Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
Amen Brent. I saw firsthand how difficult it is to buck current scientific theory even if the facts favor you. The dinosaur extinction, continental drift and circumstellar shells around stars were all ridiculed and/or heckled in science meetings I attended at both the U and BYU in the late 60's and early 70's. I do not believe science today is any better with political motivation and funding preventing objectivity. I suspect many of today's cherished theories will be greatly modified or dropped altogether. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:05 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sciece editorial in the Chronicle Perhaps I missed the point of the article, but it seems to me like science has got to make the change fIrst. What do I mean by that? Current attitudes towards science and the funding of scientific endeavor are shaped by the integrity of those performing the work. All too many times the public finds the motivation for reporting of scientific results is financial, or political. The public does not like this . Experimental results are too often tainted by the need to receive more funding, or to support the current political winds blowing through the air. The current method for funding research needs to change in order to eliminate this posturing. I am not sure what the answer is that will eliminate the improper motivation, but surely there is a better way. I am not saying that all scienctific research results are this way, but there are too many shenanigans being pulled. Certainly I would hope that the vast majority of discovery is honestly reported, and that those behind these results are honorable. But there is too much tainted reporting to be able to eliminate the public skepticism. The news media doesn't help this situation either. Reports of scientific discovery are sensationalized to make them "more news worthy." A great example of this is the reporting of Comet Ison - the Comet of the Century. Now, comet Ison may well be just that, but we need to see the results before that name can be applied. The news media in general has the cart before the horse. Bottom line - if science wants the general public to trust them, then science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation. Just my $.02 Brent From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:49 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Sciece editorial in the Chronicle Interesting editorial in today's Chronicle: Americans must drop anti-science ideals http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/?p=2587452 patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Seems the biggest conflict is between industry scientists and independent scientists. I doubt he is talking about obscure stellar evolution theory, and yes there are many thoughts about dino extinction but not that they roamed the earth thousands of years ago, that would be millions. The 2 biggest areas seem to be evolution and climate science. Accusations that only those working for the extraction industry are being objective and not influenced by money. We see massive ad campaigns to contradict scientists that do not have the budget for advertisement. Seems industry employs attorneys to thwart objectivity, another thing scientist working under government grants lack.
We need for government to take back its role in funding research, privately funded science is the problem. Take the drug industry, we need a new generation of antibiotics, yet 80% of the antibiotics are used and developed on farm animals to increase "yield" because that is where the money is. "First thing is to get the facts straight then you can distort them to prove your point" Mark Twain Amen Brent. I saw firsthand how difficult it is to buck current
scientific theory even if the facts favor you. The dinosaur extinction, continental drift and circumstellar shells around stars were all ridiculed and/or heckled in science meetings I attended at both the U and BYU in the late 60's and early 70's. I do not believe science today is any better with political motivation and funding preventing objectivity. I suspect many of today's cherished theories will be greatly modified or dropped altogether.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:05 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sciece editorial in the Chronicle
Perhaps I missed the point of the article, but it seems to me like science has got to make the change fIrst. What do I mean by that? Current attitudes towards science and the funding of scientific endeavor are shaped by the integrity of those performing the work. All too many times the public finds the motivation for reporting of scientific results is financial, or political. The public does not like this . Experimental results are too often tainted by the need to receive more funding, or to support the current political winds blowing through the air. The current method for funding research needs to change in order to eliminate this posturing. I am not sure what the answer is that will eliminate the improper motivation, but surely there is a better way. I am not saying that all scienctific research results are this way, but there are too many shenanigans being pulled. Certainly I would hope that the vast majority of discovery is honestly reported, and that those behind these results are honorable. But there is too much tainted reporting to be able to eliminate the public skepticism. The news media doesn't help this situation either. Reports of scientific discovery are sensationalized to make them "more news worthy." A great example of this is the reporting of Comet Ison - the Comet of the Century. Now, comet Ison may well be just that, but we need to see the results before that name can be applied. The news media in general has the cart before the horse. Bottom line - if science wants the general public to trust them, then science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation. Just my $.02 Brent
From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:49 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Sciece editorial in the Chronicle
Interesting editorial in today's Chronicle:
Americans must drop anti-science ideals http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/?p=2587452
patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I am afraid it goes much deeper than that, Erik. The issue is not as much the source of the funding, although that plays a minor part, as it is the way funding is awarded. There are plenty of "adjusted" results in government funded research too. The motivation for results is to acquire additional funding, and not to achieve honest results. I would bet that attitude exists more in government funded projects than in privately funded projects. What has to be done is to remove results from funding - independantly of where the funding comes from. From: "erikhansen@thebluezone.net" <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
Seems the biggest conflict is between industry scientists and independent scientists. I doubt he is talking about obscure stellar evolution theory, and yes there are many thoughts about dino extinction but not that they roamed the earth thousands of years ago, that would be millions. The 2 biggest areas seem to be evolution and climate science. Accusations that only those working for the extraction industry are being objective and not influenced by money. We see massive ad campaigns to contradict scientists that do not have the budget for advertisement. Seems industry employs attorneys to thwart objectivity, another thing scientist working under government grants lack.
We need for government to take back its role in funding research, privately funded science is the problem. Take the drug industry, we need a new generation of antibiotics, yet 80% of the antibiotics are used and developed on farm animals to increase "yield" because that is where the money is. "First thing is to get the facts straight then you can distort them to prove your point" Mark Twain
as opposed to research that is geared for profit? A big problem comes in the area of "industry secrets", an example here is in drug research, pharma funds the research so they can legally hide negative results. Dangerous drugs have been approved and only through costly law suits do the negative studies get released, this was demonstrated by New York state.
I am sure a few that get government funding do skew results to get continued funding, I doubt it goes to the level of studies funded by companies looking for profit. The Oil Industry seems to spend more on misleading advertising than NASA spends on climate research. Industry is the one creating the mistrust. Government post WWII funded 80% of the research (we got NASA out of that) today they fund about 20%. I am afraid it goes much deeper than that, Erik. The issue is not as much
the source of the funding, although that plays a minor part, as it is the way funding is awarded. There are plenty of "adjusted" results in government funded research too. The motivation for results is to acquire additional funding, and not to achieve honest results. I would bet that attitude exists more in government funded projects than in privately funded projects. What has to be done is to remove results from funding - independantly of where the funding comes from.
From: "erikhansen@thebluezone.net" <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
Seems the biggest conflict is between industry scientists and independent scientists. I doubt he is talking about obscure stellar evolution theory, and yes there are many thoughts about dino extinction but not that they roamed the earth thousands of years ago, that would be millions. The 2 biggest areas seem to be evolution and climate science. Accusations that only those working for the extraction industry are being objective and not influenced by money. We see massive ad campaigns to contradict scientists that do not have the budget for advertisement. Seems industry employs attorneys to thwart objectivity, another thing scientist working under government grants lack.
We need for government to take back its role in funding research, privately funded science is the problem. Take the drug industry, we need a new generation of antibiotics, yet 80% of the antibiotics are used and developed on farm animals to increase "yield" because that is where the money is.
"First thing is to get the facts straight then you can distort them to prove your point" Mark Twain _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Actually, were it not for private funding, modern astronomy would be nowhere near the state it's in today. You can thank people like Andrew Carnegie, and many other industrial captains of their day, for our current understanding of the cosmos. Yerkes, Hooker- many others. Even today, benefactors such as the Keck Foundation fund an incredible amount of astronomical science. I realize that pharmacology and other areas such as geology and energy science are different, due to the profit potential. There's about as much profit in opening an astronomy shop, as a philosophy shop. My point is just that painting with too-broad a brush in condemning private research money should probably be avoided. Too, it's hard for me to tell some big pharmacological company that they can't spend their money any way they want, just because they aren't working on what I want them to work on. If we want more government research spending so our wishes can be met, we need to accomplish it via the ballot box. And this is really a separate issue from a cultural anti-science mindset, anyway. The perceived public anti-science stance, as I see it, is largely epidemic in this country only, as far as the western world is concerned. Fundamentalism in both politics and religion are as big a factor here, as they are in the middle east. Both old cultures and new can be hobbled in their thinking if they go down that road, and in both instances it's a tool for control of the masses governed. Holding-onto relevancy and power. Bandwagon types and those resistant to change are usually the most vocal. People advocating the new have never been met with overwhelming enthusiasm right out of the gate. Science is largely controlled by peer-review. Bad science doesn't last in the long run. It's mostly a very vocal minority that try to screw things up for the vast majority that play by the rules. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:44 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
We need for government to take back its role in funding research, privately funded science is the problem.
The fact is that there is a tremendous amount of bad science out there. Look at the news almost any day and you'll see that someone has taken a poll and magically the results say what they wanted them to say. The public views this as a scientific poll when many times it isn't. It's just a poll taken to sway public opinion toward someone's agenda. Yes, private funding has been invaluable for research. That includes all areas. What is lacking is the integrity to show what the research actually says - both sides. Many times that integrity is there, but sometimes it is not. I return to my original premise. For the public to hold science in higher esteem there needs to be more integrity, transparancy, understanding, truth, or all of the above - whatever you want to call it. Right now the public sees a bunch of bad science and lumps all science in the same category. From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle Actually, were it not for private funding, modern astronomy would be nowhere near the state it's in today. You can thank people like Andrew Carnegie, and many other industrial captains of their day, for our current understanding of the cosmos. Yerkes, Hooker- many others. Even today, benefactors such as the Keck Foundation fund an incredible amount of astronomical science. I realize that pharmacology and other areas such as geology and energy science are different, due to the profit potential. There's about as much profit in opening an astronomy shop, as a philosophy shop. My point is just that painting with too-broad a brush in condemning private research money should probably be avoided. Too, it's hard for me to tell some big pharmacological company that they can't spend their money any way they want, just because they aren't working on what I want them to work on. If we want more government research spending so our wishes can be met, we need to accomplish it via the ballot box. And this is really a separate issue from a cultural anti-science mindset, anyway. The perceived public anti-science stance, as I see it, is largely epidemic in this country only, as far as the western world is concerned. Fundamentalism in both politics and religion are as big a factor here, as they are in the middle east. Both old cultures and new can be hobbled in their thinking if they go down that road, and in both instances it's a tool for control of the masses governed. Holding-onto relevancy and power. Bandwagon types and those resistant to change are usually the most vocal. People advocating the new have never been met with overwhelming enthusiasm right out of the gate. Science is largely controlled by peer-review. Bad science doesn't last in the long run. It's mostly a very vocal minority that try to screw things up for the vast majority that play by the rules.
I see some evidence of what you are referring to, Brent, but not nearly "a bunch". It's just a loud, disenfranchised minority, from my point of view, that grab headlines and put silly ideas into people's heads. The public is ignorant on many levels, but blaming scientists and the institutions they work for, en masse, is a mistake. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>wrote:
I return to my original premise. For the public to hold science in higher esteem there needs to be more integrity, transparancy, understanding, truth, or all of the above - whatever you want to call it. Right now the public sees a bunch of bad science and lumps all science in the same category.
I think we are saying the same thing. I do not intend a bunch to mean the majority. It is only the bad apple in the bushel. If I came across any other way, I apologize. From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle I see some evidence of what you are referring to, Brent, but not nearly "a bunch". It's just a loud, disenfranchised minority, from my point of view, that grab headlines and put silly ideas into people's heads. The public is ignorant on many levels, but blaming scientists and the institutions they work for, en masse, is a mistake. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>wrote:
I return to my original premise. For the public to hold science in higher esteem there needs to be more integrity, transparancy, understanding, truth, or all of the above - whatever you want to call it. Right now the public sees a bunch of bad science and lumps all science in the same category.
No need to apologize, Brent. The misunderstanding was mine. When the people of this country decide to get serious about educating our youth in the hard sciences and engineering, we won't have to be concerned with the deniers anymore. Those who understand the way science works are not threatened by it. Those who don't, buy and sell pitchforks & torches.
A facebook friend and colleague (Sr. software engineer) posted the following article a few days ago with the caption "Some more actual science on global warming": http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/49... I'm continually amazed at how otherwise smart people seem to be so easily duped. Note that the author of this "actual science" works for the Cato institute, whose board members include the Koch brothers. Compare and contrast with ACTUAL science: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf+html ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle No need to apologize, Brent. The misunderstanding was mine. When the people of this country decide to get serious about educating our youth in the hard sciences and engineering, we won't have to be concerned with the deniers anymore. Those who understand the way science works are not threatened by it. Those who don't, buy and sell pitchforks & torches. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Rich, I think the educated, die-hard deniers are finding themselves in the minority more and more as time goes by.
ah yes the article that the UK Met office had to write an editorial to point out that their assessment was nothing of the sort. IE Newsmax fabricated the story ((which is nothing new) exactly what Plait was talking about. There is no science involved only business interests, this is the root cause of the publics mistrust of science, to many do not want to accept science when it conflicts with idealism. They would rather enter the PR battle which the scientists have no budget for.
It spills over so the public distrusts all fields of science. A facebook friend and colleague (Sr. software engineer) posted the
following article a few days ago with the caption "Some more actual science on global warming":
http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/49...
I'm continually amazed at how otherwise smart people seem to be so easily duped. Note that the author of this "actual science" works for the Cato institute, whose board members include the Koch brothers.
Compare and contrast with ACTUAL science:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf+html
________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
No need to apologize, Brent. The misunderstanding was mine.
When the people of this country decide to get serious about educating our youth in the hard sciences and engineering, we won't have to be concerned with the deniers anymore.
Those who understand the way science works are not threatened by it. Those who don't, buy and sell pitchforks & torches. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
“...science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation.” As compared to what? Religion? Intuition? In my opinion, what seems to be the problem is too much public opinion about what constitutes science and what doesn’t. Most public have no clue. Kind of a thorny statement since I am included in the “public”. I‘ve worked in the public sector for decades. Most of us have. Their grasp of scientific issues is close to zero. It seems to be getting worse. I’ve told numerous students at the university level that, despite their leanings, stupidity is not a virtue. Never scored well on evaluations with those students. Wonder why? To me, what seems disingenuous is the constant reporting that there is some “controversy” within the scientific community where none exists. The posturing is an attempt to sway public opinion about a particular scientific issue (climate change, for instance). However, most people have no clue as to what the scientific consensus is on any given scientific topic. They don’t realize that their opinion doesn’t matter, that their belief system doesn’t matter. All that matters (as far as science is concerned) is that you have a naturalistic theoretic construct that explains the data better than the currently accepted construct. If you don’t, you’d better get one if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Despite appearances to the contrary, science is not public opinion. It doesn’t matter where your funding comes from if the science is done properly. The scientific methodology will out those results that don’t pass muster. That’s why you hear about “tainted” studies. Sometimes the less-rigorous (and outright embarrassing) results slip through for a significant period of time. However, further scrutiny almost always reveals some flaw. Recall superluminal neutrinos? I don’t know what the cure is for scientific hype. Unfortunately, it’s here to stay. Dave On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation
...science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less
speculation.
As compared to what? Religion? Intuition?
In my opinion, what seems to be the problem is too much public opinion about what constitutes science and what doesnt. Most public have no clue. Kind of a thorny statement since I am included in the public. Ive worked in the public sector for decades. Most of us have. Their grasp of scientific issues is close to zero. It seems to be getting worse. Ive told numerous students at the university level that, despite their leanings, stupidity is not a virtue. Never scored well on evaluations with those students. Wonder why?
To me, what seems disingenuous is the constant reporting that there is some controversy within the scientific community where none exists. The posturing is an attempt to sway public opinion about a particular scientific issue (climate change, for instance). However, most people have no clue as to what the scientific consensus is on any given scientific topic. They dont realize that their opinion doesnt matter, that their belief system doesnt matter. All that matters (as far as science is concerned) is that you have a naturalistic theoretic construct that explains the data better than the currently accepted construct. If you dont, youd better get one if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Despite appearances to the contrary, science is not public opinion.
It doesnt matter where your funding comes from if the science is done properly. The scientific methodology will out those results that dont pass muster. Thats why you hear about tainted studies. Sometimes the less-rigorous (and outright embarrassing) results slip through for a significant period of time. However, further scrutiny almost always reveals some flaw. Recall superluminal neutrinos?
I dont know what the cure is for scientific hype. Unfortunately, its here to stay.
Dave
On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
participants (6)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Dave Gary -
Don J. Colton -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Richard Tenney