Has money and politics corrupted modern Science?

[Anonymous]

The scientific process is suppose to be about open inquiry and debate on any idea. Even gravity is still a theory subject to question no matter how obvious it might be to all of us.

Scientific institutions are suppose to facilitate and require this debate.

Instead on many political charged subjects they are in fact stifling it in favor of their own agenda be it what they call "Climate Change" or the origin of COVID-19.

A lot of this corruption comes from not merely the people who run theses institutions but even more so from the people (most politicians) who fund soo many of them.

This video about what happened in the "Climate change" debate kind of explains how it works better than I can. But how we are issuing grants is encouraging drama rather than science.

[Lliam]

Yup. She succinctly and accurately described how it works, and not just in regard to the issue of climate change. Those who do the funding get to set the agenda. And the agenda is always about profit. You don't spend money with out expecting a big return on investment.

One of the most outrageous things is what she described at the end. Honest scientists not only lose funding, they have their reputations and careers destroyed. And their scientific findings are blocked, banned and censored.

Those who talk about scientific consensus are actually anti-science. They are propagandists.

[Asker]

Money can be an honest motivator as it is suppose to reflect what the market finds valuable.

Its true a publication seeking general readership will look for things that draw people to it such as controversy. But such forums should cut both ways, be known for such, and not deemed scientific institutions.

The trouble with much if not most of this science being funded by politicians is very selectively directed toward things that might give the politicians a cause for more money and power.

Perhaps government's should not be funding science, or at the very least their funding should be acknowledged as seeking that answer, and be no greater than private sector funding.

[Lliam]

Not so much governments, though, they are bought by the same elites and industries who buy the scientists and institutions.
But you're rights, it's "public, private partnerships" that are manipulating everything. Public meaning government and private meaning entities with unimaginable wealth and power.

It's fascism (“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini) with a goal of treating humanity like USSR or more like modern Chinese communism.

People argue whether it's fascist or communist, but it's the same totalitarianism.

[Asker]

@lliam Power has always corrupted men, but it is the power of force that is the state that is the most dangerous of all corruption for we cannot so easily walk away from it. This is why a State must be contained and limited as much as possible.
Such is why socialism be it in the form o communism or more competent form "corporatism" is soo dangerous and harmful.

[Astarlessnightsky]

A scientific theory is the exact opposite of how theory is defined in the everyday language.

Its not a vague concept, but thouroughly tested and peer reviewed.

But science is also bound to make money, and science is also bound to those who found the studies. Eg lots of companies have hidden the results of their studies, if they didn't yield the desired results. Tobacco industry hid the results of how harmfull cigarettes actually are, oil companies have held back the results how harmfull co2 and other emissions actually are, ...

[Asker]

@astarlessnightsky
That everything must serve some propose as to justified the resource spent on it (IE make money) does not mean we should ignore that propose in assuming some-kind of impartiality.

That a business would sponsor research to favor their agenda is no different than the goverment sponging research to favor the political power agenda of the politicians running it.

As such the problem with the 'research' on both "climate Change" and "COVID-19" was it was in fact funded by politicians who had an int rest in using the results to acquire or retain power.

As such they choose to suppress information and lie to both cover their mistakes and justify their power grabs.

[jshm2]

It more accurately explains FOX "news" nutjobs like you, and the dimwit flat earthers, more than anything.

You and the content maker are not understanding the difference between science, the scientific community, and the scientific method.

Sure there is a lot of opinions, but you must be a dullard American if you can't see for yourself that melting ice sheets and hotter temperatures are not things that are beneficial. You probably also think more guns will "solve" the problem, so it's no surprise you're not taken seriously.

[Asker]

@jshm2 Just because you disagree with what someone says doesn't mean they are wrong.

That said you seem to have a problem in logic in that you without the Scientific method, something is not science, without practicing science, a community is not a 'scientific community'.

You don't get to just claim a label even when you've abandon its terms.

Regarding the desirability of earth's climate changing. Then of course for people living today adapted to the present environmental conditions then of course they don't want to change.

Unfortunately for them the earth is always changing, and perhaps in the grand scheme of things that is not a bad thing as it drive innovation and punishes stagnation in a universe that will never remain the same.

The direction of that change however is consequential, If we do nothing at all say humans didn't exist we know for a fact that earth would renter a period of Glacial maximum, or what Hollywood somewhat incorrectly calls an "ice age". We know this for a fact because it has been happening in cycles for more than 2 million years oscillating between ice crushing everything above the 49th parallel for ~100,000 years and the present Inter-glacial which last around ~10,000-15,000 years.

So no leaving the climate as it is naturally would be a disaster for the modern human race. We are far better off pushing the earth to get back to its normal tropical environment that dominated 90%+ of its history.

Unfortunately there are not enough green house gasses in the ground to do anymore than delay the next 5 Glacial maximums over then next half million years, so we will need anther solution long term.

[slatyb]

Climate change is real. That should be completely obvious as every year has been warmer that the last. Yes, occasionally scientists do fabricate data. Eventually it's discovered and corrected. The reported but non-existent vaccine / autism connection is a good example of that. There is no serious doubt that climate change is real and it's caused by the elevated concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Asker]

Climate change has been real since the earth first had a climate, that doesn't mean man is driving it nor does it mean that it is undesirable.

In the case of a warming climate I would think it would be obvious just how desirable that is given we currently live in an ICE AGE climate fixing to otherwise renter a Glacial period

If we don't warm the earth and significantly, most of us will have to leave it, as Ice will once again significantly reduce the growing season and Crush everything above the 49th parallel

[Christoff92]

Everything that evolves money and politics is corrupted to modern science. So sure.