The Folly of Science === The truth is that scientists have always been the spokespeople of the powerful and the powerful have ALWAYS paid the scientists to deliver WHATEVER message they want delivered. The powerful are now known as legislators, Presidents (national, university, 5013c Orgs, etc.), Chief this or chief that but in the past they were known as King, Prince, Tycoon, Monarch, Warlord, Chief, Marquis, Lion, etc. etc. The list is nearly infinite and certainly not completely known by anyone alive. So is the list for those whose duties were synonymous with scientist: wizard, wise man, philosopher, physician, magician, enchanter, etc. To be sure, in ancient days if their equivalent scientist told the king what he didnt want to hear, he may well have been killed by some extraordinary means. To be sure, scientists today when being subjected to peer-review process (which equates to peer pressure to say things that are congruent with prevailing points of view), if is found to have proven what our king (be it the prevailing point of view, or the views of the Head of Whatever Hierarchical System Said Scientist is Subject to), (s)he will also be killed by some extraordinary means, only by killing we mean that - most often but not exclusively - figuratively. Their career will be cut short, they will be professionally ostracized, etc. Its not a perfect relationship, but odds are when you have access to TRILLIONS of dollars you can simply choose to fund whatever research you choose, and ALL research starts out with a premise: I.E. it seeks to prove something. I.E. it isnt paid for and executed on the premise of learning something that might contradict the interests of the funders. joeforamerica/2014/11/needed-accurate-climate-forecasts/ //+ Billions of dollars are doled out every year for numerous “scientific studies” that supposedly link carbon dioxide and other alleged human factors to dwindling frog populations, melting glaciers, migrating birds and cockroaches, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions. Focusing on “dangerous human-induced” climate change in research proposals greatly improves the likelihood of receiving grants. // American taxpayers alone provide a tempting $2.5 billion annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA, Global Change Research Program and other government agencies. Universities and other institutions receiving grants take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to upset this arrangement, and all of them fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles might imperil funding from sources that have their own reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy or antipathy toward fossil fuels. Peer pressure and shared views on wealth redistribution via energy policies, also play major roles. +//
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:55:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015