Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
When I spoke about "your position" I meant it in the 3rd person sense as in "despite whatever your (as in everybody reading) position may be".
|
Ah ok, fair enough, my apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I'm merely pointing out there is evidence that funding and support (both political and academic) has been allocated more strongly to one side than the other and this should be recognized and perhaps remedied.
|
Which evidence? Even on the face of it it seems a ridiculous accusation as to be true it would also require all scientists to be in on the conspiracy, as the outcome of the science would have to be planned well in advance of the funding.
It's not like they're funding a study called "is global warming true", they're funding studies about when plants germinate at what latitudes, or examining ice cores, or counting tree rings, or one of a million other pieces of information that feed into the conclusion but in and of themselves you can't "preallocate" funds to things to get a desired conclusion. You don't know in advance when funding a satellite to measure solar output if the data will support the conclusion or not.
There was a great writeup about this I read a while back about the whole "scientists support global warming to get more funding" fallacy, I wish I could find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
It's the same with religion isn't it?
|
It's the same with any ideological position.
Which is one of science's strengths, while scientists themselves might be ideological, and those might use its conclusions for ideological purposes, the process itself isn't.