Science Forums 2

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Yes, that's a good, concrete example. The problem there is in the "binding". Scientists should never bind. If they do, then separation must always be an "if-then" fail event that is always considered and used when necessary.

The binding is often admired as persistence in the face of adversity when that person finally proves they are right.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Considered the guardian by who?
I suppose you are referring to way-left-field liberal environmental activists. True scientists will analyze the data regardless of the source. The most overlooked part of any scientific study that is brought to the public is the methodology. This is a grave concern of mine because the methodology is the basis of any particular study. That is where you can find discrepancies which statistics will often belie.

I am venting there a bit. Consider the focus as being the dismissal of anyone who is being paid by someone who's scientific conclusion matches the needs of their employer being dismissed as being bought and paid for, while the opinions of scientists without corporate sponsorship are deemed to be completely objective. I am simply pointing out that when it comes to pushing an agenda payment is not always in the form of money.

Originally Posted by freeztar

So how do you suppose we reconcile this natural tendency towards "internal agenda", with science?

I think we live with it, and continue to debate ferociously. I think that the internal agenda has led to breakthroughs that would never have happened by accepting overwhelming consensus. It causes waste and confusion and lifetimes of wasted effort, but that is a small price to pay for finding the truth of things.

Good thread Freeze!!

Bill