The "no-one is incentivised to be right." applies to much more than just science.
I want to see facts that support this claim.
IMHO this is propaganda, and there is no proof that supports these claims what so ever.
Don't show me one or two studies that have been redacted.
Science is done on a budget, which means there are limitations to how big (or "real") a study can be.
That does not mean that the results from studies are false.
Being wrong is part of the scientific process. Science is self correcting which means that if we keep doing science, we will get closer and closer to understanding reality i.e., some natural phenomenon. And guess what that means... that our previous understanding of some natural phenomenon is false.
IMHO this is propaganda, and there is no proof that supports these claims what so ever.
Don't show me one or two studies that have been redacted.
Science is done on a budget, which means there are limitations to how big (or "real") a study can be.
That does not mean that the results from studies are false.
Being wrong is part of the scientific process. Science is self correcting which means that if we keep doing science, we will get closer and closer to understanding reality i.e., some natural phenomenon. And guess what that means... that our previous understanding of some natural phenomenon is false.
So its a lie that we can now move a particle at nearly the speed of light?
I'll give my honest opinion: I've worked with and around scientists for many years (although I'm officially not one myself) Bear in mind this is just my opinion....
There are plenty of "scientists" where I work and there's politics and ladder climbers just like anywhere else. There are still people (usually younger) that are idealists and believe in making the world a better place but then they get through school and get working somewhere and get jaded once they hit the "agenda wall". (A lot of that is in the medical and pharmaceutical research community but I've also seen NASA engineers get drunk at parties and gripe about the "establishment")
Another thing is, people don't look at innovators as heroes the way they did 100 years ago. Edison and Tesla and Curie are all names that have been replaced with Durant, Kobe and Kardashian. Back then, when Edison invented the light bulb or Curie (who is the reason people in the nuclear field wear dosimeter badges), the people wanted to know about the inventors as much as the invention.The only reason people care about Jobs or Gates nowadays is to buy their latest toy. The general public as a whole doesn't know jack about the people themselves. Take Elon Musk. The guy's a friggin genius but all anybody gives a crap about is making laws to stop him from selling his cars here because it's competition for the big 3. Early on, people would've tried to reverse engineer his car and make it better or lighter or more efficient somehow and the technology would get better and the cars themselves would be cheaper. Everybody wins!!!
Also, when a study is proven false or not peer-reviewed, people still defend it because there may not be a large budget to do the study with, but there is still money involved from a grant or a university and they have their name riding on the line, not unlike OU and OSU have their names riding on their sports programs to bring in MORE money. When those studies fail, they get less money so no matter how false the claim, people will defend it tooth and nail.
Finally, there's politics which seems to trump everything and categorize people into left/right-red/blue camps. People use the term "scientists believe" a lot as a general catch-all and that really hacks me off. There are MANY MANY different fields of science. Like doctors, many of them specialize in certain fields and don't know diddly-squat about other fields. You don't go to a podiatrist for information about brain surgery, yet the public and politicians seem okay with the general term "scientists believe" regardless of what field they're in. I've met Russian Cosmonauts. One guy knew a lot about biomedical stuff in zero gravity, the other one knew the math and computers to fly the rocket and do the re-entry. Neither one of them knew jack squat about the other one's field, yet they're both "scientists". Neil DeGrasse Tyson has brought a lot of new young minds to the science community and that's awesome. The guy's an astrophysicist. The man also talks in absolutes about certain topics and gets in trouble for making a bunch of false claims and talking out of his ass on twitter. Why? He's an ASTROPHYSICS geek. Not a CLIMATOLOGY geek. He reads the VERY SAME studies on man made climate change and global warming that you and I read, has no peer-reviewed, double-blind studies of his own to speak of... Yet, HE'S the expert. Cuz he's a "scientist". Bill Nye the science guy. Degree in engineering and plenty of background in astronomy. Great guy. Nice as can be..... (just don't bring up religion in his presence) He sets up this educational exhibit in California about the effects of climate change and energy usage in California. That's great and all but the fact is, the man has a vested monetary interest in ethanol and other energy lobbies. You can believe in your hypothesis all you want to. When you start INVESTING YOUR OWN MONEY in it, your impartiality on any energy study from that point on will (and SHOULD) be called into question.
Science is just the study of something. Coming up with an idea or theory and testing it. That's all. Anybody can do it. It's not good or evil, it's not religious or political until somebody makes it that way. Sadly, when we hear generalities like "95% of scientists believe in man made climate change" or "half of all science MAY be false", it really makes me sad because people aren't DOING science, they're just USING science to jab their political beliefs into somebody else's eye.
Sorry for ranting on so long.
There are plenty of "scientists" where I work and there's politics and ladder climbers just like anywhere else. There are still people (usually younger) that are idealists and believe in making the world a better place but then they get through school and get working somewhere and get jaded once they hit the "agenda wall". (A lot of that is in the medical and pharmaceutical research community but I've also seen NASA engineers get drunk at parties and gripe about the "establishment")
Another thing is, people don't look at innovators as heroes the way they did 100 years ago. Edison and Tesla and Curie are all names that have been replaced with Durant, Kobe and Kardashian. Back then, when Edison invented the light bulb or Curie (who is the reason people in the nuclear field wear dosimeter badges), the people wanted to know about the inventors as much as the invention.The only reason people care about Jobs or Gates nowadays is to buy their latest toy. The general public as a whole doesn't know jack about the people themselves. Take Elon Musk. The guy's a friggin genius but all anybody gives a crap about is making laws to stop him from selling his cars here because it's competition for the big 3. Early on, people would've tried to reverse engineer his car and make it better or lighter or more efficient somehow and the technology would get better and the cars themselves would be cheaper. Everybody wins!!!
Also, when a study is proven false or not peer-reviewed, people still defend it because there may not be a large budget to do the study with, but there is still money involved from a grant or a university and they have their name riding on the line, not unlike OU and OSU have their names riding on their sports programs to bring in MORE money. When those studies fail, they get less money so no matter how false the claim, people will defend it tooth and nail.
Finally, there's politics which seems to trump everything and categorize people into left/right-red/blue camps. People use the term "scientists believe" a lot as a general catch-all and that really hacks me off. There are MANY MANY different fields of science. Like doctors, many of them specialize in certain fields and don't know diddly-squat about other fields. You don't go to a podiatrist for information about brain surgery, yet the public and politicians seem okay with the general term "scientists believe" regardless of what field they're in. I've met Russian Cosmonauts. One guy knew a lot about biomedical stuff in zero gravity, the other one knew the math and computers to fly the rocket and do the re-entry. Neither one of them knew jack squat about the other one's field, yet they're both "scientists". Neil DeGrasse Tyson has brought a lot of new young minds to the science community and that's awesome. The guy's an astrophysicist. The man also talks in absolutes about certain topics and gets in trouble for making a bunch of false claims and talking out of his ass on twitter. Why? He's an ASTROPHYSICS geek. Not a CLIMATOLOGY geek. He reads the VERY SAME studies on man made climate change and global warming that you and I read, has no peer-reviewed, double-blind studies of his own to speak of... Yet, HE'S the expert. Cuz he's a "scientist". Bill Nye the science guy. Degree in engineering and plenty of background in astronomy. Great guy. Nice as can be..... (just don't bring up religion in his presence) He sets up this educational exhibit in California about the effects of climate change and energy usage in California. That's great and all but the fact is, the man has a vested monetary interest in ethanol and other energy lobbies. You can believe in your hypothesis all you want to. When you start INVESTING YOUR OWN MONEY in it, your impartiality on any energy study from that point on will (and SHOULD) be called into question.
Science is just the study of something. Coming up with an idea or theory and testing it. That's all. Anybody can do it. It's not good or evil, it's not religious or political until somebody makes it that way. Sadly, when we hear generalities like "95% of scientists believe in man made climate change" or "half of all science MAY be false", it really makes me sad because people aren't DOING science, they're just USING science to jab their political beliefs into somebody else's eye.
Sorry for ranting on so long.
I did like Bill Nyes tv show back in the day
I did too. None of em can hold a candle to Mr Wizard, though.
Most of this I agree with. The problem is that science is turning into an organized religion. They no longer question themselves and each other. Instead they fight tooth and nail to protect their findings and will not let anyone who does not side with them see the data and methods used to come up with their theory. To me that is not real science. Others have to be able to replicate your findings.
Its an editorial. Im not surprised.
Also, Id encourage you stay married to science, but divorce yourself from the other processes, the limitations. What a hypothesis really is, the ones we teach the students.
I think you're making the point of the article here (without having read the article myself). Science can be wrong. It can be wrong for innocent reasons (mistakes, invalid or incomplete experiment parameters, etc), but also for not so innocent reasons, which primarily revolve around money and power.
If the results of science can or are making someone money or giving them power/control, then said results are suspect - not necessarily wrong.
The point is that it is not "anti-science" to be suspicious or critical of scientific results.
While I agree with what sanjuro says, it is also true that a lot of people put faith in "what science says" without understanding or questioning any of it themselves, and will make decisions based on that. What this results in is when "scientists say" (whether they do or not is irrelevant) that we are/are not experiencing global warming (not arguing for or against it here) some people will make decisions in life that involve both money and power. This being a hot topic, there is financial and control incentive for both sides to make "scientific" claims about their position. So results in this area must be scrutinized closely before being trusted. The same goes for any other publicly sensitive "science" issue.
Scientists studying aerodynamics, or electrical superconductors, are probably not as affected.
