Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
...Science is a process, frequently funded by people trying to make money or support a preconceived policy, through which data is gathered and analyzed in an attempt to support the quarterly sales goals or preconceived policy of the people providing the funding...
|
Stated more simply, Science isn't value-free, which is something any scientist who ever needed funding to do research (or more frequently these days to implement research) can attest to. I spend half my time writing proposals and reports to funders, trying to couch it in a language and weave it into a project design that funders respond to. Currently the "in-things" are "climate change" and "science in the service of society". Science is further not value-free (and should not be) because scientific knowledge is inevitably put to some use. This is best expressed in a quote I read (or heard) somewhere: "Oh noes! You're using science for no good! We promised we would do that less."
Filtherton, o your other point, I prefer to define Science as "The search for The Truth".
(I like short definitions)
I contest the OP's assertion that science is losing crediblity. Scientists were never viewed with much credibility throughout human history - at least not scientists on the cutting edge. I also cannot agree with the statement that "humans reacting irrationally to fear and the unknown". Most human behaviour can be rationalised, even if it is viewed to be "wrong" (depending on the time-frame of such review).
Given that science is a process, people are free to reject findings along the way. Scepticism is good for science. The issue highlighted in the OP, that of scientific progress being hampered by ignorance is incorrect. The biggest obstacle to innovation is capitalism, as experienced in a global economy run by multi-nationals who dictate the implementation and research direction of science. Not public ignorance.
Anyway, I normally just lurk around. Feel free to ignore my views. As a scientist, I'm used to it.
