If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Your inability to incorporate the first statement into the following statement shows the level of your intellectual indoctrination (including your assumption/insistence that the nonscientific nature of your major has scientific relevance). Good Day on this.

Yes, I'm intellectually indoctrinated. I suppose I'd rather be that than... I'm not sure. Intellectually bankrupt?

 

[CiG]

Who is to say you're not that too?

 

[Einherjar86]

Say it if you want man. I'm just saying what's always been the case--that science is political to some degree. In a culture that fosters publicly-funded scientific pursuits, you're likely going to find a more diverse field of research than you would if science was privately-funded by entities that want to see their interests reaffirmed. Does that mean it's a-political? Definitely not; but it does mean you're going to generate a more vibrant and varied discourse.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In a culture that fosters publicly-funded scientific pursuits, you're likely going to find a more diverse field of research than you would if science was privately-funded by entities that want to see their interests reaffirmed.

Why would privately-funded scientists be more prone to observer bias? Publicly-funded science pays largely through promotion/prestige/fame, privately-funded science pays via market incentives. The former would seem much more prone to reaffirmation, where for the latter, the science itself is just a means to a high-dollar patent.

 

[Einherjar86]

Privately-funded science doesn't pay in market incentives though. It pays based on whether the results conform to a patron's expectations. Scientists whose results contest the values and/or practices of their patrons would quickly find themselves out of a job; or, and this is perhaps even worse, they would alter their results so as to appease those they work for.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Privately-funded science doesn't pay in market incentives though. It pays based on whether the results conform to a patron's expectations. Scientists whose results contest the values and/or practices of their patrons would quickly find themselves out of a job; or, and this is perhaps even worse, they would alter their results so as to appease those they work for.

What patron? If you're an aspiring pharma company developing a new drug to treat some disease, chances are you're being funded through wealthy private investors. Should the company be so fortunate as to have great early clinical results, it will be purchased by a massive Pfizer or Merck. Are you saying that outright fraud, e.g. doctoring data to show a positive result when none such occurred, is a common event? Pretty sure it isn't, and it's not exactly hard to verify most scientific results if the methodology is clear. At the level of the board of directors, it just isn't worth the risk; even if it means declaring bankruptcy on their company, most/all of those guys have connections outside of their business and can find work elsewhere.

If you mean patrons as in the lab tech that fucks up an experiment, and fakes some data to avoid being chewed out/fired, that stuff will almost certainly get caught. The chain of command is too long and there are too many experiments built on each other for someone to not figure it out eventually, assuming the result was significant to the overall project.

If you mean the end consumer, then that's complicated by the fact that we don't really have a free market. Regulations in advertising products can be strict. The factor of cost is usually buried under a complex web of interplay between drug companies, insurance, and government subsidies, meaning consumers don't particularly need to weigh costs and benefits. Consumers are not allowed to consent to purchase new medication on their own; they need the prescription to do so.

And I think moving outside of biotech/drugs (I picked it because it's what I'll probably end up doing once I finish my PhD) it only becomes more clear. No one really cares about the "values" behind designing a better solar panel or space rocket or similar as long as the end product is worth buying. Private-sector research has a strong bias towards application over the theoretical.

 

[EternalMetal]

In a culture that fosters publicly-funded scientific pursuits, you're likely going to find a more diverse field of research than you would if science was privately-funded by entities that want to see their interests reaffirmed.

With publicly funded research you will find more scientists trying to reaffirm their own postulates in order to continue receiving funding. The competition for publicly funded grants in academia is the prime mover in this dilemma. If your research doesnt yield good results, you may not receive finding in the future. Privately funded research is often goal oriented, and tends to be more rigorous in its standards of accuracy (HBB's post above points this out quite well).

 

[CiG]

Relating to the original thing @Einherjar86 brought up, I think it's rather funny that just as the left are reaching peak-can't ever seem to form as one and move forward to a goal and self-devouring politics, Donald Trump comes in and makes it impossible for the right to capitalize on this because now they're also eating each other alive and can't form as one in order to move in post-Obama and dominate.

 

[Einherjar86]

What patron? If you're an aspiring pharma company developing a new drug to treat some disease, chances are you're being funded through wealthy private investors. Should the company be so fortunate as to have great early clinical results, it will be purchased by a massive Pfizer or Merck. Are you saying that outright fraud, e.g. doctoring data to show a positive result when none such occurred, is a common event? Pretty sure it isn't, and it's not exactly hard to verify most scientific results if the methodology is clear. At the level of the board of directors, it just isn't worth the risk; even if it means declaring bankruptcy on their company, most/all of those guys have connections outside of their business and can find work elsewhere.

If you mean patrons as in the lab tech that fucks up an experiment, and fakes some data to avoid being chewed out/fired, that stuff will almost certainly get caught. The chain of command is too long and there are too many experiments built on each other for someone to not figure it out eventually, assuming the result was significant to the overall project.

If you mean the end consumer, then that's complicated by the fact that we don't really have a free market. Regulations in advertising products can be strict. The factor of cost is usually buried under a complex web of interplay between drug companies, insurance, and government subsidies, meaning consumers don't particularly need to weigh costs and benefits. Consumers are not allowed to consent to purchase new medication on their own; they need the prescription to do so.

And I think moving outside of biotech/drugs (I picked it because it's what I'll probably end up doing once I finish my PhD) it only becomes more clear. No one really cares about the "values" behind designing a better solar panel or space rocket or similar as long as the end product is worth buying. Private-sector research has a strong bias towards application over the theoretical.

With publicly funded research you will find more scientists trying to reaffirm their own postulates in order to continue receiving funding. The competition for publicly funded grants in academia is the prime mover in this dilemma. If your research doesnt yield good results, you may not receive finding in the future. Privately funded research is often goal oriented, and tends to be more rigorous in its standards of accuracy (HBB's post above points this out quite well).

I'm talking about science in which the applicability of results is not immediately clear, whether they prove positive or not: e.g. those working at CERN, or continuing NASA missions, or artificial intelligence/consciousness, etc. Private funding for such pursuits will almost certainly have speculative goals in mind, and if the research doesn't pan out then there's no reason to keep funding (if private enterprises are even interested in this kind of research in the first place).

This kind of research doesn't have the clear goal-oriented structure that research for pharmaceutical companies have. There needs to be some kind of publicly-funded system in place to support such research. Even if it leads to some scientists tweaking their results in order to support their hypotheses, if enough scientists are funded then eventually a general consensus will begin to emerge (which we've seen in our contemporary scientific community).

But as someone already mentioned, I think the science budget is safe for now, seeing as the budget they passed is pretty much leftover from Obama's term.

 

[rms]

The idea that science could be politically unbiased is a pipe dream.

And it's also clear that science and governance are closely intertwined. In fact, I'd argue that government-funded research is potentially less biased than privately-funded research.

didn't say it was unbiased, but assigning more bias to it, by associating the left/liberals/democrats as the "science party" is obviously ridiculous..

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, as I already said, I'm more suspicious of science that has privately-funded interests in mind.

Also, disclaimer: that's not to say that privately-funded science can't be productive or important! I think it can be very important. I just also think it operates within a very narrow window of opportunity. Publicly-funded science, while it may foster political bias and the need for confirmation, generates a more varied discursive community than scientists working in corporate labs.

 

[CiG]

What's the ratio of public vs. private in medicine research and development?

 

[rms]

Publicly-funded science, while it may foster political bias and the need for confirmation, generates a more varied discursive community than scientists working in corporate labs.

we're not even to the point of speaking generally about publically and privately funded science. The discussion is the rebranding of science as a tool of the political left. Not addressing this is being dishonest.

Edit; quote to show where this started:

The march for science was totally political. Why is that a bad thing?

Not surprised that Baroque was the only man to like this post

 

[Einherjar86]

What's the ratio of public vs. private in medicine research and development?

I actually have no idea.

A lot of work is done by scholars at R1 universities, so I think a fair amount is mostly public.

we're not even to the point of speaking generally about publically and privately funded science. The discussion is the rebranding of science as a tool of the political left. Not addressing this is being dishonest.

As far as pure politics go, yes it is a tool of the left. But a lot of the people in the march itself see themselves as legitimate scientists who happen to have political beliefs and maybe some concern for the future of their research.

There were also a lot of hangers-on in the marches, people who probably identify more politically than scientifically. These two things don't need to be mutually exclusive, is what I'm saying.

If the biggest problem here is that science skeptics see the marches and feel further repulsed by its political assimilation, then I'd accuse both side of being as politically virulent--not just the left.

 

[EternalMetal]

Well, as I already said, I'm more suspicious of science that has privately-funded interests in mind.

Also, disclaimer: that's not to say that privately-funded science can't be productive or important! I think it can be very important. I just also think it operates within a very narrow window of opportunity. Publicly-funded science, while it may foster political bias and the need for confirmation, generates a more varied discursive community than scientists working in corporate labs.

It kind of all depends on the field of study. Surely an oil company funded field study of the impact of drilling would be biased as fuck, but something like drug design is going to be much less biased and more results-based.

What's the ratio of public vs. private in medicine research and development?

Im not sure about the ratio, but they work hand in hand. Publicly funded research is usually more focused on unraveling the science, and privately funded research is focused on building on this knowledge to create drugs and other medical products.

we're not even to the point of speaking generally about publically and privately funded science. The discussion is the rebranding of science as a tool of the political left. Not addressing this is being dishonest.

Edit; quote to show where this started:



Not surprised that Baroque was the only man to like this post

I dont think that it is a secret that the main point of this march was because of the left's views on climate change. Simply put, this research is important and should not be de-funded. Im sure that motives and ideas for action on this are sitting immediately below the surface. While I myself am skeptical of the current popular consensus in climate science, I do think that these are important issues that are worth spending time and money discussing. This isnt a new issue. What other science does the political left even remotely care about?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm talking about science in which the applicability of results is not immediately clear, whether they prove positive or not: e.g. those working at CERN, or continuing NASA missions, or artificial intelligence/consciousness, etc. Private funding for such pursuits will almost certainly have speculative goals in mind, and if the research doesn't pan out then there's no reason to keep funding (if private enterprises are even interested in this kind of research in the first place).

This kind of research doesn't have the clear goal-oriented structure that research for pharmaceutical companies have. There needs to be some kind of publicly-funded system in place to support such research. Even if it leads to some scientists tweaking their results in order to support their hypotheses, if enough scientists are funded then eventually a general consensus will begin to emerge (which we've seen in our contemporary scientific community).

But as someone already mentioned, I think the science budget is safe for now, seeing as the budget they passed is pretty much leftover from Obama's term.

Well yeah, private scientific research usually isn't done without market incentives (unless it's a private non-profit e.g. St. Jude's (which of course still ultimately has market considerations to some extent in the form of consumer interest for services, and tax breaks/PR for corporations and individuals that donate)). That's a different issue from what you seemed to be talking about before though. I don't disagree that theoretical and fundamental research with ambiguous market application can be better suited to public funding, though it's worth noting that such research was largely privately funded until the 1940s-50s or so (see: Bell Labs for one example).

 

[rms]

If the biggest problem here is that science skeptics see the marches and feel further repulsed by its political assimilation, then I'd accuse both side of being as politically virulent--not just the left.

I think you're looking at this in at "too micro" of a level. The problem isn't the persuasion but rather the increase of identity politics. Those who marched for "Science" were likely 90%+ leftists. I can't imagine that number is any smaller.

Then, any political discussion, whether that is on twitter or carried out by influential commentators, is going to frame each issue as the "pro science" and "anti science" party. Neither side has shown they are pro science, they are pro-survival. Or pro-accruing more power.

I dont think that it is a secret that the main point of this march was because of the left's views on climate change

I think it is a secret, the name of the march wasn't "A March for Climate Change"

What other science does the political left even remotely care about?

Stem cells, gay gene(s), and being anti-GMO

 

[CiG]

I think it is a secret, the name of the march wasn't "A March for Climate Change"

It's an extension of what you said about sides being dichotomised as the pro-science side vs the anti-science side.

If they called it the march for climate change it essentially would strip the march of any projected objectivity and apolitical nature. By calling it the march for science it further strengthens the claim that they're the pro-science side.

 

[Einherjar86]

This piece articulates impeccably what I've been saying repeatedly about gender/race and identity:

(fair warning, it's dense word-soup, but I think it's important for capturing the sincerity of the issue)

Both conventional cisgender and more trans-inclusive epistemologies of gender (especially in the West) *demand* that we associate gendered embodiments, expressions, behaviors, words / terms, with a deeply *interior* identity (recalling the argument that Foucault famously makes about sexuality) - our gendered actions or embodiments must *mean* something in terms of the ontology of our inner selves, must correspond with a deeply held personal identity (even if that is genderqueer or fluid or agender, inasmuch as these are ‘identities’). Much of our hard-won struggles against biological essentialism and for gender self-determination often remain imbricated in this potentially oppressive ideology, being in some sense the obverse of the cissexist idea that social sex assignment ‘naturally’ corresponds to a gendered essence (inasmuch as an avowal of gender as a deep personal identity becomes the logic for social recognition). ‘Race’, in contrast, is etymologically linked with ideas of common descent and collective lineage, deriving from one’s position within a collective rather than a deeply held personal identity (indeed, US post-racial ideology asks us to [pretend to] forget that race matters for individual identification or social position). To my mind, this contrast between the personalization+interiorization of gender and the collectivization of race seems to be one of the underlying reasons for the discomfort with transracialism and the race-gender analogy. Regardless of the validity or otherwise of transracialism as a ‘real' phenomenon, it ties us to the oppressive generalization of gender as an inevitable personal essence that all of us must ‘own up to’, in contradistinction to race or ethnicity that are assigned to us or derive from our collective social position.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ani-...ilege-identity-distinction/10155234495464437/

 

[rms]

god, this is annoying to read

Much of our hard-won struggles against biological essentialism

with essentialism being defined as, a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence, this is your position? that biology is a social construct?

I feel like I need to read more of them's (lol) post but this asshole and his ESPN spelling bee runner up's use of the english language is so pretentious