| | | Note, first, in writing to you here, I didn't purport to be an unbiased scientist who was publishing the results of an unbiased scientific study ? I did, however, expose the author of that bit you addressed... as a fraud.
You asked about "the science"... I answered, in good faith... and none of what I wrote about "the science" was wrong. Truth-telling... in the professions... depends on good faith... to preserve trust ? You don't expect your doctor to lie to you about your health... or your lawyer to lie to you about the law... but require they act in good faith ? Don't set out to lie to people... and then you don't need to concoct increasingly complex lies in schemes to try to get past their natural filters... to make people believe something that you know to not be true ?
My response to you... includes my awareness, up front, that what you had posted originally appeared it referenced a political screed... and not science ? It was easy to see. Your original post was dripping with the authors bias. It was obvious. But, before your post... I had NO IDEA who the author of that total crap was. But, the snippet you posted, was itself dripping with so much bias... that it made it a natural thing to ask "who is this guy" ? Worth asking that... before agreeing to trust him ?
Answering that, by itself, answered a lot... leading to my initial comment:
"Obama appointee bad mouthing Trump"... which remains a fully valid observation... and far more relevant in the analysis, given the initial concern is validated by the revelation of the bias in the purpose and design of the "study" being reported.
So, yeah... it looked like crap straight up front... and poking at it a bit more proved it to be crap.
I notice your reply... doesn't address ANY of the substance in my criticism of that guys work ? Why is that ?
What was the scientific purpose in asking the question the author asked ? What does the work contribute ?
I do have political opinions, too... and I'm not shy about sharing them... and do that while never pretending (ie, lying to you) in claiming that "my opinions" are the proper product of "science"... which justifies them ?
Much of what is passed off as "science" today... is the same thing as a Nigerian Prince letter... They do it because it works... on people without the skills to parse it properly... not because they value your trust ?
But, I am a scientist... I know how to design and conduct an experiment... how to ask the right questions... and have never, once, found it useful to do "science" as a part of justifying ANY political opinions ? That gets muddled, perhaps... when other people do ?
I do science to answer questions when I don't know the answers... and think answering the question will prove useful... in chemistry, biology, or physics... or in engineering things that can be improved by a better understanding how things work ?
I know well enough that it is true, and HOW it is, that the politicization of science... is destroying science...
Politics is inherently anti-scientific... as it demands ideological conformity as a first loyalty... the opposite of free inquiry.
Why is it happening ? Because, the politicians figured out no one trusted them... but people did trust "science"... so the politicians are working at putting on white lab coats to re-frame their politics as science... to fool people. In result... science now has a lot of Nigerian Princes posing as "financial advisors"... and for the same reason... its all about the $$$, power, and control.
It's the same thing, and is now following the same trajectory that's already been followed with the media... destroying journalism... which, once upon a time, followed similar standards to eliminate bias in reporting ?
Scientific facts don't have team affinities? Legitimate scientists don't design studies to support the team?
Identity politics destroying science?
|
|
