Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes. This is, perhaps, a bit of an outlier topic, and I don't want to derail OP's primary goal here, but this might still be relevant, as well....
Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes.
This is, perhaps, a bit of an outlier topic, and I don't want to derail OP's primary goal here, but this might still be relevant, as well.
Separate from the primary concern of people in power maliciously undermining the public trust/belief in the value of science (that's my haphazard restatement of OP's thesis subject), I think another legitimate concern is how science has been co-opted/corrupted by capitalism: the $$-gate-keeping of access to scientific papers and publications, that has led to illegal-but-moral rebellions like Sci-Hub ... the constant efforts of various big-business concerns to buy/manipulate/corrupt scientific research to suit their needs (Monsanto on Round-up, the tobacco industry that's still not sure if smoking causes cancer, literally dozens of high-profile efforts to control the messaging of assorted miracle drugs that may-or-may-not also be killing people, Exxon scientists learning about Climate Change back in the '80s and then dedicating the next 40 years to poisoning further research, etc) ... even the way scientific funding preferentially goes to big-headline new studies but often neglects equally-important (if not more so) reproducibility efforts.
I'm sure there's more; this is just some of the high-profile issues that come to mind offhand ... the scientific method is somewhat broken in the West (or at least, in the US), largely thanks to Capitalism. IDK how to fix these issues w/o burning the modern capitalist system to the ground and starting over. I am also not suggesting that this somehow justifies the assorted RFK-jr-like efforts to further undermine it ... rather, I see those efforts as the next stage of the same issue, with a gullible public getting their information from increasingly biased propagandist "news" sources, buying into it all, becoming ever less informed and more paranoid about and distrusting of science.
The scientific method is the general process "question, research, hypothesize, experiment, analyze, conclude, repeat". It can't be broken, although people can do it wrong, e.g., by misinterpreting...
the scientific method is somewhat broken in the West (or at least, in the US), largely thanks to Capitalism
I like to think of capital "S" and lowercase "s" science. The former is science culture, including academia and research branches in companies. The latter is, effectively, the scientific method, and more generally, how we discover truth through observation. Capital "S" Science is what you're referring to, and I agree it's corrupted. Lowercase "s" science is incorruptible, because the truth is incorruptible: no matter how much you believe something false, or try to convince others, it's still false (and sometimes the truth doesn't matter, but in the long run it usually does).
Something that would address both the corruption within and attacks on capital "S" Science, is training people to use the scientific method, and more generally critical thinking. People can "do their own research" and make conclusions that are reasonable and correct, if they know how. The problem is that it's very hard. Nobody is immune to bias and shortcuts in reasoning, and critical thinking isn't something you teach/learn like a mundane fact, it's something you train/practice because one must apply it every time they reason.
I agree with your classification of the different types of “science”. If I were to restate my own understanding of what you said, scientific research (capital ‘s’) can be performed with the intent...
I agree with your classification of the different types of “science”. If I were to restate my own understanding of what you said, scientific research (capital ‘s’) can be performed with the intent to either “prove” a hypothesis for the gain of corporate benefactors or “prove” a null hypothesis for the gain of corporate benefactors. While the scientific method (lowercase ‘s’) seeks only objective truth.
The latter becomes corrupted when the incentive and therefore resources to conduct said research has the goal of producing monetary gain for the provider.
Where I think I have a differing opinion is on the claim of noble intent as a prerequisite for good science. All research requires resources and funds, regardless of the motivations of those who provide them. Those that choose to spend resources to hide, distort, or bury objective truth (capital ‘S’ science) can only do so for a short period of time because “the truth is incorruptible”. If your lab needs new funding to pay participants, or to buy equipment, or buy materials, I think the pragmatic solution would be to take funding from practically whomever is willing to give it, with the caveat being both they and you agree to try an eliminate bias as much as possible. The existing scientific community I think can and has done this pretty well. Consider double blind studies, peer reviewed papers, etc.
Arguably the most critical phase of the scientific method is the final stage of repetition. “Can an independent researcher follow the same methodology and get the same results?”
We must reclaim the phrase, “Do your own research”, to align it more to the meaning as described by the scientific method (lowercase ‘s’) instead of what I think is has become colloquially to mean, “Google it and pick whichever result you choose to believe”
If you don’t trust or suspect the institutions or research centers, appeal to the ones you do trust to repeat the study, fundraise for them, seek out learning to join them and contribute meaningfully, and/or offer your own capital.
We can’t all know everything but it doesn’t mean we can’t dedicate ourselves to know some things.
This really feels like the crux of the issue for me. We can obviously analyze and expose how information is being derailed in real time by corporate/political interest groups. And I think that is...
This really feels like the crux of the issue for me.
We can obviously analyze and expose how information is being derailed in real time by corporate/political interest groups. And I think that is very important work to do.
But zooming out, you clearly see the root of the problem is that in a capitalist society, once it has advanced enough, those in power (capital owners) have enough resources to essentially own and control the flow of information, and it really seems to me that that cannot be fixed without a fundamental change in the system, one that puts the power clearly in the hands of the working people such that they can depose those in power (beyond politics, I'm talking within corporate structures and beyond) and thus keep them in check.
Very good and an important addition. This capitalistic side symptom is one that crossed my mind yesterday but I forgot about it when writing. And like the other commenter wrote it's good to...
Very good and an important addition.
This capitalistic side symptom is one that crossed my mind yesterday but I forgot about it when writing.
And like the other commenter wrote it's good to remember the difference of the scientific method ("s") and the subsequent process ("S") which I wish could somehow be made more robust against wrongful implementation.
Also a thing to remember I think is that even if there was some disclosed funding or ties to some industry it doesn't automatically lead to corrupted science. But the examples of clear corruption have had a real detrimental effect on lives and reliability of science and probably on its image.
I've recently got familiar with the YouTube channel Professor Dave Explains and watched the Covid19 and health politics related content as a catch up after some years post pandemic. I really...
I've recently got familiar with the YouTube channel Professor Dave Explains and watched the Covid19 and health politics related content as a catch up after some years post pandemic. I really appreciate Dave's and other science communicators' efforts to shine light on the things and explain with evidence and principles the more nuanced stuff that has gone around.
I am amazed. I knew the things happening have been absurd and harmful to the general public but goddamn it's not looking good at all (Apart from the fact that people like Dave are fighting and refuting the bullshit claims). I'm not sure what I want to discuss here. Maybe this is more like a group therapy session. Or what do you think about it all?
I'm looking at this from far away country in Europe and while our situation here is better for now I've been really frustrated at times of various obvious and not so obvious misinformation that has been circulating even here in some circles. Some of it is leaking from US to here. Often it's these exact same dis- or misinformation claims and views that spread around in the social media here. Of course every country have their own local elements added to that in the information space. It's of course not as bad here and many know better but still some less educated lack the tools to properly identify it. I'm someone who has at least some background and education in scientific principles and have always been interested in that so I can at least disregard or refute some of it.
I think this linked video is one of the best along with the lab leak debunk in explaining a lot of what kind of straight up lying and disinformation has been generated and fed to public.
Dave vents his frustration when he is annoyed by the fact that the one thing humanity has long relied on — something that has brought well-being, understanding, and progress — seems to be under some bizarre skepticism. Especially when it’s disguised, its caricature is used as a tool for power or to pursue someone’s own interests, and that skepticism is fed to people damaging the scientific community and its potential to work properly, as we’ve seen lately. And that it has, and can have, very serious consequences. And it certainly seems intentional.
I can only wish all the best to everyone that are suffering from this and trying to fight the idiocracy.
Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes.
This is, perhaps, a bit of an outlier topic, and I don't want to derail OP's primary goal here, but this might still be relevant, as well.
Separate from the primary concern of people in power maliciously undermining the public trust/belief in the value of science (that's my haphazard restatement of OP's thesis subject), I think another legitimate concern is how science has been co-opted/corrupted by capitalism: the $$-gate-keeping of access to scientific papers and publications, that has led to illegal-but-moral rebellions like Sci-Hub ... the constant efforts of various big-business concerns to buy/manipulate/corrupt scientific research to suit their needs (Monsanto on Round-up, the tobacco industry that's still not sure if smoking causes cancer, literally dozens of high-profile efforts to control the messaging of assorted miracle drugs that may-or-may-not also be killing people, Exxon scientists learning about Climate Change back in the '80s and then dedicating the next 40 years to poisoning further research, etc) ... even the way scientific funding preferentially goes to big-headline new studies but often neglects equally-important (if not more so) reproducibility efforts.
I'm sure there's more; this is just some of the high-profile issues that come to mind offhand ... the scientific method is somewhat broken in the West (or at least, in the US), largely thanks to Capitalism. IDK how to fix these issues w/o burning the modern capitalist system to the ground and starting over. I am also not suggesting that this somehow justifies the assorted RFK-jr-like efforts to further undermine it ... rather, I see those efforts as the next stage of the same issue, with a gullible public getting their information from increasingly biased propagandist "news" sources, buying into it all, becoming ever less informed and more paranoid about and distrusting of science.
The scientific method is the general process "question, research, hypothesize, experiment, analyze, conclude, repeat". It can't be broken, although people can do it wrong, e.g., by misinterpreting their experiment and making unsupported conclusions.
I like to think of capital "S" and lowercase "s" science. The former is science culture, including academia and research branches in companies. The latter is, effectively, the scientific method, and more generally, how we discover truth through observation. Capital "S" Science is what you're referring to, and I agree it's corrupted. Lowercase "s" science is incorruptible, because the truth is incorruptible: no matter how much you believe something false, or try to convince others, it's still false (and sometimes the truth doesn't matter, but in the long run it usually does).
Something that would address both the corruption within and attacks on capital "S" Science, is training people to use the scientific method, and more generally critical thinking. People can "do their own research" and make conclusions that are reasonable and correct, if they know how. The problem is that it's very hard. Nobody is immune to bias and shortcuts in reasoning, and critical thinking isn't something you teach/learn like a mundane fact, it's something you train/practice because one must apply it every time they reason.
I agree with your classification of the different types of “science”. If I were to restate my own understanding of what you said, scientific research (capital ‘s’) can be performed with the intent to either “prove” a hypothesis for the gain of corporate benefactors or “prove” a null hypothesis for the gain of corporate benefactors. While the scientific method (lowercase ‘s’) seeks only objective truth.
The latter becomes corrupted when the incentive and therefore resources to conduct said research has the goal of producing monetary gain for the provider.
Where I think I have a differing opinion is on the claim of noble intent as a prerequisite for good science. All research requires resources and funds, regardless of the motivations of those who provide them. Those that choose to spend resources to hide, distort, or bury objective truth (capital ‘S’ science) can only do so for a short period of time because “the truth is incorruptible”. If your lab needs new funding to pay participants, or to buy equipment, or buy materials, I think the pragmatic solution would be to take funding from practically whomever is willing to give it, with the caveat being both they and you agree to try an eliminate bias as much as possible. The existing scientific community I think can and has done this pretty well. Consider double blind studies, peer reviewed papers, etc.
Arguably the most critical phase of the scientific method is the final stage of repetition. “Can an independent researcher follow the same methodology and get the same results?”
We must reclaim the phrase, “Do your own research”, to align it more to the meaning as described by the scientific method (lowercase ‘s’) instead of what I think is has become colloquially to mean, “Google it and pick whichever result you choose to believe”
If you don’t trust or suspect the institutions or research centers, appeal to the ones you do trust to repeat the study, fundraise for them, seek out learning to join them and contribute meaningfully, and/or offer your own capital.
We can’t all know everything but it doesn’t mean we can’t dedicate ourselves to know some things.
This really feels like the crux of the issue for me.
We can obviously analyze and expose how information is being derailed in real time by corporate/political interest groups. And I think that is very important work to do.
But zooming out, you clearly see the root of the problem is that in a capitalist society, once it has advanced enough, those in power (capital owners) have enough resources to essentially own and control the flow of information, and it really seems to me that that cannot be fixed without a fundamental change in the system, one that puts the power clearly in the hands of the working people such that they can depose those in power (beyond politics, I'm talking within corporate structures and beyond) and thus keep them in check.
Very good and an important addition.
This capitalistic side symptom is one that crossed my mind yesterday but I forgot about it when writing.
And like the other commenter wrote it's good to remember the difference of the scientific method ("s") and the subsequent process ("S") which I wish could somehow be made more robust against wrongful implementation.
Also a thing to remember I think is that even if there was some disclosed funding or ties to some industry it doesn't automatically lead to corrupted science. But the examples of clear corruption have had a real detrimental effect on lives and reliability of science and probably on its image.
I've recently got familiar with the YouTube channel Professor Dave Explains and watched the Covid19 and health politics related content as a catch up after some years post pandemic. I really appreciate Dave's and other science communicators' efforts to shine light on the things and explain with evidence and principles the more nuanced stuff that has gone around.
I am amazed. I knew the things happening have been absurd and harmful to the general public but goddamn it's not looking good at all (Apart from the fact that people like Dave are fighting and refuting the bullshit claims). I'm not sure what I want to discuss here. Maybe this is more like a group therapy session. Or what do you think about it all?
I'm looking at this from far away country in Europe and while our situation here is better for now I've been really frustrated at times of various obvious and not so obvious misinformation that has been circulating even here in some circles. Some of it is leaking from US to here. Often it's these exact same dis- or misinformation claims and views that spread around in the social media here. Of course every country have their own local elements added to that in the information space. It's of course not as bad here and many know better but still some less educated lack the tools to properly identify it. I'm someone who has at least some background and education in scientific principles and have always been interested in that so I can at least disregard or refute some of it.
I think this linked video is one of the best along with the lab leak debunk in explaining a lot of what kind of straight up lying and disinformation has been generated and fed to public.
Dave vents his frustration when he is annoyed by the fact that the one thing humanity has long relied on — something that has brought well-being, understanding, and progress — seems to be under some bizarre skepticism. Especially when it’s disguised, its caricature is used as a tool for power or to pursue someone’s own interests, and that skepticism is fed to people damaging the scientific community and its potential to work properly, as we’ve seen lately. And that it has, and can have, very serious consequences. And it certainly seems intentional.
I can only wish all the best to everyone that are suffering from this and trying to fight the idiocracy.