[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 48 KB, 640x352, AC021BFB-5FED-4B96-AE52-AB863E4F9774.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12805390 No.12805390 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

If anything has been proven by this pandemic, science under the influence of any sort of political entity "left" or "right" is dangerous and causes harm to people. What is a way we can make the utilization of the scientific method as sacred as religion is treated? No more taxes on research centers and no more funnelling of money to get biased studies? State your thoughts.

>> No.12805392
File: 951 KB, 1024x576, 1473D942-BB63-43B1-B9E6-209F8F435A84.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12805397

Your meds.
Take them.

>> No.12805400

I'm a schizo because I want to remove political corruption from the scientific community? Good to know.

>> No.12805402

>Posters: 2
Nice job samefag

>> No.12805403

I hope you suffocate in a burning building.

It's not really to do with science. Politics just sort of does this to wherever it is allowed to thrive. Like look at aristotle, he appealed to the politicians of the time and subsequently fucked up scientific progress for a couple centuries. The cure the physicist culture of the 20th century, which started with Pauli and Einstein and the like. It's called Pauli rudeness, it requires brutal honesty and the removal of authority from the equation. /sci/ is pretty decent microcosm of pauli rudeness, I think.

>> No.12805405

simple. any scientist caught knowingly lying to the public (e.g. Fauci saying masks don't work) needs to be publicly hanged by the SCOTUS.

>> No.12805410

That's no good, they just need to be ostracized.

>> No.12805416

That would lead to an extremely corrupt SCOTUS. Within five years a liberal SCOTUS could hang a scientist "lying" about transgenderism stating their research harms trans people or a conservative SCOTUS could hang a climate scientist stating their conclusion harms "muh jerbs"

>> No.12805443

There is no solution. Complicated experiments cannot be checked by anybody who doesn't have copious amounts of money and time. "Popularization of Science" makes this problem worse by increasing the extent to which people trust assertions they cannot verify and often couldn't if they wanted to. For all most people know, data that they see could just be fabricated, and techniques for spotting fabricated data can simply be finessed away by a more state of the art means of data fabrication.

There is literally no reason for 99.9% of the population to trust the vast majority of published output from any field. Mathematics is an exception, but only about 5% of anybody in the entire western world would be able, even in theory, to understand the proof structures of research-level mathematics from front to back if they were given to them.

Quite literally, the most confidence that the public can have in anything close to something resembling "science" is that the literal technology they interact with every day seems to work reasonably well. That whoever made computer, car, and building components seems to know generally what they are doing. To surmise that the "general public" can possibly be "informed" about the epidemiology of COVID-19, or the effects of proposed economic stimulus packages, or the consequences of geopolitical strategies is a total delusion, and it is a "problem" for which there is no solution.

>> No.12805501

>Like look at aristotle, he appealed to the politicians of the time and subsequently fucked up scientific progress for a couple centuries.
How did he fuck up science?

>> No.12805543

He was a high-class twit who suppressed the science of his time with grandiose pontifications which were entirely designed to produce social consensus, not accuracy. That means he opposed atomism, opposed heliocentrism, opposed inertia, opposed off-center orbits, and made up a bunch of reasonable sounding nonsense about "nature abhors a vacuum" and other things. He supported the hierarchical society, and explained that you were born a slave or born a freeman, "if you're a slave, it's in your genes", people would say nowadays.

But his book on physics does clearly separate the notions of "material cause" and "final cause", and this is an advance. The modern version is that you can separate between the material motion of the atoms and the computational goals of a biological system. This is the only idea I could find in Aristotle that is salvageable.

>> No.12805548

When Galileo dropped balls in the 16th century, the Aristotle prediction was that a ball 10 times as heavy would fall 10 times as fast. When the balls were dropped, the ball which was 10 times as heavy hit the ground “a few fingerwidths” ahead of the light ball. The Aristotelians saw in those few fingerwidths confirmation of their theory, because they did not go by observation. That's the kind of stupidity people called "physics" in that time.

>> No.12805561
File: 935 KB, 1136x640, D0DF47A6-8C1B-4D2F-9B9A-71E2F29DD221.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

public execution

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.