Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
|
How often is the public exposed to the pure process? Most often than not, they are given compartmentalized, summarized, abridged, and journalistically rendered (complete with any bias or editorialization that may come with it) versions or what politicians and panels throw up on slides for the general public.
I believe intentions are pure but science is driven by funding and when one direction receives more attention, support, and momentum, that area will expand and aggregate upon something that is more politically and publically desirable.
I am not arguing at all that scientists are fudging numbers or are are purposely supporting one side just to receive benefits. I'm saying it's a passive social effect that creeps into science. Those who do not adhere are ostracized by their peers, get labeled dissenters, etc.
I am just concerned that the climate change issue has become such a beast that it unduly affects the science that should drive it. It concerns me that the climate issue is a "easy villain" for politicians to become champions of (whether they are for or are against the issue). That's what this thread was started about in the first place! It concerns me that politicians and supporters on both sides are using shoddy science or the editorialized versions of it to further their agendas (not to mention public polls and the bible!)
If you are convinced that this is wholly not the case based on the book you read, then I will have to read it as well. I take issue with ideology and people who adhere too rigidly to it, nomatter which side they are on. That's my stake in this.