Has politics invaded science?

Tweet

I try to always look at both sides of any story before I make up my mind. Seems logical to do so. Isn't it necessary to do so when you claim to have any knowledge on any subject? Most certainly scientific knowledge. I learned back in grade school about the 'scientific method'. Make an observation. Ask a question. Formulate a hypothesis. Conduct an experiment using a control group and an experimental group. Analyze data and draw a conclusion. What is happening in science when one scientist draws different conclusions from the data than other scientists? Why are we so trusting of 'scientific' pronouncements? Is it because we have limited knowledge and must trust them? Why don't we look into the 'other side of the story' more often, rather than take anyones word, no matter how many letters come after their name. Are we lazy or are we gullible? And why is it that if someone disagrees and has data to prove their differing conclusion, so many are ridiculed and denied money to further their research? Is this not counter productive if we are REALLY looking for truth, which is what science is suppose to be all about, right? Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors. My question is do you think that scientific conclusions should be made based on consensus or raw data? What should happen when two scientists come up with differing conclusions? Here are some wise words from Michael Crichton spoken at Cal Tech. "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." He goes on to list instances of scientific consensus that ultimately proved to be wrong. One such instance is when nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, many scientists made the pronouncment that nothing would grow for decades on those spots. In fact, vegatables were grown the next year. Here's the link to his whole speech if you're interested: http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html