Is it time to separate science from the state, as was previously done with religion?
There are plenty of similarities between the political power that the church used to have and the one the vague concept of "Science" holds today. I believe it is detrimental to both science and the society living under the state.
For the society it is simple: Democracies are brought up to fulfill the will of the people, however, the actual act of voting is where the people express their will, and the voting process is made as the acknowledgement that people have different opinions of what is right and what should be done. Both religion and the current political conception of science reject the democratic ideal of making a room for different opinions in the matters of the State, even when contrasting opinions are the norm in the religious and scientific communities (probably more so in the latter). The growing influence of "science" on the affairs of the State and public opinion is deeply anti-democratic. (cont.)
>>781218
(Cont)
For science, its relationship with the state is detrimental to its ultimate purpose of truthfully describing (and even understanding) the universe, right now people, parties and politicians (not people) are being called "anti-science" not because of a strong belief in mysticism and denunciation of the scientific method, but because they express views against what some groups of people hold as settled science, things like global warming, vaccines and autism, fluoride in the water etc., some of you may discard this opinion on the basis that you believe the previous matters are indeed "settled science", but I'd argue that the same could happen with scientific matters that you don't support, like eugenics or anti-abortionism.
Furthermore, we must let go of the nonsense notion of "settled science" and "scientific consensus". Political interference in science is not helping this matter, you may think, for example, that increased governmental funding is always a good thing for science, but remember that said funding is always tied to the politician's beliefs, government funding of science is not "have this and find truth", but "have this and give me talking points for the next press conference".
>>781218
The irony of that pic is that it implies Church and State intersect and are therefore not separate.
>>781233
Makes sense if you consider that two straight lines that intersect in a single point will never do so again
>>781252
Yeah but they're still not separate and you're assuming that the streets in question are straight.
>>781296
I really dont see the point of this.
>>781221
>not because of a strong belief in mysticism and denunciation of the scientific method, but because they express views against what some groups of people hold as settled science
Based on pseudoscience driven by religious and political ideology
>>781218
>There are plenty of similarities between the political power that the church used to have and the one the vague concept of "Science" holds today.
How. No really, how?
>>781296
well waht if they were parallel and stretched for a thousand miles across the globe so eventually they met due to the curvature of the earth?
>>781221
I work in a genetics laboratory, we're trying to make a free, open library of local genomes and the budget for 100 fucking genomes is 200.000 eurodollars
Now let's say you separate Science from State. Who the fuck pays from a project that won't make any money, but essential to the development of medicine?
>>781428
Non-conformists are ridiculed and destroyed.
>>781448
You mean poor scientists
>>781545
Conformists make for poor scientists.
>>781694
Exactly, which is why pseudoscientists conforming to their personal beliefs and ideologies should not be coddled.
>>781714
>non conformists are poor scientists
>no
>exactly, that's why conformists are poor scientists
>>781218
>Is it time to separate science from the state, as was previously done with religion?
No, because science yields benefit wheras most institutional religions don't have any gains until the afterlife which may or may not exist.
The government and it's populace in general have no good reason to give those fruits up, even if particular politicians might denounce it to gain the vote of people who denounce it to their own disadvantage.
Science, on the other hand, needs power to get things done. You rake in dough from the gov. Running a lab isn't free and darpa funds are always appreciated.
Saying that science should break off from government to become some kind of "pure field" is naiive because it's not something that wants to be pure in the same way religion often does. Unlike religion, science understands that it's just banking off of probability. It's just that when you observe concepts like gravity for years and years and years and years, people tend to say "gravity will always be there" even though there's technically no legit guarantee. It's just experimental gambling, but it's pretty safe since you're betting off of coins that've landed on heads millions of times in a row, and unlike philosophy dealing with "the ultimate quest for truth" it actually seems to generate products.
Furthermore, scientists themselves have every reason to want to have a stake in politics, as the people within that field are able to observe larger problems than anyone else could (see: environment) and are going to want to gain power for the sake of their own conscious and livelihood.
Science isn't comparable to religion, not because "ebin one's right an one's wrong" but because they operate off of completely different standards when it comes to right and wrong.
>>781428
The Church had attained so much political influence that laws were made in its image, specially regarding morality laws and criminal law.
Likewise, "science" (as in I FUCKING LOVE SIENCE LOL) has attained such a grip on the population that immediate action in form of public policy is demanded every time a paper that falls in line with party A or B's thought is published.
>>781446
Yes, you as a genetic scientist see value in your own field, but there are many other fields in and out of science that could use funding, and the experts in those fields would love some too.
>>781791
>until the afterlife which may or may not exist.
I'm glad you made that point, religion promises things that the common man cannot possibly verify are true. Likewise, some fields of science has expanded to such depths that the common man has no way of knowing what the scientist is dealing with, he is completely at the scientist's mercy on that regard and must trust that his methods are correct, and that he is telling the truth. Once this line has been crossed, society is better of leaving science funding up to sources that demand accountability and results.
Just because money is thrown into "science" doesn't mean that there's anything worthy being achieved, and political funding is politically motivated, tell the government that you used the funds to find results against what its party supports and see where that gets you, this kills science, because political funding is not tied to the truth, it is tied to an specific result. This kills the science.
>>781978
>The Church had attained so much political influence that laws were made in its image
Other way around. Religions are created to mirror values and laws of a civilisation. Religion does not come before civilisation.
>>782035
except for the whole colonization part
>>782005
>some fields of science has expanded to such depths that the common man has no way of knowing what the scientist is dealing with, he is completely at the scientist's mercy on that regard and must trust that his methods are correct, and that he is telling the truth.
Or you could try and understand scientific methodology. Maybe you could even fund its presence in schools more so that fewer and fewer people had to rely on popsci factoids.
>Just because money is thrown into "science" doesn't mean that there's anything worthy being achieved
What? It's not that the money thrown into science proves it's worth the money, that doesn't even make sense. I have no idea how you read it that way. What it actually achieves makes it worth the money. Compare religious cures to actual medicine for example. Medicine has saved more lives and started fewer wars than prayer.
>>781978
>Likewise, "science" (as in I FUCKING LOVE SIENCE LOL) has attained such a grip on the population that immediate action in form of public policy is demanded every time a paper that falls in line with party A or B's thought is published.
Not really, given the degree to which "science-denying" politicians can be elected. I get that popsci is absolutely disgusting, but it's a necessary evil when large parts of the population reject every opportunity they're given to understand the material. If I can't explain science to the populace, I'm dam well going to feed them a dumbed down version to gain their trust for the sake of saving their asses, not to mention mine.
>immediate action in form of public policy is demanded every time a paper that falls in line with party A or B's thought is published.
>implying the respect for each scientific finding is split up between multiple parties
>implying it isn't usually just one side claiming "Look, it's snowing outside! No global warming!"
>>782146
>Or you could try and understand scientific methodology. Maybe you could even fund its presence in schools more so that fewer and fewer people had to rely on popsci factoids.
This is unrealistic, common folks and even the greatests scientific minds of our time simply do not have the time to check every scientific "fact" that influences policy. Its not a matter of understanding methodology.
>What it actually achieves makes it worth the money.
As I said, political funding is not tied to the truth, it is tied to an specific result. Sometimes no result at all! Check some of this government programs.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/wastebook-2014-eight-absurd-government-projects-funded-with-your-money/
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on
>Global warming
You don't understand, I'm not simply trying to separate policy from scientific positions you adhere to, I'm trying to separate it from those you don't adhere to as well. Consider what would happen if GW "denialism" was the mainstream view in government and Hollywood. The machinery of the State can be used against you as well as it can be used for you.
>>782222
>This is unrealistic, common folks and even the greatests scientific minds of our time simply do not have the time to check every scientific "fact" that influences policy. Its not a matter of understanding methodology.
This is why we have peer review, and scientific consensus. At the very least, a bunch of scientists that are rivals with each other have to conspire to deceive us. Unlike if we just cherry picked bullshit studies, like "Study by Neurosurgeon Paid by Saidi Princes Says Earth is Cooling and Weather Patterns are Less Extreme" and held them as gospel.
>>782222
>As I said, political funding is not tied to the truth, it is tied to an specific result.
...which is exactly why I said science ought to be funded (unlike religion), because science is about getting results rather than any type of ultimate truth.
>Consider what would happen if GW "denialism" was the mainstream view in government
That's essentially what you're suggesting. To cease funding science would be to deny the progress it grants us. What you're saying is that we should keep the government from impeding upon science by telling the government to completely gut the money they spend helping it.
That's stupid. That's like saying you'll keep the government from ever unjustly de-funding research by making sure they stop putting money into science altogether. Congratulations, now the government can't choke scientists anymore! And yet, in your scenario, they've also completely choked them. That's as dumb as saying you should kill everything to prevent murder.
daily reminder
>>781218
I won't intervene in the whole "intro to layman's scientific method" dispute this thread has, but science articles and journals are pretty broken nowadays:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong
http://journal.sjdm.org/12/12810/jdm12810.pdf
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/02/18/jn.112.172171.abstract
And that can be used to promote unhealthy politics, since people and groups will use that thing to say they have Science(TM) on their side.
Or heck, industry can come and outright manipulate the whole thing to support their view:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/6/498.abstract
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7400/1167.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/
Science is the best thing since sliced bread, but we mustn't be blinded by it's results, and think science will perfectly guard itself by it's own structures.
>>781948
Not history.
Not humanities.
Discussion of current events.
Discussion of science.
>>782275
>because science is about getting results
Not the right results, though.
See front-groups and think-tanks making articles supporting their policies.
Or, for a crappier version, /pol/ using some real scientific articles to support their insanity.
>>782229
>peer review, and scientific consensus
Both are flawed processes, subject to political aspirations and propaganda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3326091/Peer-review-the-myth-of-the-noble-scientist.html
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
>Unlike if we just cherry picked bullshit studies, like "Study by Neurosurgeon Paid by Saidi Princes Says Earth is Cooling and Weather Patterns are Less Extreme" and held them as gospel.
You mean like it has happened to create a myth of global warming consensus by interested parties in the government? It goes both ways, the only way to stop it is to prevent it from reaching government funding, and even worse, the law and policy.
>>782275
>because science is about getting results rather than any type of ultimate truth.
Yes, and the results are going to be what the politician funding you wants them to be, or you wont get anymore funding.
>To cease funding science would be to deny the progress it grants us.
Scientific research exists outside from public funding.
>That's like saying you'll keep the government from ever unjustly de-funding research by making sure they stop putting money into science altogether.
I'm trying to sink the ring into the fires of Mt. Doom, you want to keep it to yourself.
>>782319
essentially dead letter
>>782332
this is my point of view, scientists arent perfect men, there are many incentives for corruption within science, even more so once you put State funding and policy up for grabs.
>>782349
Separation of church and state is essentially a subject of law and governance, both well within /his/
>>782382
>this is my point of view
Sorta
>even more so once you put State funding
Oh, no. State funding is the life-blood of science in many cases.
But as in many things, from software to law and economy, you need fail-safes to keep everything from spilling out onto each other.
>>782413
well my point of view except on what we conclude from it apparently.
But anyways, my point is that even if GVT funds are the "life-blood of science in many cases", it shouldnt be, the incentive to corrupt is always there and could be the basis for future tyranny, it is one step removed from government approved science.
>>782044
I don't see how that contradicts anything.
>>782431
>it shouldnt be
And who do you want to fund science?
You reach situations where the other guy was right, and the only guys with the funds to make these studies are guys like his saudi princes, and mergacorps. with a vested interest.
Do you want Malboro making your next lung cancer study?
The solution isn't to cut the State or the biz, it's insuring stuff's transparent and impartial. Also open science and open data.
>>782350
>Not the right results, though.
Not the "ultimately philosophically true" results, but the results which create advancements in society. Obviously political and social science is going to be fouled with agenda (walk onto /sci/ and they'll giggle at the thought of calling it science), but as far as we can see the only way to kill that is to holocaust everything.
>>782382
>Yes, and the results are going to be what the politician funding you wants them to be, or you wont get anymore funding.
That's wrong though. People who fund science don't necessarily need particular results, they just need solutions. I don't need "the right kind of medicine" developed, I need medicine developed that keeps everyone from dying so that I can solve a problem and gain public rep for doing so in order to be reelected. If a politician thinks they'd be better off funding fake data to promote the products they're lobbying for, the problem isn't that science gets money from them, it's that they get money from corporations in the private sector. Solving things like campaign finance would erase your woes completely, there's no good cause to cut science off.
>Scientific research exists outside from public funding.
Yes, instead of letting a government with an agenda publicly fund science, let's let businesses with their own agendas fund it instead. That gets rid of the problems.
>>782436
>convert
>'no'
>i kill you infidel
>>782467
Your knowledge of colonial history is shit and you should refrain from expressing your opinion on it.
>>782382
>Separation of church and state is essentially a subject of law and governance, both well within /his/
"The history of law and governance" is a /his/ subject
"Why hasn't modern-day law and governance done X?" is a /pol/ subject
>>782464
>Malboro making your next lung cancer study?
If Malboro makes bias a study I can choose to ignore it and never dont smoke.
If an NGO makes a correct study I can choose to ignore it and keep smoking, even if I know its right.
If the government uses a study to make a law people lose their freedom to disagree within their individual spheres.
This is a dangerous power.
And conversely, companies like Malboro can and do make studies to convince the government to ban competition like weed (DUDE).
>>782464
>People who fund science don't necessarily need particular results, they just need solutions.
You sure there's no pressure for climate scientists on government and UN dollars to find that man made global warming is 100% real and the solution for it is whatever the heads of the GVT and UN want?
GVT funded fake data studies may also be used to push a political narrative separate from any kind of funding.
>businesses with their own agendas fund it instead
Agendas like "lets fit all this shit into an iphone and make it cheaper than the shit sold separately"?
>>782488
Contemporary /his/ is /his/, the board is "History & Humanities" not History of the humanities.
>>782500
>If Malboro makes bias a study I can choose to ignore it and never dont smoke.
Yeah but if only "Malboro" makes studies, you have to ignore all the studies, which is killing science.
>If the government uses a study to make a law
Laws aren't directly justified by study though. They're promoted with study, but it's not like you can waltz in and say "I can scientifically prove this is the sickest law ever, so fuck all yall naysayers"
>You sure there's no pressure for climate scientists on government and UN dollars to find that man made global warming is 100% real and the solution for it is whatever the heads of the GVT and UN want?
Shiggy diggy
>Agendas like "lets fit all this shit into an iphone and make it cheaper than the shit sold separately"?
and you're not wrong; business can fund science in a good manner the same was an elected official can, but they've got literally the exact same problems only in a less solvable context
>>781218
Science, no.
Scientism, absolutely 100% YES YES YES YES.
>>782604
>Yeah but if only "Malboro" makes studies
Yeah, but not only Malboro is making studies, is it?
>but it's not like you can waltz in and say
Literally "X is anti-science"
>Shiggy diggy
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html
>less solvable context
I know that they both can do good, but there are way more incentives to do wrong when the State is involved.
>>782618
I'd argue that science in the State literally becomes Scientism.
>>781446
>Who the fuck pays from a project
Consumers
>>781218
I don't know OP, people gatta believe in "something".
I don't think these issues that you're describing are going to go away with or without state funding. Narcissism drives a lot of the scientists, and their egos are always on the line. They all want the fucking Nobel Prize for proving this or that, and it probably doesn't matter to them as long as they aren't proven wrong within their lifetime. They often screw each other over out of pride anyway. It's not the rule, but it happens. The State is still responsible, democratic or not, for defending the State,and scientific progress has a lot to offer growing militaries. The only other fuckwits who could possibly rake in the dough for the grand scientific exploits are maybe universities. But I doubt they could achieve the sheer scale of funding to build structures like the LHC.
Companies may just not have the scientific vision. Mega-corporations are perhaps the only ones with enough money, but are they really going to empty their bank accounts to shoot rockets to Mars?
>>781218
Yes, let's turn scientists into an insular society separate from the state. What could possibly go wrong?
>>782685
>Mega-corporations are perhaps the only ones with enough money, but are they really going to empty their bank accounts to shoot rockets to Mars?
um thats already happening
>>782632
>I know that they both can do good, but there are way more incentives to do wrong when the State is involved.
but literally every wrong when it comes to state-funded-science is a result of the state official who's funding the science being paid off by a corporate party to shill a product. If you just switch over to corporate parties instead of government, all of those corporate parties who were paying people off are still going to be there. You're not saving science by keeping it away corrupt politicians, you're just eliminating middlemen and hooking it up straight to the source which has to have just as many problems since it's literally the same thing, only less restricted. All you need to do is cut the hold the private sector has over government in far too many countries so that crony-capitalism doesn't start meddling with the actual discovery, creation, and trade of products and ideas. Then science gets the taxpayer money it wants without being told to shill for it.
>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html
>Heated debate
Hilarious
>Max Planck
Small world, I've been there.
>GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change and its efforts to undermine the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
what did he expect going in?
Look, shiggy diggy doesn't mean there aren't problems; as I've said, those are all moot points. It's not that has to respond to gov, it's that gov has to respond to biz making science have to do so by extension.
>>782685
>Everyone who works here is kinda like this and they all kinda want that and
Is this bait
>Mega-corporations are perhaps the only ones with enough money, but are they really going to empty their bank accounts to shoot rockets to Mars?
>http://www.space.com/31388-elon-musk-colonize-mars-now.html
>"Now Is the Time to Colonize Mars, [Tesla founder and CEO] Elon Musk Says"
>>782755
>It's not that has to respond to gov, it's that gov has to respond to biz making science have to do so by extension.
>*It's not that [science] has to respond to gov, it's that gov has to respond to biz making science have to do so [as well] by extension.
>>782649
........
>>782793
my iphone wasnt free nigga
>>782804
I'm not him, but "the consumers" is a meaningless answer since it's always the consumers, be the funds taken through taxes or purchase.
>>782826
big diference is that the consumers give their money voluntarily
>>782745
It's not. At best there are about two or three secretive projects that after a near decade of investment have yet to actually deliver anything.
Like almost all mega projects and infrastructure, corporate interest only follows government investment.
