Is Science Corrupt

[foodchain]

Now I know the title is a bit alarming to some, but just hear me out before you go off the deep end on me. I question everything because my care for the field in general makes me highly critical of anything really.

 

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love science but I have issues on where its going. It seems to me that science bears some of the basic social ills that most anything human suffers. What I mean from this is science was basically put forward as a system or means in which to try to deduce truth about the natural world around us and or reality. Now I know that science has been applied to more then just what some would consider natural, though I don’t know how unnatural anything is that exists physically, but that’s besides the point. What I am getting at is it seems that science has narrowed itself. Now this can be good or bad depending on where you sit. IN my view I see it as bad as it subtracts the sense of awe for me personally, as in I have a million ideas I would like to set experiments up for, but it seems as if science wants to make things to fit a certain pattern. Now this can be good simply because its uses that which is already known, but in retrospect people only got that information by simply making inquiry. I think science is slowly killing the inquiry stage at large. I mean we have people like Richard Dawkins that due to eminence can really say most anything he wants, to Einstein. He probably could have said something completely random and people world have followed because he was Einstein.

 

I think its paramount to enforce a very inquisitive nature in scientists. Simply because from the bulk of people that take to science surely advances would be made in the end, rather then bottlenecking everyone into certain accepted patterns of thought. Now I don’t know about you, but in physics for example it seems as if math alone was able in many ways to move into almost qualifying for empirical truth. Now I don’t want to turn this into nominalism versus essentialism, but Oxygen for instance is just a human made word. To get back to the math on this, I don’t know of any naturally occurring square roots in the universe, as in some floating v shaped figure that performs a squaring function on matter and energy, or stuff that makes up the physical universe and its phenomena. To biology, with the concept of genetics. I have studied for instance various symptoms people have with a particular genetic disorder. When I go and read the doctors outlook on the disease, compared to the peoples symptoms, its almost as if the doctor lives in his or her own head rather then reality.

 

So basically, has science lost its edge, has it become somewhat corporate basically? Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated?

[swansont]

I mean we have people like Richard Dawkins that due to eminence can really say most anything he wants, to Einstein. He probably could have said something completely random and people world have followed because he was Einstein.

 

At some point you have to do experiments to back up the claims, if they are scientific. Status may get you in the door so people will listen to you more readily, but you still have to be right. Dawkins writing a book on atheism is outside of scientific inquiry; it's a popular book on religion, and popular books are just that, not peer-reviewed papers appearing in a journal. Einstein's questioning of QM doesn't seem to have hampered its usefulness or adoption. We use relativity because it works, not because Einstein said so.

 

Now I don’t know about you, but in physics for example it seems as if math alone was able in many ways to move into almost qualifying for empirical truth. Now I don’t want to turn this into nominalism versus essentialism, but Oxygen for instance is just a human made word. To get back to the math on this, I don’t know of any naturally occurring square roots in the universe, as in some floating v shaped figure that performs a squaring function on matter and energy, or stuff that makes up the physical universe and its phenomena.

 

Math is never enough to qualify for empirical truth, by definition. It's a predictor, though, that tells you what to look for.

 

I have no idea what you mean by no square roots in nature. Are you implying that the time it takes an object to fall is not related to the square root of the distance it falls? You're going to get squares and thus square roots anytime you have two integrations of a linear function, i.e. certain second-order differential equations.

 

So basically, has science lost its edge, has it become somewhat corporate basically? Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated?

 

Geniuses tend to be right, or they wouldn't be labeled thus. But there's a lot of professional mileage to be had by proving them wrong, and scientists attempt to do this. I don't think you've come close to supporting your claim that science is stale and sedated, or corrupt.

[Daecon]

It's become corrupted by corporate influence, yeah.

 

Now the Physical Sciences seems to be less interested in discovery and advancement for progress, and only interested in how much money they can make.

[geoguy]

I can usually tell when someone such isn't involved directly in 'the sciences' when they make sweeping generalizations about 'the sciences'.

 

'Science' involves millions of individuals involving tens of thousands of pursuits. For the life of me I can't fathom any reason why the dozen of us in the world who study Upper Paleozoic biostraitgraphy wou'd be 'corrupt' or misread fossil evidence. Influenced by what?

 

Swansont,

Great post. Good points and among them:

 

Swansont: "Dawkins writing a book on atheism is outside of scientific inquiry; it's a popular book on religion, and popular books are just that, not peer-reviewed papers appearing in a journal."

 

The public (such as the original poster) fail to understand that basic difference. So much is quoted in the popular media that begins 'scientists say blah, blah...blah'. Quite often it's a quote or opinion outside of the actual research performed. Such as 'what do you think this means?' as opposed to what the actual verifiable results were in the the published research. As a geologist working in paleontology I have all types of opinions but would never include in a paper the words 'I think that...'

[Paralith]

When I go and read the doctors outlook on the disease, compared to the peoples symptoms, its almost as if the doctor lives in his or her own head rather then reality.

 

Could you maybe give us an example of this? As someone who does research on a genetic disease, I'd be interested to see if this is really a serious issue.

 

So basically, has science lost its edge, has it become somewhat corporate basically? Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated?

 

One thing you have to understand is that research isn't cheap. On a routine supplies order I can very quickly rack up several thousand dollars worth of stuff that we need to keep our research project going. And I'll probably still need to order something else a week later. Researchers need facilities, supplies, and they need to make a living, so they have to get paid. Getting a research-grade education is also very expensive. And in the US it's been getting tougher every day to get funding. Even the National Institutes of Health have been getting their funding cut like mad recently, and if they're having funding difficulties, you can imagine what disciplines with less obviously practical applications are having to deal with.

 

It may seem like science has "gone corporate," and is being restricted, but the fact of the matter is that there is a limited amount of money going around, and only the projects that hold up to rigorous standards are going to get approved. And yes, those standards are based on existing knowledge. And that's just the reality of it. It's not a happy situation for anybody - how would you like to be the resident "genius" of a given discipline and be tasked with the responsibility of looking at hundreds of thousands of grant proposals, and picking just a few that you think are worth paying for?

[SkepticLance]

My favourite example of how scientists get pounded back into place is Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.

 

Dr Linus Pauling was one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and probably the greatest chemist. He is the only person to win the Nobel prize twice on his own.

 

In his dotage, he developed a theory that megadoses of Vitamin C could prevent and even cure cancer. Because of his eminence, he was taken seriously, and a number of proper randomised, controlled, double blind, clinical trials were run. Result : Vitamin C is just plain useless against cancer.

 

In the end, the winner was scientific truth. As long as we retain scientific freedom, this will always be the case.

[Daecon]

Maybe when he said "The Big C" he meant the Common Cold?

[geoguy]

My favourite example of how scientists get pounded back into place is Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.

 

Dr Linus Pauling was one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, and probably the greatest chemist. He is the only person to win the Nobel prize twice on his own.

 

In his dotage, he developed a theory that megadoses of Vitamin C could prevent and even cure cancer. Because of his eminence, he was taken seriously, and a number of proper randomised, controlled, double blind, clinical trials were run. Result : Vitamin C is just plain useless against cancer.

 

In the end, the winner was scientific truth. As long as we retain scientific freedom, this will always be the case.

 

Another example was the astronomer Fred Hoyle. He received all types of accolades for major contributions to science. Then he strayed off into some odd tangents. He went one way but actual scientific evidence and methodology went the other. There is the 'cult of the personality' in all human endeavours but in science the name Einstein, Hoyle, Pauling and so on can raise the funding but can't influence the physical properties of the Universe.

[SkepticLance]

That's a very good example, Geoguy.

 

At the end of the day, it shows that the 'failsafe' mechanisms built into science aint so bad. Even highly eminent scientists cannot drive science into nonsense.

[foodchain]

Its not so much corruption as in people lying on purpose or using there position to make all kinds of many regardless of other affiliated affects such might hold, as rather as what’s going on with it. For instance, many people on this board come here with ideas, and even before anyone asks a technical question about whatever they may be talking about they are typically attacked as phonies:confused: This has not happened to me its just that I have witnessed it.

 

Then in the real world in some random shot about a year ago on the John Stewart show some physicist made a claim that time travel is impossible? Of course with recent discoveries now the evolution of humans is put more into question on exactly how the process went, which would have never occurred if someone did not ask the question and that’s generally the point.

 

Now I might have a skewed perception of things, but what individual sees perfectly on all things anyway. The point being is science really pushing to make inquisitive scientists? Or is science simply just sterilizing people into existing concepts. For instance, evolution, its very real, but it also has a very real amount of unanswered questions in it. Same with physics, or geology. I am just getting scared because the more I learn about science as a whole the more it seems that asking questions or even being fringe is a bad place to be for some reason.

 

Lastly, if someone is science was onto the big idea that will shape science for another hundred years, like relativity of evolution, the idea that appears to me from this is such people took it upon themselves to ask such a question, and then figure out how to test it or prove it. If such people just wanted to play it safe and stick to the norm, well such ideas may still be awaiting discovery, and really who knows what has been lost by it all already by doing such. Basically science I think is corrupt the day its negative for a scientist to think outside of the box, pretty much in my view it holds as much promise for understanding and advancement as thinking inside of the box.

[Wormwood]

foodchain:

I feel the same way as you do to an extent. This is more noticable in some areas than in others. For example I am a deist, so I sometimes join an intelligent design conversation or something similar. If you point out holes in big bang, or the current paradigm of evolution people get very upset on dogmatic principle. I don't believe in intelligent design per se, but I am familiar with some problems of the existing theories which are often touted as undeniable fact so I enjoy the debate. In this context, going against the status quo leads to a bunch of people that have only taken high school biology trying to explain to me how evolution works because they think I am just missing something. There is also the fact that science can only deal with materialism and physical determinism, even though we have theories that only selectively include either of those elements (such as the big bang).

 

However, when you think about it, science has always been this way. First, the fields are full of people that can memorize information and will never make direct contributions to their discipline. This has always been the case since Galen. Look at Joseph Lister for example, he invented antisceptic surgery at a time when caked on blood was a sign of how good and experienced your doctor was. Most people in medicine thought he was crazy. He was one genius in a sea of mediocrity, similar to pioneers of today. About the corporate aspect, consider that Tesla was trying to invent a machine that would give everyone free electricity wirelessly, but his funding was cut in support of Edison's power plant design that allowed people to be charged for how much electricity they used. This is similar to pharmacutical companies that won't pay for certain drugs because there is no money in them.

[foodchain]

foodchain:

I feel the same way as you do to an extent. This is more noticable in some areas than in others. For example I am a deist, so I sometimes join an intelligent design conversation or something similar. If you point out holes in big bang, or the current paradigm of evolution people get very upset on dogmatic principle. I don't believe in intelligent design per se, but I am familiar with some problems of the existing theories which are often touted as undeniable fact so I enjoy the debate. In this context, going against the status quo leads to a bunch of people that have only taken high school biology trying to explain to me how evolution works because they think I am just missing something. There is also the fact that science can only deal with materialism and physical determinism, even though we have theories that only selectively include either of those elements (such as the big bang).

 

However, when you think about it, science has always been this way. First, the fields are full of people that can memorize information and will never make direct contributions to their discipline. This has always been the case since Galen. Look at Joseph Lister for example, he invented antisceptic surgery at a time when caked on blood was a sign of how good and experienced your doctor was. Most people in medicine thought he was crazy. He was one genius in a sea of mediocrity, similar to pioneers of today. About the corporate aspect, consider that Tesla was trying to invent a machine that would give everyone free electricity wirelessly, but his funding was cut in support of Edison's power plant design that allowed people to be charged for how much electricity they used. This is similar to pharmacutical companies that won't pay for certain drugs because there is no money in them.

 

I don’t know of any current means to remove ID from philosophy and put it into science. Overall I don’t know any means to scientifically or objectively study ID. I mean if you say find out one day that gravity means if you toss a ball up it better be able to maintain escape velocity, well that’s all it says, to go outside of that is to basically invoke philosophy until you can fine a means to test such.

[BenTheMan]

foodchain---it is my guess that you are not an actual scientist, or that you have just finished reading Lee Smolin's book. I can't really speak for all fields, but in physics (specifically high energy theory), this isn't really a problem.

 

One must remember that there are thousands (millions?) of young and eager graduate students, who would just LOVE to show how some famous scientist was wrong. I am such a young(ish) and eager grad student.

 

I really think that we are past the point of people throwing their weight around in the scientific community. If you want to know how a real scientist should think, you should read Feynmann's books. His father sold uniforms, and taught him from an early age that ``authority figures'' were only authorities as long as they had their uniforms on. Other than that, they were just like everyone else.

[SkepticLance]

Personally, I think science is probably more free of corruption than any other major human activity.

 

That does not mean totally free, since we are all human, and a degree of 'corruption' is part of what makes us human.

 

Science has always had mainstream belief and radical revolutionaries. Most of the time, the radicals are shown in the end to be talking a load of cobblers. This makes most scientists a bit conservative, relucatant to accept radical ideas. That is not corruption - just good sense. Occasionally a radical uncovers another corner of the truth and has a difficult time getting it accepted. However, if it is, indeed, the truth, it does get accepted finally.

[foodchain]

foodchain---it is my guess that you are not an actual scientist, or that you have just finished reading Lee Smolin's book. I can't really speak for all fields, but in physics (specifically high energy theory), this isn't really a problem.

 

One must remember that there are thousands (millions?) of young and eager graduate students, who would just LOVE to show how some famous scientist was wrong. I am such a young(ish) and eager grad student.

 

I really think that we are past the point of people throwing their weight around in the scientific community. If you want to know how a real scientist should think, you should read Feynmann's books. His father sold uniforms, and taught him from an early age that ``authority figures'' were only authorities as long as they had their uniforms on. Other than that, they were just like everyone else.

 

I posted more then once on this board that I am a student in college. I have never read lee smolins book either, and well personal attacks aside are you not just sort of proving my point?

[Wormwood]

I don’t know of any current means to remove ID from philosophy and put it into science. Overall I don’t know any means to scientifically or objectively study ID. I mean if you say find out one day that gravity means if you toss a ball up it better be able to maintain escape velocity, well that’s all it says, to go outside of that is to basically invoke philosophy until you can fine a means to test such.

You missed my point. If you read again, you will notice that I don't believe in ID either, and it is peripheral to what I was saying.

 

Edit: I guess you did prove my point about knee jerk reaction when talking about certain subjects though.

[foodchain]

You missed my point. If you read again, you will notice that I don't believe in ID either, and it is peripheral to what I was saying.

 

Edit: I guess you did prove my point about knee jerk reaction when talking about certain subjects though.

 

 

Yes, but you would at least have to pertain to the subject. I mean for instance deformed special relativity, now do you see lots of threads on this board about such? The point was not about philosophy, not in a sense of is politics corrupt, we all know that it is, its about science. ID attacks science but ID does not have any science period, it has lots of people that support it but I don’t know when a single ID hypothesis was even created much lest tested. The only one I know of was about geology and it was found out that the two IDiots behind it actually falsified data so what have you on that. I don’t really look at ID as science because to be honest it does not have any unless you favor intelligent falling which I suppose you don’t actually. Its about if science lacks any support or even punishes fringe scientists or people that think outside of the box. I mean all the hype about string theory, or LQG, what if some group of physics people came up with something else that can encompass already existing phenomena, my guess is that such already exists and gets little to no attention. The point is which I guess I poorly worded is about science, its not about politics, or economics per say, as in I did not even take those angles on which others have.

[swansont]

I mean for instance deformed special relativity, now do you see lots of threads on this board about such?

 

What does the presence or non-presence of a discussion on this board have to do with the alleged corruption of science? The fact that such a theory/hypothesis exists and is written about in Journals would seem to falsify your thesis, or is at least a big point against it.

[Paralith]

You missed my point. If you read again, you will notice that I don't believe in ID either, and it is peripheral to what I was saying.

 

Edit: I guess you did prove my point about knee jerk reaction when talking about certain subjects though.

 

I understand the point you were trying to make about dogmatically defending what is accepted as the truth - but I still agree with foodchain that evolutionary biologists rejecting ID is a little different than mainstream scientists rejecting a radical but scientific idea. ID is simply not science, "holes" in various scientific theories aside. You can't fill a scientific hole with supernatural, untestable powers-that-be, and I don't think scientists can be blamed for a little dogmatism of their own when consistently being told otherwise.

 

On the other hand, I do notice that foodchain tends to single out evolution as an area full of doubt, and it seems to me that he/she thinks that this is a discipline that could use some radical change. Yes, there are lots and lots of questions about the mechanisms of evolution - and rightly so. An organism is a complex thing, and discovering exactly how it came to be is even more complex. But I would think that the existence of so many questions, as opposed to a nice simple list of how this and that organism evolved, would go to show that evolutionary biologists are not just sticking to the status quo or accepted standards. However, there are of course some founding principles upon which evolution stands, and those are not questioned for good reason. Do scientists question the fact that molecules are made up of atoms? We may not yet know how they were first assembled, or what all the possible variations are, or what function every molecule serves - but that doesn't mean it's time to start doubting this whole atoms idea in the first place, or that it's time to worry if not doubting this idea is a serious problem.

[foodchain]

I understand the point you were trying to make about dogmatically defending what is accepted as the truth - but I still agree with foodchain that evolutionary biologists rejecting ID is a little different than mainstream scientists rejecting a radical but scientific idea. ID is simply not science, "holes" in various scientific theories aside. You can't fill a scientific hole with supernatural, untestable powers-that-be, and I don't think scientists can be blamed for a little dogmatism of their own when consistently being told otherwise.

 

On the other hand, I do notice that foodchain tends to single out evolution as an area full of doubt, and it seems to me that he/she thinks that this is a discipline that could use some radical change. Yes, there are lots and lots of questions about the mechanisms of evolution - and rightly so. An organism is a complex thing, and discovering exactly how it came to be is even more complex. But I would think that the existence of so many questions, as opposed to a nice simple list of how this and that organism evolved, would go to show that evolutionary biologists are not just sticking to the status quo or accepted standards. However, there are of course some founding principles upon which evolution stands, and those are not questioned for good reason. Do scientists question the fact that molecules are made up of atoms? We may not yet know how they were first assembled, or what all the possible variations are, or what function every molecule serves - but that doesn't mean it's time to start doubting this whole atoms idea in the first place, or that it's time to worry if not doubting this idea is a serious problem.

 

ITs a he, as in me:D

 

Evolution full of holes? Well I wont go as far as to say that, just that not everything is resolved, and well who knows what taking a radical direction on such could yield, not that you should, but hey.

[Wormwood]

I understand the point you were trying to make about dogmatically defending what is accepted as the truth - but I still agree with foodchain that evolutionary biologists rejecting ID is a little different than mainstream scientists rejecting a radical but scientific idea. ID is simply not science, "holes" in various scientific theories aside. You can't fill a scientific hole with supernatural, untestable powers-that-be, and I don't think scientists can be blamed for a little dogmatism of their own when consistently being told otherwise.

Guys come on, let's forget the words "intelligent design" were uttered and try to salvage this conversation. My point wasn't that I like to defend *that forbidden idea*, but that I enjoy pointing out problems with our current version of evolution to people that say it is an undeniable fact and shouldn't be questioned. It should be questioned in every respect. If there is a problem with the current theory I have no doubt that it will be a creationist or an ID proponent that will find it, because they seem to be the only people not willing to accept the theory as is. Personally I think we are missing key elements to the mechanisms that make evolution work and we fill it in with much speculation. For example, are you familiar with the explanation given for multicelled organisms that involves a single case of endosymbiosis? This is largely just speculation. But it fills in a gap of information that we actually do have. This is my point. There are some things that are accepted dogmatically as a functional assumtion. If you question these things, people seem to get upset or confused.

[Paralith]

Guys come on, let's forget the words "intelligent design" were uttered and try to salvage this conversation. My point wasn't that I like to defend *that forbidden idea*, but that I enjoy pointing out problems with our current version of evolution to people that say it is an undeniable fact and shouldn't be questioned. It should be questioned in every respect. If there is a problem with the current theory I have no doubt that it will be a creationist or an ID proponent that will find it, because they seem to be the only people not willing to accept the theory as is. Personally I think we are missing key elements to the mechanisms that make evolution work and we fill it in with much speculation. For example, are you familiar with the explanation given for multicelled organisms that involves a single case of endosymbiosis? This is largely just speculation. But it fills in a gap of information that we actually do have. This is my point. There are some things that are accepted dogmatically as a functional assumtion. If you question these things, people seem to get upset or confused.

 

I can't just forget that ID was ever mentioned, because I think you are misunderstanding exactly why evolutionary biologists get all revved up during a "debate" with an IDer. You can point out problems with current models of mechanisms of evolution as much as you like - but creationists and IDers aren't just attacking the mechanisms. They attack the very basis of the idea itself, that such a thing as evolution can possibly occur naturally, without outside assistance, and they use mechanistic issues as if this proves the point, and it does not. And then we are criticized for being dogmatic and close-minded. Whether multicellularity occurred via endosymbiosis or not does not change the fact that evolution happens in nature, even though some IDers may think that it does. I will happily discuss endosymbiosis as long as you don't try to make it mean something that it doesn't, and that's what IDers do. And that's probably why some biologists immediately get defensive when you appear to be with the ID camp - they assume you're trying to prove what IDers are trying to prove, and from what I can tell, you're not. You're actually trying to discuss issues in the science itself, and I think in a different setting, you might get different reactions.

[pioneer]

If science had all the answers and everything today was correct, then science could retire and stop. The observation that the numbers of people in science is increasing, show there is more room for improvement. Thinking outside the box of science is an attempt to look beyond what we think we know, to formulate better understanding, i.e., bigger box.

 

Many people think the current box is just fine and that is all that there is. This is not corruption. A scientist should be open minded since we are no where near the final truth in anything. If one thinks the box is the final reality, than their science becomes a religion. The members of the science religion, often see themselves as the guardians of the truth and will fight with religious vigor in attempt to beat back the infidels. Most of science becomes tiny battles right on the outer surface of the box. One has to have most of their body in the science box to be allowed to have one finger outside. If too much of the body goes outside the box..., well it is not a pretty sight.

 

The Catholic Church used to do was a thing called a jubilee. If you did really well by the teachings of the church for extended time, they would allow you to leave the box as a reward for extrordinary service. The jubilee was only meant to be temporary and then one gets pulled back into the box again. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C was an example of an out of the box jubilee.

 

If one is on jubilee without approval by the church (out of box) they become treated like a sinner who has no place inside the box. If you wish to get back in the box, one have to renouce everything outside the box and then do some type of penance. That may involve sweeping floors. Sometimes there is mercy for the prodigal son who returns, since it brings new joy to his father, who kept a place for him in the box as his inheritence.

[BenTheMan]

posted more then once on this board that I am a student in college. I have never read lee smolins book either, and well personal attacks aside are you not just sort of proving my point?

 

Sorry if I didn't read your biography.

 

I just pointed out that you're not a scientist, so whatever view you have is an outsider's opinion. If your point is ``People who don't work in science don't understand how science works'', then I would say that I proved your point very nicely.

[foodchain]

Sorry if I didn't read your biography.

 

I just pointed out that you're not a scientist, so whatever view you have is an outsider's opinion. If your point is ``People who don't work in science don't understand how science works'', then I would say that I proved your point very nicely.

 

Ouch, if you got any more condescending this could become a flame war. What exactly qualifies one as a scientist though, being a grad student. I mean I have made logs as a child as to what foods ants will particular choose if giving the option and recorded such, does this count, or do I have to be a grad student? Though, we cant tell what science will be tomorrow, so me being a grad student tomorrow might not let us know what science will be, I mean we just cant know those things, but of course being some grad student you probably already know this:D