Should academic research establishments be political?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

It's going to be political anyway, no matter what we do. Private-sector science is subordinate to its funders. Public-sector science is subordinate to voters at best, politicians' campaign contributors at worst. No matter how you conduct it there will always be perverse incentives to come to whatever conclusion helps you keep your job, just like there is with every other walk of life.

 

What we really need to incentivize isn't "neutrality" (which it's doubtful is objectively definable anyway) so much as honesty. Honesty about ways in which you break free from the left-right false dichotomy is a good start. For instance, one can despise Trump and still support the lab leak hypothesis; Bill Maher is a prime example of this.

 

What bothers me especially is the World Health Organization. The more funding it relies upon from more countries, the more biases are blended together. Shouldn't science be more individualized and competitive than that, so that we can better distinguish the effects of one funder's biases from the effects of those of another?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Honesty about ways in which you break free from the left-right false dichotomy is a good start. For instance, one can despise Trump and still support the lab leak hypothesis; Bill Maher is a prime example of this.

I thought we were discussion science. Maher will never be confused with being a scientist; he's more of a crackpot.

To support an hypothesis you need evidence rather than innuendo.

Quote

What bothers me especially is the World Health Organization. The more funding it relies upon from more countries, the more biases are blended together. Shouldn't science be more individualized and competitive than that, so that we can better distinguish the effects of one funder's biases from the effects of those of another?

Wouldn't one expect biases to get cancelled to at least some extent if funding comes from multiple, independent sources?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

On 7/1/2021 at 8:09 AM, swansont said:

I thought we were discussion science. Maher will never be confused with being a scientist; he's more of a crackpot.

To support an hypothesis you need evidence rather than innuendo.

Wouldn't one expect biases to get cancelled to at least some extent if funding comes from multiple, independent sources?

Forgot about this thread until recently.

 

Biases wouldn't get "cancelled," just combined. If you'd mixed hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide you'd get saltwater, but that's not necessarily a good thing if pure water were what you were looking for.

 

In theory, if every bias and its opposite were equally "cancelled" you'd be left with objectivity. Trouble is I doubt there's any objective metric of what constitutes the opposite direction of a bias, let alone its opposite magnitude. A better idea would be to have as much variance in biases possible and see how these biases affect the conclusions. Pure objectivity is an unrealistic ideal. Independent thought is a more believable one.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Forgot about this thread until recently.

 

Biases wouldn't get "cancelled," just combined.

But biases are like vectors, as you agree with below. Opposing biases would tend cancel. 

 

9 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If you'd mixed hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide you'd get saltwater, but that's not necessarily a good thing if pure water were what you were looking for.

Why would you do the wrong chemical reaction?

 

9 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

In theory, if every bias and its opposite were equally "cancelled" you'd be left with objectivity. Trouble is I doubt there's any objective metric of what constitutes the opposite direction of a bias, let alone its opposite magnitude. A better idea would be to have as much variance in biases possible and see how these biases affect the conclusions. Pure objectivity is an unrealistic ideal.

But you end up with less overall bias, so nobody is exerting the influence they hoped to.

9 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Independent thought is a more believable one.

 How can there be any thought with no funding?