Civilization (Humans)

by David Turell , Saturday, November 08, 2008, 16:30 (5857 days ago) @ dhw

An agnostic keeps an open mind, in spite of the majority vote. 
 
> when Crichton says: "I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was," I think of my watering eyes and sore throat whenever I'm subjected to someone else's fag, and I reckon he's talking rubbish! So which observations should I believe? Again I'll keep an agnostic's open mind until I'm satisfied that something has been proved.
 
> If urgent action is needed on certain environmental issues (we may disagree on which ones), I have no choice but to rely on the experts in all related fields. But which experts? This is where I think Crichton has hit the nail squarely on the head: "We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast. Because in the end science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost." - May I add my kudos for a very fine review of where we are in this discussion. but, second hand smoke is not a permanent health hazard. Statistics show that over the long term there are not permanent effects to the health of the second hand smoker. The immediate annoyance is without question. - Crichton's comments about the need for an impartial organization are right on the point. Unless you have been a part of scientific research, and I have, you will not understand the politicization of scientific research. Darwin was independantly wealthy. No one supported his research. But today almost all research is dependent upon monetary grants, either governmental or from private foundations. To study anything one writes grant requests. If you are in academia your standing in your institution depends upon how well your research goes, and also how much money you bring in. Many salaries are all or in part supported by the grants, and only some money for salaries may come from the institution. In general the grant must be written to appeal to a group of peers, peer review pure and simple. Since in general the majority of scientists are joined to Darwin at the hip, if you propose something anti-Darwin you are lucky if you get the grant. This is why the Altenberg Conference is so important. The big shots recognize some changes in thinking and direction are needed. Crichton knew this process well. And in a real sense modern science is politicized as I have described. - Read Bjorn Lomborg's bio on Wikipedia. He is making an honest attempt to be an economically practical environmentalist. He has been accused of plagerism, falisifying data, etc. The charges didn't stick, but he is vilified. the moral is this: an open mind in science is a dangerous thing to your career. A research-fellow scientist in Darwinism at a large New York university contacted me surreptitously because of my book. He wanted references to anti-Darwin thought, but he didn't want his bosses to know his true feelings.