By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Politics and Science: Can they coexist?

SciFiBoy on 14 October 2009
Zlejedi said:

 
Zucas said:
SciFiBoy said:
the problem isnt that they cant "co-exist" its that both are corruptable as in both you can have conflicting ideas and theories.

Well of course that is possible... with well anything except for cold hard facts.  Not really asking along those lines but more along the lines that science obviously does play a part in politics but doesn't seem to get much credibility at all... at least not publicly.  More or less trying to ask that their are big political issues that have to deal with science but a lot of these discussions turn to be more about other things than science.  So question is why is the science being taken out of politics.

When I asked the question I'm not saying that there is a possibility of coexistence (they have too) but more of question of what is causing them not and whether or not that is justified.

The problem with cold hard facts is that they need to be interpreted correctly. And with multiple conflicting agendas behind different scientists it's hard to judge who is right and who is wrong for non-experts in the field. Also even if we assume every scientist is as objective as possible this still will result in different theories that may or may not have common points.

Now with global warning at the moment it's more or less pure speculation- becouse we have reliable temprature data for 200 years ? Considering that following ice ages and glacials have taken tens of thousand of years our evidence is nothing.

With such lacking data can we really tell that increasing temperature is result of pollution and fossil fuels usage or maybe it is just natural cycle that happens every 10-20 thousand years.

When you consider that huge parts of population are ignorant to the point where they belive in astronomy it's no suprise that science will be used as political tool when it's convienient for people with power.

you mean astrology I pressume?



Around the Network
Zlejedi on 14 October 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Zlejedi said:

 
Zucas said:
SciFiBoy said:
the problem isnt that they cant "co-exist" its that both are corruptable as in both you can have conflicting ideas and theories.

Well of course that is possible... with well anything except for cold hard facts.  Not really asking along those lines but more along the lines that science obviously does play a part in politics but doesn't seem to get much credibility at all... at least not publicly.  More or less trying to ask that their are big political issues that have to deal with science but a lot of these discussions turn to be more about other things than science.  So question is why is the science being taken out of politics.

When I asked the question I'm not saying that there is a possibility of coexistence (they have too) but more of question of what is causing them not and whether or not that is justified.

The problem with cold hard facts is that they need to be interpreted correctly. And with multiple conflicting agendas behind different scientists it's hard to judge who is right and who is wrong for non-experts in the field. Also even if we assume every scientist is as objective as possible this still will result in different theories that may or may not have common points.

Now with global warning at the moment it's more or less pure speculation- becouse we have reliable temprature data for 200 years ? Considering that following ice ages and glacials have taken tens of thousand of years our evidence is nothing.

With such lacking data can we really tell that increasing temperature is result of pollution and fossil fuels usage or maybe it is just natural cycle that happens every 10-20 thousand years.

When you consider that huge parts of population are ignorant to the point where they belive in astronomy it's no suprise that science will be used as political tool when it's convienient for people with power.

you mean astrology I pressume?

Yes of course :)



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Kasz216 on 14 October 2009

Actually the over hype of global warming could be seen as part of the rise of "fascist socialism"

I don't know if your familiar with most world level solutions but they basically tend to involve one thing. Rich countries buying pollution credits from under developed nations.

As for science and Politics coexisting?

Not in a good way. Any scientific fact that may be of any political use has it's own bought and paid scientists. You can usually spot them because they'll be the ones who deal in absolutes.

The ones who say things like "Our study PROVES".



Kasz216 on 14 October 2009

Although as a warning. Science in general does have some errors in general thinking.

Scientific revolutions really tend to not be revolutions but upheavals... by younger scientists of the old guard.  Scientists with outdated opinions don't change so much as they die out.

Scientists unwilling to move their position often just has to do with the fact that they've studied something for years and they don't want to start over.

They don't want to go from pioneer and expert in their field to 50 year old newbie.

Science for most scientist is taken as a faith. Once there ideas are set... not amount of evidence is going to change their minds in their field.



highwaystar101 on 14 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
Actually the over hype of global warming could be seen as part of the rise of "fascist socialism"

I don't know if your familiar with most world level solutions but they basically tend to involve one thing. Rich countries buying pollution credits from under developed nations.

As for science and Politics coexisting?

Not in a good way. Any scientific fact that may be of any political use has it's own bought and paid scientists. You can usually spot them because they'll be the ones who deal in absolutes.

The ones who say things like "Our study PROVES".

*Shudders*

I agree. Carbon trading, one of the most messed up political/scientific systems in the world. It really is just because a simple and honest Carbon tax (Or Carbon reduction bill) just wouldn't fly in the messy world of politics.

Climate change is a really good example of politics and science not working well together. Politicians love to use the worst case scenario for their own political ventures.

I accept the concept of man made climate change, but I do not like the political intervention that goes with it by using worst case scenario studies to fool people into voting for them. Between politics and the media, they really have created a world where everyone believes the worst case scenario instantly, when this is not the case.

 

Another point I want to make is this. A government investing in Science and Technology development can expect to see up to ten times it's initial input returned, and many governments desire to see their nation at the forefront of Science and Technology. But many Nations simply refuse to invest.

The UK is frought with these problems. We only spend 0.5% of our nations GDP on Science and Technology funding and yet we want to be the forerunners in Digital Technology and several areas of Science. People can argue that it is a waste of money, but setting up a well structured and funded Science program could very easily see a healthy return, as opposed to a loss. 0.5% is a tight Science budget for a nation with high aspirations. I mean even China spends 1% GDP.

Or conversely you could just use an incentive scheme to bring R&D companies to operate in your country, but that would still cost money. Either way it needs to be sorted out imo.

Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 14 October 2009

Oh and lesson one in high school science should be about the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory, and they should not be allowed to leave until they have committed it to memory.

J/K, that's harsh. But I do think that schools should emphasise science as an important subject. (Not saying they don't already, but y'know). One of the problems we have in Britain is a lack of scientists, especially Physicists from what I understand. We need to get the kids who are leaving school now to pursue further education or a vocation in science.



Zlejedi on 14 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Oh and lesson one in high school science should be about the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory, and they should not be allowed to leave until they have committed it to memory.

J/K, that's harsh. But I do think that schools should emphasise science as an important subject. (Not saying they don't already, but y'know). One of the problems we have in Britain is a lack of scientists, especially Physicists from what I understand. We need to get the kids who are leaving school now to pursue further education or a vocation in science.

The problem is some technical universities in Europe have to bride students into enrolling into them by giving free laptops for example becouse people are lazy so the prefer easier humanistic/sociological studies.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Kasz216 on 14 October 2009
Zlejedi said:
highwaystar101 said:
Oh and lesson one in high school science should be about the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory, and they should not be allowed to leave until they have committed it to memory.

J/K, that's harsh. But I do think that schools should emphasise science as an important subject. (Not saying they don't already, but y'know). One of the problems we have in Britain is a lack of scientists, especially Physicists from what I understand. We need to get the kids who are leaving school now to pursue further education or a vocation in science.

The problem is some technical universities in Europe have to bride students into enrolling into them by giving free laptops for example becouse people are lazy so the prefer easier humanistic/sociological studies.

I wouldn't say people were lazy or those fields are easier.

They're simply more desireable because they are held in higher regard.

I actually find "hard" sciences eaiser, because they have definite right and wrong answers.  While social sciences force you to think more broadly and not only be right... but be able to give reasons why your right and the right reasons.  You have to think a certain way rather then learn a certain formula.