Weaponizing and Politicizing 'Science'

[chuckman]

I stayed after lecture once and asked one of my Physics Professors if he was religious. He replied yes he was. The course I was taking at the time was universe astronomy and you could believe that tracing the beginning of the universe through the light coming at us would somewhat hinder a belief in God. I asked if anything he taught challenged his faith. He said no and proceeded to tell me why. Surprisingly his beliefs dovetailed with mine.

So not all.

There was a physicist at Duke, went on to Vanderbilt (not sure where he is now), he is a passionate and unapologetic Christian. He used to give lectures on the marriage of religion and science, showed how they are not mutually exclusive, and explain how science has become politicized over the years.

[chuckman]

Not worth it. edited.

Scientists are not all the same. We don't all have a grand conspiracy against the right. Climate science has become too big a topic to be faked at this point. Business is going green and nothing is going to stop it. Yes there are bad scientists... just like there are bad everything. But guess what? Science can be read by all (any of you can download papers and read them yourselves) even if it in a private journal. Go read it yourselves.

I don't imagine it is fake; however, when data has been manipulated, studies changed to prove a predetermined hypothesis, then it illigitimizes and invalidates the profession (or parts of it), and the good and honest scientists become collateral damage. Happens in every field of science...medicine, astronomy, physics....

[Leuthas]

When a high school student can shoot gaping holes through the predominate theory using basic notes on the fundamentals of the Scientific Method, there's something wrong.

[WillBrink]

I don't imagine it is fake; however, when data has been manipulated, studies changed to prove a predetermined hypothesis, then it illigitimizes and invalidates the profession (or parts of it), and the good and honest scientists become collateral damage. Happens in every field of science...medicine, astronomy, physics....

Human being are involved, which means..well...you know.

[WillBrink]

There was a physicist at Duke, went on to Vanderbilt (not sure where he is now), he is a passionate and unapologetic Christian. He used to give lectures on the marriage of religion and science, showed how they are not mutually exclusive, and explain how science has become politicized over the years.

There's never been a time science was not politicized, usually via non scientists taking scientific findings and using them to their own ends. There's also politics within the scientific community of course.

[Averageman]

I don't imagine it is fake; however, when data has been manipulated, studies changed to prove a predetermined hypothesis, then it illigitimizes and invalidates the profession (or parts of it), and the good and honest scientists become collateral damage. Happens in every field of science...medicine, astronomy, physics....

I think this has been exposed many times, the data was manipulated to keep the grant money flowing in.
The irony here to me is that if this is factual and the data was even slightly manipulated to increase funding then greed wins and everyone loses, but "they" refuse to acknowledge their peers have at times been caught red handed. At that point the shaming began so even if they were caught manipulating data, you need to believe them because the situation has such dire consequences and they have a lot of "integrity".
When I found out Al Gore was going to get rich off of carbon tax credits I decided this was the biggest scam since Snake Oil.

[MegademiC]

It's like those high profile rape allegations, or allegations of misconduct by people of certain political leanings, when narrated my the MSM, the facts don't matter, the severity of the implication is what matters, as long as it fits the narrative, of course.

[26 Inf]

It's like a rape allegation, the facts don't matter, the severity of the implication is what matters, as long as it fits the narrative, of course.

You are pretty much spray painting without a nozzle using that analogy.

[sevenhelmet]

I check out where the science turns into agenda-pushing. When the data are presented and the logical possibilities are discussed, that's fine by me. But what nobody is doing is coming up with viable solutions. They discuss it like it's already too late, so what... I'm supposed to spend the rest of my life feeling guilty? Or we'll just all go back to living in yurts and trading horse manure and pussy for enough wheat and salt beef to make it through winter? Neither. Nobody seems to have a solution, they just want you to admit they're "right" so that they can dictate what happens next. It's really about control.

The government won't solve anything. I don't get how people can't see that. They bitch about military spending, infrastructure, "racist" police, and bad education, but then think the same government can solve their problems. I actually think climate change is "real" (an overused and inadequate term to describe a clear trend in the data), but we'll learn things 10, 20, 50 years from now that'll make today's data look horrendously incomplete.

Bottom line, there is nothing actionable on climate change. It's a scary trend in some data, but there isn't an obvious solution, so why are we using up so much bandwidth arguing about it? Collect more data, and continue to refine the hypothesis.

[SteyrAUG]

A lot of what is presented as "science" is nothing more than "ideas", there's not even enough genuine science to qualify it as a "theory."

If I could change one thing, I'd require strict adherence to the definitions of "scientific fact", "scientific theory" and "scientific idea."