The Encroachment of Fact-Free Science 962
G3ckoG33k writes "Fact-free science is not a joke; it is very much on the move, and it is quite possibly the most dangerous movement in centuries, for the entirety of mankind. One can say it began as counter-movement to Karl Popper's ground-breaking proposals in the early 20th century, which insisted that statements purporting to describe the reality should be made falsifiable. A few decades later, some critics of Popper said that statements need peer acceptance, which then makes also natural science a social phenomenon. Even later, in 1996, professor Alan Sokal submitted a famous article ridiculing the entire anti-science movement. Now New York Times has an article describing the latest chilling acts of the socially relativistic, postmodern loons. It is a chilling read, and they may be swinging both the political left and right. Have they been successful in transforming the world yet? How would we know?"
I love how the article is equally fact-free (Score:5, Interesting)
I love how the article is equally fact-free, but makes sure to include several opinion polls.
A literature professor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the hell does this article quote a literature professor on the topic of the quality of scientific research? How the fuck would he know?
Re:Peer review is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, as a student in research who only just had his first-ever paper accepted and published, I'd have to say your blanket statement about the "most powerful clique" ensuring their papers get published and "no one else"s is patently false. There are always going to be bad apples in research, just like any other field, but that doesn't make the whole process broken.
Re:So much fail in this article. (Score:4, Interesting)
Excellent point. Its funny how anyone who goes against Global Warming is instantly labeled as a perpetrator of "Bad Science", yet a lot of the initial politically funded and motivated research has turned out to be complete garbage.
I tend to believe that if the early research and consensus had been left to the scientists, and politicians like Al Gore had stayed out of it, it wouldn't be a political issue at all by this point.
When politics gets involved in science it ruins both.
Its just like rock music and religion.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like so-called "Intelligent Design" (Score:5, Interesting)
We need science policy based on fact - not fantasy. This creationist crap is what leads to bad policies for the country as a whole too and impacts global warming and energy policy just as much as science funding.
Keep the nut jobs out of science.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Gravity is also a theory...
And it's a wrong one, too! What we experience as "gravity" is nothing more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing down on us.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
He actually misunderstands the scripture he references. God says "never again will I curse the earth because of man...". This entirely precludes man himself doing it.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:3, Interesting)
Short version of TFA: "Republicans are anti-science because many of them don't believe empirical data that goes against their world-view and doesn't pander to their folklore addicted, anti-intellectual base."
With that, I admit I am a Republican. I can't help it if my party left me.
Re:Another drive by hit piece (Score:2, Interesting)
That could be because the debate has been decided. People who keep it up are doing it for political reasons, not scientific ones. When is the last time some global warming critic brought new facts to the table?
We get new information daily, we get contrary information daily, we get supportive information daily,
Where is it? If the critics have so much new information, then where is it? For the information to be "new" in any non-trivial sense, it would have to be of a kind that does not fit the current models. Everything else is just the same old boring stuff. The 1505th confirmation of a theory doesn't qualify as "new" anymore.
Re:There is no such thing as fact-free science. (Score:4, Interesting)
Call it what it is: religion. And no, that does not exclude the "Left".
If you see this as only religous blowback, you're having a serious underestimation as to what's at stake for the climate deniers. To accept idea of human-influenced climate change threathens the economic foundations of powerful economic interests who would have thier applecarts severely upset by the changes we'd have to make if we started taking our carbon footprint more seriously as a civilisation. Humans have a profound capability for self-denial that is hardly limited to matters of religion.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, evolution is just a theory, just like general relativity. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Science isn't really about true or false; Newtonian physics is an accurate description/model of reality, up to a certain point.
Theories are tools for making sense of the world. Equating the theory with reality is probably a bad thing to do, given the process. Theories tend to be simplified models - which by definition aren't reality.
"The theory of evolution is true" is a statement of belief. "The theory of evolution seems to account for the different variations of life" is probably a more accurate (or maybe a more careful and precise) way of presenting it.
The problem is the agenda of the people discounting evolution. It is not about just finding loopholes in evolutionary theory (scientists welcome that, it makes the theory stronger or just kills it if it's wrong), it's about pushing a completely different agenda to non-scientific folks with no basis in science or those with agendas themselves(politicians). Intelligent design is not even a theory, it's like someone claiming that we're living under the Matrix, there's really no way to find out if we are. Science does not even come into the picture, and even theories from scientists like the 'String theory' have been called out for making wild claims with no evidence.