tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post662978971200023805..comments2024-03-18T19:14:18.804-04:00Comments on Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org : The End of ScienceDaniel Greenfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-86051060083613494292020-02-04T00:17:14.290-05:002020-02-04T00:17:14.290-05:00Science is supposed to be about induction, reasoni...Science is supposed to be about induction, reasoning from observation, experimentation, etc. to conclusions. Supporting data is expected to be available to all for verification. Debate is supposed to be about whether the methodology is applied correctly. If it is, then the conclusions are accepted. If not, conclusions are rejected.<br /><br />Liberals have tried to make science deductive, as in, conclusion oriented. Championed by Stalin's pet scientist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, while going through some motions of data collection, the actual decision turns on whether proposed conclusions are acceptable to the liberal ideological outlook.<br /><br />If politically correct, conclusions are accepted and the data is adjusted accordingly. If not, then conclusions are rejected and their proponents silenced -- permanently.<br /><br />The former Soviet Union would send dissenting scientists to the Gulag. In the U.S., liberals have to settle for media blackout, character assassination, ruined careers and/or legal harassment.Jim Austinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06370857358585621814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-85686034834320534122014-12-27T20:18:35.112-05:002014-12-27T20:18:35.112-05:00In the Book Of Job we read...
"7. He [G-d] st...In the Book Of Job we read...<br /><i>"7. He [G-d] stretches out the north over chaos; <b>He suspends the earth on nothing.</b>"</i><br />Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" illustrates that very clearly.<br />http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/a102/pbd.jpg<br />In Psalms, Chapter 8, v5, we read...<br /><i>"what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?"</i><br />But Sagan says, in effect...<br /><i>"What is G-d that I, Carl Sagan, should be mindful of him?"</i><br /><br />No thanks, Carl. I'll take the wisdom and humility of the ancient Sages over your arrogant ignorance any day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-77415808153952447732014-03-29T19:17:43.304-04:002014-03-29T19:17:43.304-04:00“Arguments from authority carry little weight – au...“Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.” <br /><br />Carl Sagan Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-59310341110689914442014-03-26T10:11:48.634-04:002014-03-26T10:11:48.634-04:00A large portion of your argument rests on the two ...A large portion of your argument rests on the two articles you cite towards the beginning of the article, but both are only about research in medicine. You neglect to include such examples from other fields, including geology, biology, chemistry, and astrophysics. Do these disciplines have the same issues? Or is your entire article rubbish? I suspect the latter.amorganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170221163088363537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-52427055510098164382014-03-25T21:03:05.841-04:002014-03-25T21:03:05.841-04:00The biggest culprits have been the various academi...The biggest culprits have been the various academies of science, led by The Royal Society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-45598043450155015682014-03-25T18:48:51.529-04:002014-03-25T18:48:51.529-04:00"You're a conservative journalist. What t..."You're a conservative journalist. What the hell's YOUR qualification to criticize Sagan or anyone else? ...Really, you don't even know enough to understand what they're working on, let alone how to evaluate it. I'm not saying that so much to be mean, so much as a statement of fact."<br /><br />Well, it seems that attitude demonstrates the point quite nicely . . .K S McPhailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477399499099267719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-84791096237235797552014-03-25T11:59:52.782-04:002014-03-25T11:59:52.782-04:00Right. It's about the statistics of the situat...Right. It's about the statistics of the situation at hand. And as the commenter above points out, certain fields and situations involving statistics are more prone to the type of issue that Ioannidis documents than other fields are. One can't assume that it applies to all of science - not by a long shot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-88021575727358444812014-03-25T11:55:32.361-04:002014-03-25T11:55:32.361-04:00EXACTLY. Excellent point.EXACTLY. Excellent point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-2172105289774937702014-03-25T11:30:36.289-04:002014-03-25T11:30:36.289-04:00An excellent audio book on this topic:
http://r...An excellent audio book on this topic: <br /><br />http://russj.livejournal.com/58581.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-55432285373925168022014-03-25T09:41:33.559-04:002014-03-25T09:41:33.559-04:00Is it time for Lysenkoism again?Is it time for Lysenkoism again?Fiftyvillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527599911826746425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-73359078394689497022014-03-25T08:14:27.497-04:002014-03-25T08:14:27.497-04:00Hey, my fellow Sultan here is my satire on "C...Hey, my fellow Sultan here is my satire on "Climate Change." <br />http://youtu.be/Dj5C_5YmJToAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263718259278252806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-15792392218193886602014-03-25T03:05:08.808-04:002014-03-25T03:05:08.808-04:00I usually enjoy your writing. This time, however,...I usually enjoy your writing. This time, however, you were reaching for the cosmos - you didn't quite make it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-59570483119276114152014-03-25T00:38:07.459-04:002014-03-25T00:38:07.459-04:00The social sciences became widely politicized in t...The social sciences became widely politicized in the 1970’s. Perhaps it would have happened regardless, but it got a major push from Vietnam and the anti war movement. The desire to be relevant to current social trends pushed science away from careful observation and fact seeking, to an effort to impact policy. That is, it became a publicly funded political movement.<br /><br />To become effective in the pursuit of policy, the material presented to students had to be slanted toward whatever the social policy agenda was at the time. Unless there was common agreement or a willingness to pretend there was common agreement, the social agenda could not be pushed into the public square as ‘settled science’. And so all the ducks that we call scientists had to get in a row and go along with whatever the current hokum was. <br /><br />There is still a certain amount of real science going on, but presenting it interferes with doctrine so you never hear of it. And apparently it is not all that important because it no longer has impact and it has not been missed. We are approaching fifty years in the corruption of the social sciences, and in the lay class nobody even notices. <br /><br />The current accomplishment of the more radical element of science is the expanding corruption in the physical sciences. We know that because of global warming movement. Fudged data, false consensus, and slander directed at anyone who objects is now the norm in what still gets called science. Those who want to get funding had better get with the program and become agreeable propagandists for the cause.<br /><br />(With regard to Margaret Mead, her Samoan observations fit in so will with Freudian theory that they were obviously biased either accidentally or deliberately. Too good a fit is usually a sign of fudged data or biased observations.)<br />Johnnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08858734208780946905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-33752645134113017502014-03-24T19:59:48.089-04:002014-03-24T19:59:48.089-04:00I disagree. I'm in the sciences, and everyone ...I disagree. I'm in the sciences, and everyone I work with knows *what* we're doing, why we're doing it, what it means. We also usually have pretty good ideas why we've screwed up when we did.<br /><br />You're a conservative journalist. What the hell's YOUR qualification to criticize Sagan or anyone else? ...Really, you don't even know enough to understand what they're working on, let alone how to evaluate it. I'm not saying that so much to be mean, so much as a statement of fact.<br /><br />If you want to say "Scientists don't communicate their results to the general public effectively", that I'd give you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-43840904272475237672014-03-24T19:08:05.935-04:002014-03-24T19:08:05.935-04:00But... but.. Jodie Foster... made a movie...But... but.. Jodie Foster... made a movie...Joan of Argghh!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14729682908266300507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-80091472107796795502014-03-24T16:27:12.030-04:002014-03-24T16:27:12.030-04:00AwesomeAwesomeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-43338445780340855082014-03-24T15:57:23.075-04:002014-03-24T15:57:23.075-04:00Eric Voegelin discussed the problem in "The N...Eric Voegelin discussed the problem in "The New Science of Politics" circa 1952. He identified the corruption in science, a displacement of theoretical relevance as the basis for research by the scientific method. All facts are not equal, the corruption occurs in the claim that using the method is lone justification for any meaningless or frivolous research. <br /><br />So performing studies on what direction alpha particle electrons spin over platinum shielding is very interesting to my pal who's a physicist, it has little value or meaning to the public forced to pay for it. <br /><br />Research cannot be validated by merely procedural means. The denial of substantive justification mirrors modern liberal theology which also reduces everything to process. It is as he presciently stated over sixty years ago, the new truths would become Koranic - beyond questioning and inquiry.<br /><br />On a more amusing note, recommend everyone watch "When Worlds Collide" - 1951. Good production values, but the plot line is world destruction and the only people who merit survival are guess who - scientists. Even the the guy who payed for the rocket didn't deserve to get on board, no cripples in the new world... You'll have a good chuckle at the pretentiousness of it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-55475898194680521972014-03-24T14:31:47.894-04:002014-03-24T14:31:47.894-04:00Completely agreeCompletely agreeUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786314328881106293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-74539552485894938502014-03-24T14:20:16.408-04:002014-03-24T14:20:16.408-04:00I have known this for a long time. The thing that ...I have known this for a long time. The thing that first gave it away was when I noticed almost every "Science" report for or against something ended with "More study will be needed". I think that is Scientists talk for "If you like my results I can give you more if you give me more funds".Siobhra DeWarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-55064878368315998512014-03-24T14:17:20.364-04:002014-03-24T14:17:20.364-04:00What a load of drivel. You think that because Neil...What a load of drivel. You think that because Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a popular educator and is frequently on television, he is somehow less of a scientist or is less qualified? Take a look at his CV and his contributions to astrophysics.<br /><br />http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#research<br /><br />The 'Saganization' of science? You should stick to what you do best, write long winded pontifications on geopolitics, and leave science to people who actually do this for a living.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-48940338894750195262014-03-24T14:03:24.051-04:002014-03-24T14:03:24.051-04:00"...There is nothing to cheer about the retur..."...There is nothing to cheer about the return of Cosmos. It's not science, instead it's more of the popularized punditry that distorts science into an absolute dogma with a cynical agenda."<br />I cheered it, as I recall the arrogance of Carl Sagan, and his endless nonsense theories recounted by pst314. Mike Tyson, err. I mean Neil D. Tyson, made one remark, last night, about the Earth being destroyed by man-made climate change, and that offended me. Then again, his gig as spokesman and narrator for the new Cosmos is a rich job, and he had a duty to genuflect to the "progressives" who control National Geographic and pay his salary. Other than that, I have found the science of the many new Cosmos shows I've seen, on the Science channel, to be fair representations of proven science. He didn't acknowledge or deny a G_d, and that was proper. I have seen his lectures to kids at the N.Y. Museum of Nat. History, I believe, and he makes science fun. That is a big change from the distasteful science presentations I endured more than half a century ago, and for that reason, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.<br />I remember being laughed at by the professor when I suggested that the continents looked like they fit together some time in the past.<br />We can be thankful that scientists are no longer burned at the stake for heresy, where no other theories were entertained, from the 12th thru the 18th Centuries. Until robots are given the job of deciding what is truth in science, we will be subject to whatever political power prevails. America, and most of the West, is governed by "captured regulators" who are primarily influenced by cash. Name an Agency that isn't.<br />While you're at it, tell us what part of Cosmos's science is bogus.<br />Regards,<br />DenisOnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-81276207286636383762014-03-24T13:26:46.106-04:002014-03-24T13:26:46.106-04:00If you'll permit a digression, I can pinpoint ...If you'll permit a digression, I can pinpoint the exact point at which I saw the Sagans of the world go wrong and it wasn't necessarily the nuclear winter thing.<br /><br />When I was a kid growing up in the 70's, pseudo-science was taken far too seriously. There were countless books and TV shows (look up In Search Of) and movies about UFOs and alien abductions and ESP and astrology and ancient astronauts and the Bermuda Triangle and all sorts of other crazy stuff that's since fallen by the wayside. Sagan and his likeminded buddies were instrumental in debunking all of this stuff and they did us all a positive service in doing so as we seem less susceptible to the worst of that stuff today.<br /><br />In the 80s though, I remember a book was published about Margaret Mead. Mead was the American anthropologist who travelled to Samoa and got the girls there to tell her a bunch of dirty stories about their free-loving ways so Mead could go back to the U.S. and tell us all about what a bunch of uptight prudes we were. Long story short, there is a lot of reason to believe that the girls in Samoa were just making things up to make Mead happy by telling her what she wanted to hear. When all of this broke, the skeptics of the Sagan school circled the wagons and devoted all of their energy to defending Mead. There was no learned on the one hand and on the other hand discussion. Mead's work was the very pinnicle of scientific endeavor and that was that. The fact that her work was most probably the result of a big hoax was less important than the fact the hoax was partly responsible for sparking the so-called sexual revolution. That was the point for me at which it was obvious that the popularizers of science had become completely political.RDittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-27325371528149512322014-03-24T12:05:11.182-04:002014-03-24T12:05:11.182-04:00Carl Sagan was famous and admired by many non-scie...Carl Sagan was famous and admired by many non-scientists for his popularizations of science. But he was not all that highly regarded by his fellow scientists, who regarded his actual scientific work as somewhat mediocre: He developed a bit of a reputation for carelessness, as illustrated by his reckless global cooling/killer asteroid/nuclear winter theory which he pushed relentlessly. He also made numerous careless mistakes when debunking Velikovsky (he of the crackpot book Worlds in Collision.)pst314https://www.blogger.com/profile/08686377680772972035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-31860907406182580612014-03-24T11:18:33.612-04:002014-03-24T11:18:33.612-04:00BTW, I forgot to mention as high praise that this ...BTW, I forgot to mention as high praise that this piece caused me to remember Richard Feynman's definition of science which I believe is quite apropos: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman<br /><br />I wonder why Feynman seems to be down the memory hole along with Eric Blair himself these days ... not ;)Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01303418704124645351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-49150288573617743512014-03-24T10:20:19.853-04:002014-03-24T10:20:19.853-04:00FYI that "sexiest astrophysicist alive" ...FYI that "sexiest astrophysicist alive" cover: Google reveals that "The Alcalde, founded in 1913 and pronounced 'all-call-day,' is the alumni magazine of The University of Texas."<br /><br />It's pretty bad when academia's official publications go all "presidential kneepads" for pop-culture, culture-of-personality BS.pst314https://www.blogger.com/profile/08686377680772972035noreply@blogger.com