Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?

> > The trouble is that at some point some sort of conflict especially
> > at the political platform is inevitable.
>
> Politics & science, like politics & religion should not be mixed...

Maybe so, but I said it's inevitable, ie there's going to be
involvement whether we like it or not. I certainly don't like the idea
of science illiterate politicians making choices as to funding for
scientific research (especially as to where the money goes, to real
science or frauds), so we might as well make sure they aren't
scietifically illitarate, or defend the real science and expose frauds
as what they are.

As for your comment as to religion & politics I'd certainly agree that
religios truths shouldn't be used as justification in politics because
they're subjective truths, but scientific truths can be used as
justification (of whatever choice is being made so long as it's in the
domain of science) since they're objective.

As for your comment on politics and religion not to be mixed

> > Consider the case of evolution & public schools,
>
> Ok, considered... I have absolutely NO! problem providing boths
> sides of this in an objective manner. Saying basically, this
> is the creationist view and how & why they think it, and OTOH, here
> is the theory of evolution and how & why others think it is the
> right view. Now, decide for yourselves...

So long as creationism goes under philosophy (along with many other
origin myths) I have no trouble with that either. You'll notice I said
Evolution & Public Schools, and not Creationism & Public Schools. I was
refering to the attempts as to remove evolution from public schools.

> > ... or for example consider a scenario where homeopathy becomes
> > officially recognized (maybe it already is, I don't know) and
> > insurance companies have to pay for homeopathic treatments
> > (increasing insurance rates(?)), ...
> If it works it will be adopted, if not, I assure you that you will
> NOT! convince the insurance companies to cover it.

Alright that was a weak example. Let's talk about tobacco companies
shall we? Do you agree about the age limit to tobacco consumption or
the surgeons warnings on the packs as to it being a health hazard (if
I'm not mistaken they're required by law)? If it hadn't been
scientifically proven (still issue of debate I think) that tobacco is a
health hazard those wouldn't be there. Now consider a case where
tobacco companies get someone to compile a load of scientific sounding
mumbo jumbo, or get people to do biased/flawed experiments that show
that smoking in fact isn't a health hazard (I believe there's debate
that in the past they've done one of these, can't quite remember
which).

> > ... or consider a US president making decisions based on astrological
> > advice (I think there was a US president known for this, can't quite
> > remember his name though, Reagan maybe?).
>
> If he did, where's the problem?

Essentially he'd be making unsound decisions based on unsound advice. I
wouldn't trust someone who looked up to the stars for guidiance to make
life and death decisions for me. There's also the question of his
astrologer. To you who defends that religion and politics shouldn't be
mixed, I ask: How would taking advice in regards to political matters
(and making choices based on that advice) from an astrologer differ
from taking them from a high priest?

> I have problems with decisions,
> NOT how they were made.
How good would decisions based on an unsound source of knowledge/advice
be?

> It's actions not beliefs that matter.
I couldn't care less what he believed so long as he applied it to his
personal life, when he applies it to a nation that he's supposed to
make good decisions for that's another matter.

> However, in science its how well a proposed idea both explains,
> quantifies, and anticipates nature. Nothing more!
Essentially it's how good it stands the test of experimental process.
Also how well it predicts results known before. And maybe others will
add more, but what are you trying to say here, we're talking politics
and the role of scientist in it, not science.. ???

> >>> In a sense that's more about protecting people than science.
> >>
> >> From what? Beliefs, ideas?
> >
> > Frauds possibly, but the moral arguments you've made in that point
> > are equally valid AFAIK.
>
> That's the problem in areas outside of science's direct domain,
> isn't it? The human factor...

Certainly. We could say it's my duty as a citizen of a democracy who
also happens to be a scientist and well authorised to talk about
science (not quite yet, but you're free to replace "my" with any
scientist's name who defends the views I've been presenting).

> > Experimentation is a fundemental part of science; experiments need
> > equipment; equipment costs money;
>
> This could lead to a long and eventually pointless debate. However,
> while I do agree that experimentation requires resources problems
> arise when politics enters the picture.

Agreed, problems arise when politics enters the picture, pretty
disgusting problems too, but is there a way for politics not to enter
the picture? As for the pointlessness of debate, well, so far I've
enjoyed it, when I no longer do I'll give up ;).

> > ... therefore science needs money whether we like it or not. I don't
> > (especially after having had to deal with my high school's
> > administration for funding for a project. I agree it's probably nothing
> > compared to getting money out of a university's administration or the
> > goverment but it gives me a good idea) and have opted for a career in
> > theoretical physics/math. But regardless of my personal choice without
> > money there's no experiment; without experiment there's no science.
>
> Ah, but I think we do this superficial lip-service today. I agree with
> Feynman's assessment about 'experimental' science nowadays.

Hmm I haven't heard that assessment, could you qoute or point in the
direction of a book (the library here might have it, it'd be a good
read if nothing else). Certainly I'd agree that experiments get
complexer and (oh well) less reliable (and more likely to be biased)
when the subject areas are things like psychology, sociology or even
medicine where there are way too many variables to look into and some
experiments are way too expensive to do more than once. But in physics
I doubt that experiments are far worse today then they were a few
centuries ago (then again Feynman would have far more to say that I
do)...

Have fun.

Aydin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gunners Status
    ... refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most. ... interpretation of the politics, not the science. ... It's self-serving politics. ... Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Gunners Status
    ... interpretation of the politics, not the science. ... It's self-serving politics. ... Global Warming facts are not complete, the issue is not closed for debate. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Gunners Status
    ... refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most. ... interpretation of the politics, not the science. ... It's self-serving politics. ... There are some top scientists who argue against it. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Little green idiots cause global warming
    ... >> This was an exercise in the realm of politics, not science. ... >> Climate model output is not evidence. ... If such scientists say that there is no problem, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... his undergraduate science class, which essentially pointed out that at ... That is about justice, politics, ethics, ... countries to propagate old technologies is a silly idea. ... If one business in a very competitive field decides to "go ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Quantcast