It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we PLEASE keep politics out of science, but keep science in politics?

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
The answer, my friend, is and always has been: NO.

Thus, a long-winded rant. With the most recent Bill Nye show, I got to thinking about science. Some people talking about “the turn we have taken away from genuine science and into the realm of public opinion, funding, and other various platforms which breed corruption”. This is true, except this isn’t a turn. It’s always been this way. Oh how I wish I could say that ‘long gone’ are the days when scientists questioning reality from the puritans of the day – but I cannot. Instead we have a new form of puritans who use science as a way to stifle critical thinking, cook numbers for funding, and a variety of other means which are meant solely to fit agendas and shape policy. But they are idiots. We all are idiots. Red versus Blue said this best.



And I'd like to prove this mathematically if I may. Take your current age. Now subtract ten years from it. Were you smart back then? Of course you weren't. You were a God damn idiot. Fact of the matter is, you're just as big an idiot today, it's just gonna take you ten more years to realize.


Pythagoras theorized the Earth must be a sphere and Aristotle popularized the idea but still believed the Earth was in a geocentric system. Aristarchus and Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth and became convinced that the Earth must rotate around the sun. Yet Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy already made a model of the universe, and it was geocentric so the model Aristarchus made did not gain popularity until Copernicus and Galileo. Finally, Newton finalized the heliocentric model, some two thousand years later. Imagine how far astronomy would have progress in two thousand years if we had been open and thoughtful to the newer models when Aristarchus first proposed them. Here
and here .

Yet, the puritans of today will state “It is settled science!” to anything they don’t actually want to debate or put time into thinking about. What is wrong with good discourse? Nothing. The truth of it is: why the center of the universe, the center of the solar system was such a big deal is someone thought this is the way it is, and sold that belief structure. TPTB can get robbed of authority on the subject, and as keyholders to knowledge they must safeguard it from all of those troublesome interlopers. Knowledge is a form of currency, after all. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

I sometimes also ask myself: When will we admit that we don’t know a lot more than we do know.



We can map a genome and boldly state things such as “ You inherit your intelligence from your mother!” which then opens the old can of worms “Can you inherit intelligence?” which then opens a can of worms inside that can of worms “Which genes influence intelligence?” Inside that can a small ketchup packet of worms, If intelligence can be inherited, do certain races (which share genetic markers) naturally have higher intelligence?” which then the puritans slam that can of worms shut and go “THAT’S RACIST ”. That leads to conversations like “ We should just ban this. Put this can of worms away on a high high shelf and ignore what it could mean because people are generally jerks. ". Why not have an honest discussion about intelligence and start with "Holy crap… so, okay, we don’t know anything."

What is worse, is even on this site which is (in my opinion) a bastion of critical thinkers, the questioners, the people who look reality in the face and so help me question it all… yet we run into those who continually test our google skills to “CITE YOUR SOURCES” rather than to actually critically think and assess the information. Do any of you really care that I have gone through 8 years of university and am an expert in psychological training (psychology with a focus on leadership theory and human motivation), with years of application experience, papers, research and so forth accredited to my name? That I have membership to international honors societies in the topic of human motivation and group thinking? That I might actually know what I’m talking about, writing about when I post things? Nope. Some only care if I can google a news article I read. And the fact is, you really shouldn’t care about either of these things, my credentials or my ability to link an article . These things, in the end actually do not matter when compared to the ability and joy of thinking. The sad fact is any article or study you can dig up, I could find one that counters this argument. The point is to take information and become a consumer of it and actually think about it. I mean think, not just read and assimilate information, but pick it apart. Argue it. Confirm it. And by God is it tiring, but this is how to think.



edit on 4 29 17 by KaDeCo because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Now I will use climate change science as an example. Not so long a forever ago the world was PLUNGING INTO A NEW ICE AGE! And not so long a forever ago it did that in the mini ice age, and then of course the warming period before that. But please, by all means, let’s all run around in a panic screaming at the top of our lungs about climate change (and climate deniers). Oh but wait, I could just as easily mention the other side and rant and rave about how clearly dismissing that maybe plumes of black smoke might not be such a smart thing to do and people tend to like not ruining the environment for everyone. You’re wrong, I’m right – no. Who decided we should do this instead of sitting down and discussing the issues?

Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling the Earth will keep spinning around the sun long after both sides are gone and either moved to transcendence of machine in a singularity, humanity has blown itself to bits, or the Earth simply gets bored of having us on it and invites a cataclysmic meteor over for tea. Yes, I understand the desire for humans to improve the quality of life on Earth right now (and for the foreseeable future), but we are getting a whole lot of nothing done, and very expensively. The truth is with this particular topic: humans are jerks and can cause irrevocable harm on the environment, but are probably not causing as much harm as the people who want to tax the rest of the population trillions of dollars claim.

Here’s where it gets dangerous. Science and politics have always been intertwined, for example the heliocentric and geocentric models, but recently with this topic (among a plethora of others I stare at in awe) we see evidence over and over that politics is guiding science. As I linked here for the people who demand citations, on BOTH SIDES. Either side loses this debate, they lose their power.



Yes yes, KaDeCo this happens because humans are innately jerks, you even said this, and they’re greedy for power. Don’t forget, KaDeCo, money talks. But it is more than the typical follow the money, it combines with the phenomena which I expressed earlier about needing someone, some expert to validate a point of view. Instead of a mitre we have a lab coat. Welp, science is not infallible and scientists are not some paragon of human decency and incorruptible. The lab coat does not imbue magical powers which make testing correct, and throw all logical thought out the window. Saying an argument is invalid does not make it invalid. When is the last time you simply sat and entertained a thought for the sheer fun of thinking? The enjoyment of following a rabbit hole, even if it is a dead end? This is one of my favorite pastimes, and something I love posting about.

I am not ranting about anything new, this is not new information! But it is a collective mission I believe we must undergo. I encourage you to -read- the “fake news” and learn how to interpret the “fake science” and really search it. Look into it. Think about it. Push the boundaries. The less information we are exposed to, even horrible junk science, the narrower our field of understanding becomes. It is my opinion a herd of mewling goats is much easier for TPTB to shepherd than independent thinkers. This day, this age, is the first in human history that we can access wells of information from a device we keep in our pocket. Never before could we access so much with so little effort, and this is important, because TPTB will seek to control this. Knowledge is currency, but the ability to THINK is power. Do not eat what you are fed just because it’s on the plate in front of you. We must first process the information, prepare to be absolutely wrong in your viewpoint, and for heaven’s sake do not let some man desperate to stay relative in current year dictate to you what science is and isn’t because he has a show on Netflix.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Bill is a hack.

Bill Nye the Engineering guy didnt have a ring to it.
He is not a scientist hes an engineer, he should be called Bill Nye the Establishment Guy



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: KaDeCo

Give me one good reason why we should keep politics.

I'll wait....



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: KaDeCo

Thank you for taking the time to write a thought full post.

Unfortunately, most people do not take the time to actually read, much less think about anything in today's world. The amount of information available to us is unprecedented today, and as such, is overwhelming. The people in power know this so how better to guide the conversation to what benefits you than to place your side of the argument into mainstream media with your bought and paid for "scientists" backing it, thereby spoon feeding the masses.

It is up to us to teach the next generation to be critical thinkers - unfortunately, the people who would do that are losing the ability themselves. I'm not sure it's worse than it's ever has been but it sure feels like it.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: KaDeCo

Give me one good reason why we should keep politics.

I'll wait....


I know your response was a joke and I get it.
Thank you for proving my point above!

Seriously though, you cannot have a society without politics in some form because every form of persuasion IS politics. Even anarchy involves politics. Perhaps you were thinking of another word? Government, maybe?



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: KaDeCo

Science is starting to rue the day when life is discovered in any fashion beyond Earth. It boxed itself into a boxy corner early on and now looks for wiggle room. The simple reason why UFOs are recognized by average citizens this day for what they have appeared to be for over half a century but denied by government is the fault of science. You can blame government as the control mechanism, but the heart of the problem is with science.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Politics give a sense of structure and hierarchy to society. One may argue without this, society would not exist. There is an interesting study on the human need for order and the desire for leadership here. A fascinating read on trust and the human need for establishment.

“The very purpose of political society itself is precisely to stand in - by clear and predictable legal and judicial arrangements, backed by effective powers of enforcement - for the erratic and dangerous conditions generated by the collision of institutionally unrestrained human partiality. The best condition open to human beings was the enjoyment of an environment in which men were fortunate enough to be able to have well-founded confidence.”

Politics, as in governing agencies, are constructed in such a manner to fulfill a human’s need for trust and security. It is through political means that the population (or rulers) execute their will on how they wish to live. I rather like spending my time posting to you rather than securing my person and property from a might means right crowd which could take it from me. Also, was not the point of the ranting – which is about the need for people to consider information, assess information, think about the information, and really weigh and measure what they think. Making thinking an active exercise.

Now politics in the realm of propagandizing and restricting freedom of thought, taking sides and cheering on team A over team B (all owned by billionaire C), I cannot make a good argument for, nor would I want to. You got me there



edit on 4 29 17 by KaDeCo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Imagine the contortionist gymnastics that will have to occur if/when this happens! Truly. I have sat and thought about 'first contact' dozens of times, and really wonder about it. We, as humans, tend to kill things with sharp sticks (or various forms of explosive fire) when it is new, different, or going against our solidified "there is no more discussion this is the way the world is!" debate. What do you imagine, I mean when you really sit down and ponder on this. If there is life out there, will it be like us? Put is in terrariums and study us? Moved beyond the need for aggression? Do you think we've discovered things they have not?

A side tangent, but I consider a lot of movies where the humans are the 'average Joe' and don't have anything special to offer, but what if we do? I mean what might be normal to us is super amazing to them? I consider the corrosive power of the air we breathe, and what if aliens are like "Holy Moly, they can BREATHE THAT?". What if we're stronger? Or faster? Or can see colors no other race can? I'd love to hear what you think about this.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

As long as we have folks like Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz in oversight I feel the US is in good hands, I'd watch these 2 in particular in the coming years, for me they define 'American' - straight shooters and honest.

American politics needs refining, in particular the concept of 'term limits', across the entire state & federal public-sector spectrum, should be made mandatory. A filthy stench has become entrenched in Washington, it's odour has permeated the planet.

We, the people....



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

American politics needs refining, in particular the concept of 'term limits', across the entire state & federal public-sector spectrum, should be made mandatory. A filthy stench has become entrenched in Washington, it's odour has permeated the planet.

We, the people....



Very well stated, with one exception... the word "refining" needs to be replaced with "a overhaul". I totally agree with mandatory term limits. We also would need any form of monetary lobbying being made illegal with real penalties.

Unfortunately the only people who could make that happen are the ones that benefit the most from keeping it from happening.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   
To think and be critical of any information one first has to look on the veracity of said information.
So what is available to the ordinary man or even the scientists staring in their new fields. Many say the net has given man the ability to critically assess the information therein. But how can one verify any information taken off the net if the net is the only avenue to explore.
A case in point:- Cold Fusion. Whether you want to believe it works or believe the main stream scientists who say it does not, both these theories are on the net. Now you either believe the main stream or the only way you can "disprove" them is to do the science for yourself or see and talk to the actual people doing the experiments.
No real answers to critical thinking can be made by reading two opposing theories as both think they are right so if no glaringly erroneous data is found in the theories the answer is quite moot as the observer then has to decide but with his own criteria and that might be false.
As for government/politics they were and still are more concerned with the money side and not the advancement of the human race. America especially WILL NOT stand for the petro-dollar to be affected in any way and that entails any scientific discoveries that could affect or kill it.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Sad to say, we will lose Chaffetz after 2018. He wants to spend more time with his family.
Chaffetz announces he will not seek re-election



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: KaDeCo

This is one of the best threads I've read in a while



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: KaDeCo

Do you read the MIT Technology Review??

The editor has a great article up on dealing with a troll. He actually tracked him down and talked to him! Anyway, it's similar to your rant in ways. Science speaks for itself; no commentary needed. Only non-scientists need Neal Degrasse Tyson to explain stuff to them.

Any time you give up your decision making is when you give away your own ideas. Tim Leary said it a long time ago, "Think for yourself, question authority."



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Science has never been as pure as science would have you believe. Indeed, the idea of scientific objectivity is probably a myth. Science isn't done in a vacuum, but usually done in institutions. Once you have institutions with a hierarchy, you have people sucking up to other people. Add the way we fund scientific research and no wonder you have no objectivity. And it's often very blatant. I have seen RFPs, for example, that say, "This funding cycle is dedicated to proving climate change." In other words, the conclusion precedes the research. However, one of my favorites (and I apologize if you've seen it before) is this example of scientific fraud:



How can you possibly claim science is objective when confronted with stuff like this? This is what "Hide the decline" is all about. They cheated, and discussed how they would cheat in the climategate emails. How much other scientific research involves such blatant misrepresentation as this? The problem is, we don't know.
edit on 4/29/2017 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Can we PLEASE keep politics out of science, but keep science in politics?

Your trying to have it both ways.

Science is about FACT.

Politics is about Perception from where FACTS get made up on the spot.

They are 100% mutually exclusive.

Either one or the other.



posted on May, 13 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Both science and politics have their flaws because both are subject to change.




top topics



 
11

log in

join