Great post. If scientists go into their process with their minds already made up as to the results, and slant all evidence toward their bias, that's not science. That's partisan politics, especially when it comes to climate change and the villainous CO2. Follow the money.
The mark of a non-scientist: Substituting feelings for facts, ignoring that a lack of rigor in language means a lack of rigor in scientific discipline, the creation of new definitions for existing words, and the sue of conclusory language when reporting results of data acquisition rather than letting the reader make his own conclusions from the raw data.
The mark of a critical thinker is demanding to see the original hypothesis, the methodology, the unredacted data, and the conflicts of interest of the person conducting the study. And lastly to have the courage, stamina, and backbone to make one's own conclusions from these analyses.
" Just like every priest is not a holy person, and every lawyer is not a law-abiding citizen…" is a bit harsh. I've known priests who are holy men, and lawyers who are law-abiding citizens.
I might have written " Just like not every priest is a holy person, and not every lawyer is a law-abiding citizen...."
You've all probably heard the old joke that 99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. And that there are only two real lawyer jokes — all the others you've heard are true.
Thanks for your 'heads up' warning. One has to delve deeper than the headlines. I learned back in 1979, about the stranglehold the AMA has on information, when I wrote a 300 page manuscript on raising children. I had 22 years of experience backing the info in my book. I had a publisher who was interested in publishing it, but he sat on it for a few months. Then, he told me that the AMA would not approve of it, because it dealt with raising children and I didn't have a Doctorate. Then, I went to work on a obtaining a degree in nutrition...and found that the Food Industry supported nutrition schools and provided its food research to nutrition students. I decided to take a test to become a nutritional consultant...and got an A. However, I wrote at the bottom of the test. These are the answers you want, but they are not necessarily correct. The test was obviously designed by the Food Industry to sell its products. What a world! The truth is hard to come by.
Barbara: TY for the interesting background. Yes, the NAS probably looks at Science as it's turf, and they should be the authority on any science-related matter. What baloney. In my next article I'll give an example of their bogus position on COVID-19.
Thank you for this warning! Yes, science institutions are easily captured by the left, because most scientists are not politically astute, while (regrettably) thinking that they are. One of the biggest problems, IMO, is that scientists tend to assume that both mainstream journalists and science journalists are reporting science in a way that can be trusted. That is incredibly far from the truth. The degree to which healthy skepticism has been abandoned by science journalists is remarkable.
The takeover of the American Chemical Society by the left, via the science journalism arm, was exemplary, elevating one activist after another in a long march. When their top activist became executive director, the climate dictates began, with censorship of all "denial of AGW" being their first test case of control.
At this point, some issues of Chemical & Engineering News are almost a parody of science. Exuberant leftism is just barely restrained, sometimes rather humorously. The most recent issue decries "anti-aging products for kids" (yes, stupid), but C&EN would never stop to consider a far more important question - that they might need to be a bit more critical of toxic mRNA shots for those same kids (much of their funding comes from Big Pharma, if not Pfizer itself).
I suspect that the beauty sub-industry is slipping on leftist funding goals, and needed its cage rattled.
Science is a horrible mess, but thank goodness, most Americans recognize this now!
Another example is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, owner of Science magazine.
Scientific American took a sharp left turn over a cliff into wokeville, with regular columns of fiction by Mirsky, Krauss, Oreskes, …. It became especially intense after they got bought by the Nature Publishing Group, in which the giant CCP publishing house TenCent has a significant ownership interest. They were always tilting left. In about 1970 they actually published an article that claimed anti-ballistic missile missiles are offensive weapons! I canceled my 50+ year subscription several years ago when "science" articles became rare. Science News and Discover seem to be drifting in that direction. American Scientist is OK, at least for now. None of them (except Science) publish articles by scientists — they're all by "science writers" who presumably became "writers" in journalism schools.
Wolf: I am in full agreement — up to your conclusion!
Science is NOT a horrible mess, as "Science is a process" and that remains unchanged. What is a mess is scientists who are abusing their credentials to promote political agendas, etc.
Why do we fail to use real science to destroy the pseudo science you describe. It isn’t that difficult because of the power of real science.
One example. Do a mass balance on the Earth’s energy. Then compare that number to the actual human use of energy in one year. Bingo! Case closed. Human contribution is totally insignificant to the Earth’s total energy.
I did this with just one source of energy. I used just the daily change in the temperature of dry air. If we look at the moisture in the air and it’s changes during a day, the numbers just get more ridiculous. But, with just the dry air, the total use of energy in all forms by humans for 38,000 years is what the Earth creates in a single year. So, what is the big deal with our use of energy?
Why not teach this? Here is a hint. It is a scientific fact that to change one pound of air by one degree Fahrenheit it requires 0.24 BTU. If that occurs in one hour you can figure the rest. I do it with my telephone by asking it questions like, “How many pounds of dry air are in the Earth’s atmosphere?” Or, “How much energy is used by human beings from all sources?”
Jim: Yes, if all scientists were pro-Science, this undermining would be quickly crushed. However, Scientists are people too and many of them are not altruistic, etc. They are taking advantage of the fact that Science is well-respected, so they then label their political agendas (think wind energy, etc., etc.) as being endorsed by Science — counting on the fact that the public will not understand that it's scam. Think COVID policies.
This is the same process by which we got Political Science and Social Sciences. At least psychology doesn't claim to be a science, at least not in its moniker.
Minor correction: People who fancy themselves scientists are destroying science. Science is a process that itself cannot be destroyed. It can only be ignored.
Here is an example. The EPA uses "weight of evidence" to support its decisions. NAS confirmed that practice, based on a grant from the EPA. WoE is not science. My note to members of the WoE panel was ignored.
It takes only one valid negative study to overturn a theory/claim. Science is not a vote, particularly if the agency is doing most of the funding!
Nothing has changed. You understand astronomy which can be difficult but you must believe in astrology. Using science as a tool to promote fear and control people has been going on forever. Most people are exposed to “popular science (science filtered by science journalists) and have never actually read a scientific article. When Scientific American was bought by a new publisher it immediately became evident that it was now a vehicle for science propaganda.
Bernard: Yes Science (like religion, history, etc) has been perverted by some bad actors to promote their own agenda. We should not be confused by these distortions, and should continue to advocate for what these subjects really are.
Great post. If scientists go into their process with their minds already made up as to the results, and slant all evidence toward their bias, that's not science. That's partisan politics, especially when it comes to climate change and the villainous CO2. Follow the money.
SM: Yes, TY for your support.
Excellent Post, John.
The mark of a non-scientist: Substituting feelings for facts, ignoring that a lack of rigor in language means a lack of rigor in scientific discipline, the creation of new definitions for existing words, and the sue of conclusory language when reporting results of data acquisition rather than letting the reader make his own conclusions from the raw data.
The mark of a critical thinker is demanding to see the original hypothesis, the methodology, the unredacted data, and the conflicts of interest of the person conducting the study. And lastly to have the courage, stamina, and backbone to make one's own conclusions from these analyses.
Chris: TY, we are on the same page.
" Just like every priest is not a holy person, and every lawyer is not a law-abiding citizen…" is a bit harsh. I've known priests who are holy men, and lawyers who are law-abiding citizens.
I might have written " Just like not every priest is a holy person, and not every lawyer is a law-abiding citizen...."
You've all probably heard the old joke that 99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. And that there are only two real lawyer jokes — all the others you've heard are true.
VS: I do not believe there is any difference between the two versions, but (to be cooperative) I changed it (above) to your version.
Thanks for your 'heads up' warning. One has to delve deeper than the headlines. I learned back in 1979, about the stranglehold the AMA has on information, when I wrote a 300 page manuscript on raising children. I had 22 years of experience backing the info in my book. I had a publisher who was interested in publishing it, but he sat on it for a few months. Then, he told me that the AMA would not approve of it, because it dealt with raising children and I didn't have a Doctorate. Then, I went to work on a obtaining a degree in nutrition...and found that the Food Industry supported nutrition schools and provided its food research to nutrition students. I decided to take a test to become a nutritional consultant...and got an A. However, I wrote at the bottom of the test. These are the answers you want, but they are not necessarily correct. The test was obviously designed by the Food Industry to sell its products. What a world! The truth is hard to come by.
Barbara: TY for the interesting background. Yes, the NAS probably looks at Science as it's turf, and they should be the authority on any science-related matter. What baloney. In my next article I'll give an example of their bogus position on COVID-19.
Thank you for this warning! Yes, science institutions are easily captured by the left, because most scientists are not politically astute, while (regrettably) thinking that they are. One of the biggest problems, IMO, is that scientists tend to assume that both mainstream journalists and science journalists are reporting science in a way that can be trusted. That is incredibly far from the truth. The degree to which healthy skepticism has been abandoned by science journalists is remarkable.
The takeover of the American Chemical Society by the left, via the science journalism arm, was exemplary, elevating one activist after another in a long march. When their top activist became executive director, the climate dictates began, with censorship of all "denial of AGW" being their first test case of control.
At this point, some issues of Chemical & Engineering News are almost a parody of science. Exuberant leftism is just barely restrained, sometimes rather humorously. The most recent issue decries "anti-aging products for kids" (yes, stupid), but C&EN would never stop to consider a far more important question - that they might need to be a bit more critical of toxic mRNA shots for those same kids (much of their funding comes from Big Pharma, if not Pfizer itself).
I suspect that the beauty sub-industry is slipping on leftist funding goals, and needed its cage rattled.
Science is a horrible mess, but thank goodness, most Americans recognize this now!
Another example is the American Association for the Advancement of Science, owner of Science magazine.
Scientific American took a sharp left turn over a cliff into wokeville, with regular columns of fiction by Mirsky, Krauss, Oreskes, …. It became especially intense after they got bought by the Nature Publishing Group, in which the giant CCP publishing house TenCent has a significant ownership interest. They were always tilting left. In about 1970 they actually published an article that claimed anti-ballistic missile missiles are offensive weapons! I canceled my 50+ year subscription several years ago when "science" articles became rare. Science News and Discover seem to be drifting in that direction. American Scientist is OK, at least for now. None of them (except Science) publish articles by scientists — they're all by "science writers" who presumably became "writers" in journalism schools.
VS: Agreed on your position. (FYI "rate" maybe sgould be "rare"?)
Wolf: I am in full agreement — up to your conclusion!
Science is NOT a horrible mess, as "Science is a process" and that remains unchanged. What is a mess is scientists who are abusing their credentials to promote political agendas, etc.
OK - point taken!
Why do we fail to use real science to destroy the pseudo science you describe. It isn’t that difficult because of the power of real science.
One example. Do a mass balance on the Earth’s energy. Then compare that number to the actual human use of energy in one year. Bingo! Case closed. Human contribution is totally insignificant to the Earth’s total energy.
I did this with just one source of energy. I used just the daily change in the temperature of dry air. If we look at the moisture in the air and it’s changes during a day, the numbers just get more ridiculous. But, with just the dry air, the total use of energy in all forms by humans for 38,000 years is what the Earth creates in a single year. So, what is the big deal with our use of energy?
Why not teach this? Here is a hint. It is a scientific fact that to change one pound of air by one degree Fahrenheit it requires 0.24 BTU. If that occurs in one hour you can figure the rest. I do it with my telephone by asking it questions like, “How many pounds of dry air are in the Earth’s atmosphere?” Or, “How much energy is used by human beings from all sources?”
The rest is just math.
Jim: Yes, if all scientists were pro-Science, this undermining would be quickly crushed. However, Scientists are people too and many of them are not altruistic, etc. They are taking advantage of the fact that Science is well-respected, so they then label their political agendas (think wind energy, etc., etc.) as being endorsed by Science — counting on the fact that the public will not understand that it's scam. Think COVID policies.
This is the same process by which we got Political Science and Social Sciences. At least psychology doesn't claim to be a science, at least not in its moniker.
Minor correction: People who fancy themselves scientists are destroying science. Science is a process that itself cannot be destroyed. It can only be ignored.
Mike: YES!
Here is an example. The EPA uses "weight of evidence" to support its decisions. NAS confirmed that practice, based on a grant from the EPA. WoE is not science. My note to members of the WoE panel was ignored.
It takes only one valid negative study to overturn a theory/claim. Science is not a vote, particularly if the agency is doing most of the funding!
Thank you Dr. Young for a fine example.
Nothing has changed. You understand astronomy which can be difficult but you must believe in astrology. Using science as a tool to promote fear and control people has been going on forever. Most people are exposed to “popular science (science filtered by science journalists) and have never actually read a scientific article. When Scientific American was bought by a new publisher it immediately became evident that it was now a vehicle for science propaganda.
Bernard: Yes Science (like religion, history, etc) has been perverted by some bad actors to promote their own agenda. We should not be confused by these distortions, and should continue to advocate for what these subjects really are.
I wish you had defined NGSS early on. It took some searching (even after following a link) to find it out!
Jane: Sorry. I have written about the NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) multiple times before. That said, I'll add another link.