to be a bit more circumspect… you might actually state
“Another claim/accusation of religious censorship of science.”
Since what you really have there is two rejections of articles and claims by their authors that the only reason they were rejected was due to their content–whereas the magazines state that this is not the case..
Don’t we still follow “innocent until proven guilty?? ”
also… to channel my usually dormant libertarian.. aren’t these privately-owned businesses? Don’t they have the right to publish what they feel is correct science? It’s not like there aren’t hundreds of different scientific journals that these papers could be published in.. so it’s not like these papers are being censored in totality…
ps–just so you know.. I personally do believe that there is some global warming occurring.. but I have serious doubts as to how big of a contribution humans are making towards it..I generally think that we might be responsible for like 10% of it.. but the earth–if we are to believe most of geology and paleoentology–was significantly warmer than it was today during dinosaur times (Avg temp of area around alaska was 50′ —Average!) and I don’t think anyone around here believes that it was because the dinosaurs were industrious little buggers burning lots of fossil fuels..
I used deliberately provocative terminology. I don’t know who’s right about global warming, and I can’t know the Journal’s true motiviations for rejecting those articles. All I know is that science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies, since by their nature scientists have a tendency to bet their reputations on a certain interpretation of the facts. (Which is not innately a bad thing; much good science has come about as the result of one scientist doggedly sticking to his/her guns year after year until vindication was finally found). I also believe that there is an inherent bias in science – a bias towards scientists. Scientists need funding in order to do their work, and nothing draws funding like crisis. I’m not saying there is a conscious, organized conspiracy to exaggerate claims of impending evironmental doom. But the fact is, a scientist who is saying “everything is OK, there’s nothing to see here, move along” does not draw a lot of attention.
What gets me riled up about all this is that there is much at stake. There is a finite amount of political and fiscal capital available to be spent on environmental issues. If we throw it all away on what turn out to be futile efforts to hold back climate change, we’ll have wasted our chance to make changes that might have had a lasting impact.
Disagreement first… I don’t know if I think science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies… I can think of a number of other human activities–like religion and politics–that seem a lot more susceptible to the formation of orthodoxy than science…
Now.. I will agree that when science gets funded by politicians–that unless there are people who are willing to fight vigorously to keep political bias out of it–that science will get corrupted just like anything else.. (this happens to religion too…. look at how christianity is being abused by those in power right now…)
As for the bias of scientists towards scientists.. yes.. this I will completely grant… and this I see as the basic human drive.. politicians are all for politicians.. doctors are generally for doctors… businessmen are all for businessmen…
In terms of scientists–the best example of this was the cut in funding for the Super-conducting super-collider–when the cold war ended, and congress decided to stop 50billion in funding for the thing–high energy physicists started spewing about how this would be the end of all of our technology and society would collapse, blah blah blah–even though nothing practical had ever come out of their research ever–and other scientific groups who did do practical stuff–like those doing solid matter-physics (involved with semi-conductors etc) had been short-shrifted by the gov’t for decades because of the “coolness” factor of high-energy physics…
as for the environmental stuff… I agree–I actually think that instead of spending more research on whether this shit is going to happen or not.. that research on what to do about possible consequences–like costal flooding prevention technologies–which would have practical value in other situations also..
in a final thought.. actually, there have always been a bunch of scientists who are willing to say “everything is ok, there’s nothing wrong, move along” … I keep reading about them in my work on synthetic fuels–and usually they just get sponsored by the groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo… in my case–oil companies… this happened during the Reagan era also–in the response–or lack of one–to Aids…
Oh well.. stupid politics!..
now I must get back to work.. 😉
Disagreement first… I don’t know if I think science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies… I can think of a number of other human activities–like religion and politics–that seem a lot more susceptible to the formation of orthodoxy than science…
Now.. I will agree that when science gets funded by politicians–that unless there are people who are willing to fight vigorously to keep political bias out of it–that science will get corrupted just like anything else.. (this happens to religion too…. look at how christianity is being abused by those in power right now…)
As for the bias of scientists towards scientists.. yes.. this I will completely grant… and this I see as the basic human drive.. politicians are all for politicians.. doctors are generally for doctors… businessmen are all for businessmen…
In terms of scientists–the best example of this was the cut in funding for the Super-conducting super-collider–when the cold war ended, and congress decided to stop 50billion in funding for the thing–high energy physicists started spewing about how this would be the end of all of our technology and society would collapse, blah blah blah–even though nothing practical had ever come out of their research ever–and other scientific groups who did do practical stuff–like those doing solid matter-physics (involved with semi-conductors etc) had been short-shrifted by the gov’t for decades because of the “coolness” factor of high-energy physics…
as for the environmental stuff… I agree–I actually think that instead of spending more research on whether this shit is going to happen or not.. that research on what to do about possible consequences–like costal flooding prevention technologies–which would have practical value in other situations also..
in a final thought.. actually, there have always been a bunch of scientists who are willing to say “everything is ok, there’s nothing wrong, move along” … I keep reading about them in my work on synthetic fuels–and usually they just get sponsored by the groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo… in my case–oil companies… this happened during the Reagan era also–in the response–or lack of one–to Aids…
Oh well.. stupid politics!..
now I must get back to work.. 😉
I used deliberately provocative terminology. I don’t know who’s right about global warming, and I can’t know the Journal’s true motiviations for rejecting those articles. All I know is that science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies, since by their nature scientists have a tendency to bet their reputations on a certain interpretation of the facts. (Which is not innately a bad thing; much good science has come about as the result of one scientist doggedly sticking to his/her guns year after year until vindication was finally found). I also believe that there is an inherent bias in science – a bias towards scientists. Scientists need funding in order to do their work, and nothing draws funding like crisis. I’m not saying there is a conscious, organized conspiracy to exaggerate claims of impending evironmental doom. But the fact is, a scientist who is saying “everything is OK, there’s nothing to see here, move along” does not draw a lot of attention.
What gets me riled up about all this is that there is much at stake. There is a finite amount of political and fiscal capital available to be spent on environmental issues. If we throw it all away on what turn out to be futile efforts to hold back climate change, we’ll have wasted our chance to make changes that might have had a lasting impact.
to be a bit more circumspect… you might actually state
“Another claim/accusation of religious censorship of science.”
Since what you really have there is two rejections of articles and claims by their authors that the only reason they were rejected was due to their content–whereas the magazines state that this is not the case..
Don’t we still follow “innocent until proven guilty?? ”
also… to channel my usually dormant libertarian.. aren’t these privately-owned businesses? Don’t they have the right to publish what they feel is correct science? It’s not like there aren’t hundreds of different scientific journals that these papers could be published in.. so it’s not like these papers are being censored in totality…
ps–just so you know.. I personally do believe that there is some global warming occurring.. but I have serious doubts as to how big of a contribution humans are making towards it..I generally think that we might be responsible for like 10% of it.. but the earth–if we are to believe most of geology and paleoentology–was significantly warmer than it was today during dinosaur times (Avg temp of area around alaska was 50′ —Average!) and I don’t think anyone around here believes that it was because the dinosaurs were industrious little buggers burning lots of fossil fuels..
Now here I always though of anti Global warming people as tending to be Christian, but know that I think of it that’s probably only because I’m christian and anti-global warming (against the theory that it’s a distaster or caused by people and not natural flucuations). However, I’ve never actually read anything that I recall that equated one side of the global warming debate with any religious veiw. lol.
I’m pro-scientists-admitting-they-don’t-know-everything. From what I’ve read, current environmental science still has too many unknowns to be making concrete pronouncements about how much effect humans have on the environment; and until they know more, it’s irresponsible to advocate massive, economy-shredding initiatives which may or may not have any significant effect.
I’m pro-scientists-admitting-they-don’t-know-everything. From what I’ve read, current environmental science still has too many unknowns to be making concrete pronouncements about how much effect humans have on the environment; and until they know more, it’s irresponsible to advocate massive, economy-shredding initiatives which may or may not have any significant effect.
Now here I always though of anti Global warming people as tending to be Christian, but know that I think of it that’s probably only because I’m christian and anti-global warming (against the theory that it’s a distaster or caused by people and not natural flucuations). However, I’ve never actually read anything that I recall that equated one side of the global warming debate with any religious veiw. lol.
Ugh.
Ugh.
I like that term…
I tend to forget that the term religion can include far more than just the diety-worshiping type.
I like that term…
I tend to forget that the term religion can include far more than just the diety-worshiping type.
Devil’s Advocate…
to be a bit more circumspect… you might actually state
“Another claim/accusation of religious censorship of science.”
Since what you really have there is two rejections of articles and claims by their authors that the only reason they were rejected was due to their content–whereas the magazines state that this is not the case..
Don’t we still follow “innocent until proven guilty?? ”
also… to channel my usually dormant libertarian.. aren’t these privately-owned businesses? Don’t they have the right to publish what they feel is correct science? It’s not like there aren’t hundreds of different scientific journals that these papers could be published in.. so it’s not like these papers are being censored in totality…
ps–just so you know.. I personally do believe that there is some global warming occurring.. but I have serious doubts as to how big of a contribution humans are making towards it..I generally think that we might be responsible for like 10% of it.. but the earth–if we are to believe most of geology and paleoentology–was significantly warmer than it was today during dinosaur times (Avg temp of area around alaska was 50′ —Average!) and I don’t think anyone around here believes that it was because the dinosaurs were industrious little buggers burning lots of fossil fuels..
Re: Devil’s Advocate…
I used deliberately provocative terminology. I don’t know who’s right about global warming, and I can’t know the Journal’s true motiviations for rejecting those articles. All I know is that science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies, since by their nature scientists have a tendency to bet their reputations on a certain interpretation of the facts. (Which is not innately a bad thing; much good science has come about as the result of one scientist doggedly sticking to his/her guns year after year until vindication was finally found). I also believe that there is an inherent bias in science – a bias towards scientists. Scientists need funding in order to do their work, and nothing draws funding like crisis. I’m not saying there is a conscious, organized conspiracy to exaggerate claims of impending evironmental doom. But the fact is, a scientist who is saying “everything is OK, there’s nothing to see here, move along” does not draw a lot of attention.
What gets me riled up about all this is that there is much at stake. There is a finite amount of political and fiscal capital available to be spent on environmental issues. If we throw it all away on what turn out to be futile efforts to hold back climate change, we’ll have wasted our chance to make changes that might have had a lasting impact.
agreement and disagreement..
Disagreement first… I don’t know if I think science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies… I can think of a number of other human activities–like religion and politics–that seem a lot more susceptible to the formation of orthodoxy than science…
Now.. I will agree that when science gets funded by politicians–that unless there are people who are willing to fight vigorously to keep political bias out of it–that science will get corrupted just like anything else.. (this happens to religion too…. look at how christianity is being abused by those in power right now…)
As for the bias of scientists towards scientists.. yes.. this I will completely grant… and this I see as the basic human drive.. politicians are all for politicians.. doctors are generally for doctors… businessmen are all for businessmen…
In terms of scientists–the best example of this was the cut in funding for the Super-conducting super-collider–when the cold war ended, and congress decided to stop 50billion in funding for the thing–high energy physicists started spewing about how this would be the end of all of our technology and society would collapse, blah blah blah–even though nothing practical had ever come out of their research ever–and other scientific groups who did do practical stuff–like those doing solid matter-physics (involved with semi-conductors etc) had been short-shrifted by the gov’t for decades because of the “coolness” factor of high-energy physics…
as for the environmental stuff… I agree–I actually think that instead of spending more research on whether this shit is going to happen or not.. that research on what to do about possible consequences–like costal flooding prevention technologies–which would have practical value in other situations also..
in a final thought.. actually, there have always been a bunch of scientists who are willing to say “everything is ok, there’s nothing wrong, move along” … I keep reading about them in my work on synthetic fuels–and usually they just get sponsored by the groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo… in my case–oil companies… this happened during the Reagan era also–in the response–or lack of one–to Aids…
Oh well.. stupid politics!..
now I must get back to work.. 😉
agreement and disagreement..
Disagreement first… I don’t know if I think science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies… I can think of a number of other human activities–like religion and politics–that seem a lot more susceptible to the formation of orthodoxy than science…
Now.. I will agree that when science gets funded by politicians–that unless there are people who are willing to fight vigorously to keep political bias out of it–that science will get corrupted just like anything else.. (this happens to religion too…. look at how christianity is being abused by those in power right now…)
As for the bias of scientists towards scientists.. yes.. this I will completely grant… and this I see as the basic human drive.. politicians are all for politicians.. doctors are generally for doctors… businessmen are all for businessmen…
In terms of scientists–the best example of this was the cut in funding for the Super-conducting super-collider–when the cold war ended, and congress decided to stop 50billion in funding for the thing–high energy physicists started spewing about how this would be the end of all of our technology and society would collapse, blah blah blah–even though nothing practical had ever come out of their research ever–and other scientific groups who did do practical stuff–like those doing solid matter-physics (involved with semi-conductors etc) had been short-shrifted by the gov’t for decades because of the “coolness” factor of high-energy physics…
as for the environmental stuff… I agree–I actually think that instead of spending more research on whether this shit is going to happen or not.. that research on what to do about possible consequences–like costal flooding prevention technologies–which would have practical value in other situations also..
in a final thought.. actually, there have always been a bunch of scientists who are willing to say “everything is ok, there’s nothing wrong, move along” … I keep reading about them in my work on synthetic fuels–and usually they just get sponsored by the groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo… in my case–oil companies… this happened during the Reagan era also–in the response–or lack of one–to Aids…
Oh well.. stupid politics!..
now I must get back to work.. 😉
Re: Devil’s Advocate…
I used deliberately provocative terminology. I don’t know who’s right about global warming, and I can’t know the Journal’s true motiviations for rejecting those articles. All I know is that science is particularly susceptible to the formation of orthodoxies, since by their nature scientists have a tendency to bet their reputations on a certain interpretation of the facts. (Which is not innately a bad thing; much good science has come about as the result of one scientist doggedly sticking to his/her guns year after year until vindication was finally found). I also believe that there is an inherent bias in science – a bias towards scientists. Scientists need funding in order to do their work, and nothing draws funding like crisis. I’m not saying there is a conscious, organized conspiracy to exaggerate claims of impending evironmental doom. But the fact is, a scientist who is saying “everything is OK, there’s nothing to see here, move along” does not draw a lot of attention.
What gets me riled up about all this is that there is much at stake. There is a finite amount of political and fiscal capital available to be spent on environmental issues. If we throw it all away on what turn out to be futile efforts to hold back climate change, we’ll have wasted our chance to make changes that might have had a lasting impact.
Devil’s Advocate…
to be a bit more circumspect… you might actually state
“Another claim/accusation of religious censorship of science.”
Since what you really have there is two rejections of articles and claims by their authors that the only reason they were rejected was due to their content–whereas the magazines state that this is not the case..
Don’t we still follow “innocent until proven guilty?? ”
also… to channel my usually dormant libertarian.. aren’t these privately-owned businesses? Don’t they have the right to publish what they feel is correct science? It’s not like there aren’t hundreds of different scientific journals that these papers could be published in.. so it’s not like these papers are being censored in totality…
ps–just so you know.. I personally do believe that there is some global warming occurring.. but I have serious doubts as to how big of a contribution humans are making towards it..I generally think that we might be responsible for like 10% of it.. but the earth–if we are to believe most of geology and paleoentology–was significantly warmer than it was today during dinosaur times (Avg temp of area around alaska was 50′ —Average!) and I don’t think anyone around here believes that it was because the dinosaurs were industrious little buggers burning lots of fossil fuels..
Now here I always though of anti Global warming people as tending to be Christian, but know that I think of it that’s probably only because I’m christian and anti-global warming (against the theory that it’s a distaster or caused by people and not natural flucuations). However, I’ve never actually read anything that I recall that equated one side of the global warming debate with any religious veiw. lol.
I’m pro-scientists-admitting-they-don’t-know-everything. From what I’ve read, current environmental science still has too many unknowns to be making concrete pronouncements about how much effect humans have on the environment; and until they know more, it’s irresponsible to advocate massive, economy-shredding initiatives which may or may not have any significant effect.
I’m pro-scientists-admitting-they-don’t-know-everything. From what I’ve read, current environmental science still has too many unknowns to be making concrete pronouncements about how much effect humans have on the environment; and until they know more, it’s irresponsible to advocate massive, economy-shredding initiatives which may or may not have any significant effect.
Now here I always though of anti Global warming people as tending to be Christian, but know that I think of it that’s probably only because I’m christian and anti-global warming (against the theory that it’s a distaster or caused by people and not natural flucuations). However, I’ve never actually read anything that I recall that equated one side of the global warming debate with any religious veiw. lol.