I’m reading a great book to get my knowledge up to snuff about gardening. It’s by Mary Pratt and is called “Practical Science for Gardeners.” Not only is it a great resource for the layman getting into gardening, but it has also offered me some excellent insights into science in general. I’ve lost track of the actual page and quotation, but Pratt says something to the effect of: there is a great deal that is still scientifically unknown about how exactly plants work. But when it comes to funding for experimentation and research, the only money that is really available goes to experiments which directly relate to increasing or improving growth. In other words, it’s only science that can make people more money that gets funded.
This seems to be a point that is frequently lost among people who are cheerleaders of science. Yes, arguments can be made that science itself is completely neutral, yadda yadda. And we’ve covered that ground elsewhere. But the fact remains that “pure science” in its ideal form really doesn’t exist. Science is mediated by business (think of all the great research universities who receive massive funding from the defense industry, as just one example). Science that promotes business flourishes. Science that does not withers. And it only makes sense, since both science and free market economics are based on Darwinian survival of the fittest: the best business model wins, the best scientific model wins until something better comes along…
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Buy more oil
- Skeptic’s Are Idiots
- Paranormal Research “Castes”
- The Guild of Scientific Troubadours
- Global Warming Real Meaning
20 Comments
Interesting.
I was about to point out these kind of ideas to you.
And then you go and discover them for yourself….
Often the metaphor used in philosophy of science is the Golem.
The Golem is motivated only by truth (the word imprinted on it’s forehead, and which animates it), but the truth can be bent to the will of it’s master…. to a degree … a dangerous degree.
The book that broght home this metaphor to me was “The Golem: what everyone should know about science”, and talks about science, when it starts to get controvertial.
There’s also a little on the Golem metaphor in a recent New Scientist, where they reviewed a book called “Follies of science”.
Not completely related but you may be interested:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/09/07/school.of.future.ap/index.html
A science-fringe site I like a lot is rexresearch.com. It has a bunch of alchemy texts (some not on levity) and a LOT of original source materials and easily-reproducable experiments for us interested laymen.
That’s why money sucks ass.
Oh, the stories I could tell!!
This is a huge problem for me. I would study something totally other than what I actually study, if funding weren’t a huge issue.
In my personal experience: NIEHS now prefers to fund “omics” related projects (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc.) That is, they are now only interested in funding studies of gene x environment interaction. Any other mechanism whereby the environment affect health outcomes: no longer of interest.
Yes, yes, very nice. The fact remains that from my perspective, your broad attack on “science” seems actively harmful. People trying to prevent us from realizing our true desires have to abuse or ignore reason, because they’d meet ridicule or anger if they openly rejected the principle of freedom at this point. They dare not use good scientific reasoning. And you help them by suggesting that we avoid or fear scientific reasoning. You help to turn people away from our most obvious weapon.
And I fail to see what that last bit about Darwin tells us except that you like to play the Kevin Bacon game.
hf, I think part of what Tim is saying is that Science purports to be rational when it really is not (completely). The same people who are trying to prevent us from realizing our true desires are actually the ones who determine what projects get funded.
I believe that the hidden agenda involves some kind of genetic manipulation. Hence, all scientific funding agencies whose priorities can plausibly be shifted in that direction are in fact being directed to do so. This isn’t rational: it’s based on greed and power.
Even still, rationality isn’t the end-all and be-all of existence, but I believe that it’s still an imporant component.
And we could theoretically fix this problem by changing the way we fund science. I fail to see how criticizing the scientific method would help anyone oppose this hidden agenda, if it does exist.
(The agenda about genetic engineering, I mean. No doubt funding influences what people study in some way.)
Show me specifically ANYWHERE I have criticized the scientific method? Seriously. I think it was you who originally accused me of conflating science with philosophies associated with science. And now you seem to be either doing the same thing, or not recognizing that I myself am also interested in making that distinction - IF it’s possible. I’m still not sure that it is!
You’ve constantly criticized the scientific method!
What did you intend to say there, if you didn’t want to make any statement about the scientific method?
Getting back to funding of science: if we could make this variation of “Technocracy” work, it might solve this problem while increasing personal freedom. Now, in a way this illustrates your point. Experts have shown no interest in getting Social Credit to work or constructing some other way to achieve its goals. But if we got the political will together, we could motivate experts to find a way.
I emphatically do not believe that W or Cheney has any plan to establish Social Credit or Technocracy or any similar system. Nor do I think that science informs their decisions more than religious or other unscientific viewpoints.
I meant to say exactly what I said: that science looks for the best explanation which both adequately and simply describes the known facts and accurately predicts behavior. As far as I can tell, I did not make a value judgement saying that this is an inherenly evil and useless attribute - because I do not believe that to be the case even a little bit. I merely described it as “Darwinian” which it very much is. At the risk of my own projecting, I would say that you yourself are projecting meaning into what I am saying that I am not actually including.
The point of this post is that the experts only study those things which they can make a living by studying and promoting. Experts who study things that they are not supposed to are ridiculed and their careers ruined. It happens every day.
I don’t believe it is merely a matter of generating “political will” to change this system. But I could maybe buy into an argument that says we need to make positive things (which we mostly can’t even agree on what’s positive anymore culture) to be economically valuable, then we might get somewhere. Maybe. But I doubt it.
Then what the hell was it doing after your description of the chance links between science and business funding? Why did you say Science that promotes business flourishes. Science that does not withers. And it only makes sense, since both science and free market economics etc?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your argument. I feel like I am being perfectly clear, but perhaps I am not.
When it comes to the last sentence of your post, no, you aren’t.
As for changing the system, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. Political will would allow us to fund investigation into the goals of Social Credit through the government, it it seems necessary, and would simultaneously help convince business leaders that Social Credit or similar changes would help protect their lives from the mob (as it very well might).
I don’t think politics would be the solution in the scheme that you’re describing. I believe it would be actively convincing the business leaders to fund different scientific investigations. Ideology will not accomplish this. Only proving unequivocally that different scientific investigations will make them more money and give them more power will encourage them to do this. And the only way to “prove” that would be to show them how to do it, which would in turn give them more money and power over us. Not less. Thus, I don’t think it’s ultimately an effective solution for our (or at least my) purposes. But maybe there is some seed of truth we can pull from it and use in another way…
I think Tim is being very clear, but perhaps it’s because I already agree with his point. Indeed, I’m living it.
Only science that is fundable gets done. Fundable science is science that advances a certain agenda, at the very least a capitalist/corporate agenda, and possibly much worse.
And I keep saying that either Tim tacked on the last sentence of his post for no logical reason, or he blames this state of affairs on the scientific method itself. Earlier he went on about nihilism (see the post before that comment as well) and partially endorsed an attack on the scientific method itself. He conflated it with the various different ideals of “progress” that sometimes go along with science, but calling these nihilism seems doubly insane since they often refer to a moral principle. (Nietszche said this morality could produce a culture that would end all striving — this project technically seems opposed to nihilism since it assigns an unexamined moral value to “curing” neuroses such as striving. And the Apollo program provides a possible counterargument.) In my view science itself has weakened the religious morality that preceded it, this cannot possibly lead to true nihilism, and it may very well advance “morality” as I define it.
As for Social Credit, apparently I didn’t spell out that if we can get it to work (which might not require money from business, if enough people want it) then it might allow us to fund science afterwards through the government without taxes.
Well, let me be the one to point out that just because you keep saying something doesn’t necessarily make it so!
Yes, I plainly see that we have different views, but I will freely admit that I haven’t got the time to read through your website and reply to them. I regret this but am busy and must pick and choose my resources. Apologies!