech - it was great, thank you. Obviously, they didn't get it in 1993 and they still don't get it. That's OK, we have talk radio and the internet.
Catherine Coulter is also an author, writes crime mysterys
Can you believe he said all these things over 12 years ago!?? He is so brilliant.
i've never believed the global warming crap but Crichton does a real service in providing a very coherent, consistent demolition of the global warming lie *AND PROVIDES REAL URL's WITH CHARTS AND GRAPHS*
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.