“It’ll never happen, IMO. Not in areas involving public policy, anyway.”
Public policy should be based on the actual facts of the matter.
The issue here is government funding of research (which, with the possible exception of military research, it should not be doing), as well as the entire post-WWII establishment of the “peer review” process. Government grant money funneled through a panel of experts with entrenched views on “legitimate” ways to spend it stifles competition, criticism, and dissent within the scientific community...which is another way of saying that it does nothing but promote the views of the peer review panel and the outcome desired by government to justify its policies.
I had a brief talk about this issue with David Berlinski in New York a few weeks ago (though his topic was alternatives to Darwinian evolution). He agreed that so long as government funding and peer review were in place, all science will be “politicized.”
The AGW scam could never have taken root had dissenting scientists not been afraid to voice such dissent without fear of jeopardizing their careers and incomes. The only way to ensure that happens is to break the virtual monopoly government has on basic scientific research.
Excellent post, thank you.
We’re on the same side here, so I don’t think we’ll get anywhere arguing about this further. Have a good night.