Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
It's one thing to suggest this... but can someone explain why a "dastardly scientist" would do this? And given that science is subjected to peer review, how the dastardly scientists, could collude with some many of their peers to reach the same conclusions?
|
This unfortunately is hard to describe unless you have been involved with the environmental side of the sciences. Its what made me make up my mind to get out of the lab and go onto dental school. Science was giving up to political goals since the late 80's. Dr. Patrick Moore, perhaps said it best,
Quote:
Extremist groups share a common perception about the world, Moore said. They are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-globalization - not just free trade, but all trade. He said people who embrace extremist views and philosophies believe all large machines are inherently evil, and - worse - science is used to justify positions "that actually have nothing to do with science." Moore believes these viewpoints are naive, including the oft-stated wish to return to a "Garden of Eden." How ironic, he said, that these same people use cell phones, laptops and jet planes as the main tools of their trade.
This new language, media hype, political correctness and distorted or inaccurate facts are perceived by the public to be 'science,' he said, and this pseudo-science will eventually affect our daily lives by wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers' money and corporate, financial and industrial capital.
|
Also I need to point out that 'peer' review is over hyped. Its more of an after affect, and many of these papers are questioned by peer review only the review is rather esoteric in nature and doesn't make a good sound byte.
We are talking public perception, politics, and science, with science being the least important of the three.