Why our laws lag behind the needs of science

[iceaura]

It is the US system of paying scientists with grants, so that they have to care about a new job/grant every two years or so, which has destroyed independence of science and made scientists the most dependent, most insecure group in society.

US scientists with academic tenure and government standing are among the least dependent, most secure human beings on this planet. And that is one of the key factors that has allowed them to research and publish about AGW, in defiance of the Party line so far - although Trump's election is bringing a great deal more pressure to bear.

You can compare their public stances with those of corporate researchers in the fossil fuel industry, whose findings on AGW were suppressed and are only now becoming public through leaks and secondhand recountings. These unfortunates were held to the Party line for decades - as has happened in other capitalist corporation dominated fields of research in which physical reality conflicted with the Party line (leaded gas, trans fats, ozone destruction, artificial sweeteners, nuclear power, etc).

And, yes, I have seen the analogical (the globalists are well-coordinated) campaign of "scientists" in Germany.

And once primed to dismiss them as biased in a particular way, you are unable to register physical reality as discovered and reported by them.

An example of the crippling effects of an absurd denial.

 

[Schmelzer]

US scientists with academic tenure and government standing are among the least dependent, most secure human beings on this planet.

But this tenure they get after a lot of years of insecurity, which they have survived, and with success, by following the mainstream fads. Why would one expect that they change their behavior after tenure? Moreover, it has been noted that their position in the university also depends on getting grants for their own research groups. Ok, this is no longer endangering the job, but to classify them as "least dependent" is not justified. The least dependent are clearly those who don't need a job at all, because they can live on their own money.

Tenure to old persons is a nice idea if you want to preserve traditions, not if you want something new. If one would be interested in something new, one would have to give young scientists job security. Of course, they need some time to learn the basics, but once they have learned them, they need job security first of all. This is simply a necessity if you want to try a new approach, because it is obvious that 99% of all new approaches will be failures - and if failure means you loose your job, it means trying a new approach is extreme stupidity.

And once primed to dismiss them as biased in a particular way, you are unable to register physical reality as discovered and reported by them.

You are unable to write a post without laughable fantasies about what I think?

 

[Yazata]

There is such a current [of 'anti-intellectualism']

I prefer to call it healthy skepticism. It can just as easily be called 'critical thinking'. Students in secondary school and beginning university are taught to practice critical thinking which is presented to them as a valuable skill that should be applied throughout life.

But especially in the last few years, that is taking a u-turn. Today the average person (and everyone, no matter how impressive their university diploma, is a layman in subjects other than their own) are being told to shut up and just believe whatever they are told by ostensible authority figures. A new social divide is growing. It's no longer rich/poor or owners/workers and it certainly doesn't revolve around race, class or gender. It's authorities vs. the people. It's a new eruption of old-style aristocracy in new dress, rule by those who imagine themselves to be a better sort of person. As for me, I'm stoutly on the side of democracy.

but this is a consequence of the increasing distrust in the establishment media. If you see the establishment media lying, consistently, permanently, in obviously coordinates ways, a quite natural reaction is to distrust everything sold by these media. So, all the "experts" presented in these media as "experts" will become suspect.

A big part of it is people with narrow technical training and expertise in a particular subject (I'm thinking of scientists here, but it applies to any professional) trying to export the authority of their profession to opinions on subjects remote and largely unrelated from their expertise. We see that when evolutionary biologists like Dawkins set themselves up as experts on religion, or when scientists start expressing political opinions.

Journalists are just a worst case example of that since studying journalism doesn't seem to confer any special expertise in anything, yet it leaves journalists posing as society's authorities on everything.

What science can do to prevent this? Almost nothing.

Stop doing it? If university professors want to express their opinions about subjects in which they are laymen like the next guy on the street, they should leave off mentioning their institutional affiliations and their grand impressive professorships and stop trying to imply that they are speaking with the full social-prestige of Science. Otherwise, when average people notice that many of their opinions are crude and rather sophomoric, skepticism about everything that scientists say will grow.

The media will continue to use "experts" to sell their lies to the public as "scientific results".

It starts to become doubly dangerous when the scientific process itself becomes subverted to produce results to illustrate conclusions that were held before the research even commences. Then the results are presented to laypeople as "proof" of particular positions on what may be controversial subjects, while the underlying reasoning is oftentimes circular.

We saw that with tobacco companies funding research to show that smoking isn't dangerous and I think that we see it in many research projects in the 'social sciences' today, which are often little more than arguments designed to support predetermined conclusions.

And I think that we see it illustrated with the "reproducibility crisis". In order to find a permanent position, a young newly graduated PhD, adjunct or post-doc needs to have a strong publication history that includes widely-cited papers that show important results. So there's going to be huge pressure to produce those kind of results when one's entire career depends on it. Even after tenure is attained, it's still what drives funding, choice job offers from competing institutions, and it's what determines reputation, separating the perceived hacks from the leaders of one's subject.

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

 

[iceaura]

But this tenure they get after a lot of years of insecurity, which they have survived, and with success, by following the mainstream fads. Why would one expect that they change their behavior after tenure?

So we agree that they are not, as we speak, insecure and dependent.

Ok, this is no longer endangering the job, but to classify them as "least dependent" is not justified. The least dependent are clearly those who don't need a job at all, because they can live on their own money.

That also describes many scientists with academic tenure.

Tenure to old persons is a nice idea if you want to preserve traditions, not if you want something new. If one would be interested in something new, one would have to give young scientists job security. Of course, they need some time to learn the basics, but once they have learned them, they need job security first of all. This is simply a necessity if you want to try a new approach, because it is obvious that 99% of all new approaches will be failures - and if failure means you loose your job, it means trying a new approach is extreme stupidity.

You seem to be describing corporate employment, not academic research. Academic tenure is not granted to old persons as a defense of the status quo, for example. One of the surest ways of getting tenure is by making bold and dramatic advances in one's field, overturning the status quo.

The relevance here is that the AGW researchers you are talking about have been bucking the Party line, not backing it, in the US.

You are unable to write a post without laughable fantasies about what I think?

That was an observation, based on your posting here. I assumed it reflected what you think. If your posting here does not reflect what you think, I apologize - another kind of disparagement was in order.
- - -

I prefer to call it healthy skepticism. It can just as easily be called 'critical thinking'.

Except it commonly isn't skepticism (it's denial), and it isn't critical (that requires analysis), and it isn't thinking (it's propaganda swallowing).

So it isn't healthy.

Journalists are just a worst case example of that since studying journalism doesn't seem to confer any special expertise in anything, yet it leaves journalists posing as society's authorities on everything.

Where did you get the idea that journalists were posing as authorities when they reported on stuff?

We saw that with tobacco companies funding research to show that smoking isn't dangerous and I think that we see it in many research projects in the 'social sciences' today, which are often little more than arguments designed to support predetermined conclusions.

Pay better attention to the tobacco company example: the common subversion of scientific integrity is still the old favorite - money. Follow the money. Which side is the large, wealthy, powerful corporation on? That's where to concentrate your initial doubts. Check there first, for trouble.

Notice how the reproducibility crisis seems to revolve around areas of large corporate profits? Health care, for example. New drugs.

 

[Schmelzer]

So we agree that they are not, as we speak, insecure and dependent.

Those few who have tenure.

That also describes many scientists with academic tenure.

One cannot exclude this. Have you numbers?

You seem to be describing corporate employment, not academic research. Academic tenure is not granted to old persons as a defense of the status quo, for example. One of the surest ways of getting tenure is by making bold and dramatic advances in one's field, overturning the status quo.

I'm describing those who live on grants. The key phrase is "in one's field". The field is predefined, it is the field which controls the grants as well as the tenure positions. This this what makes string theory strong even after years of permanent failure. And, just for your information, I'm not talking about AGW researchers, because I don't know them. The problem with many young researchers living on grants is, afaik, a quite general one.
In fundamental physics, the result is quite harmless, all the young physicists interested in fundamental things have no choice but doing string theory. So, the final result is, given that string theory is nothing but nice mathematics, simply empty but not harmful (look at the wages simply as a sort of unemployment benefit). If some political interest is involved, the result may be much more fatal.

That was an observation, based on your posting here.

Ok, I correct myself, if fantasies are confused with observation, the appropriate name for this seems hallucination.

 

[iceaura]

Those few who have tenure.

There are thousands of professors in the relevant physical sciences with tenure in the US. There are also many working in civil service jobs, for the US government - these have many protections as well.
All these scientists are far more securely employed, independent, and able to follow their own curiosities, than the corporate employed ("at will") researchers who must deliver pre-described results that pay off management's investment in their research.

I'm describing those who live on grants.

And I'm talking about the researchers involved in establishing and describing and analyzing and investigating AGW - the ones you asserted were insecure and being pressured by the "globalists" to present the "Party line", thereby getting the basic situation in the US backwards as well as confused.

Ok, I correct myself, if fantasies are confused with observation, the appropriate name for this seems hallucination.

I'm not the guy dismissing AGW as some kind of "Party line". You are.

And, just for your information, I'm not talking about AGW researchers, because I don't know them.

Hold that thought.

 

[Schmelzer]

And I'm talking about the researchers involved in establishing and describing and analyzing and investigating AGW - the ones you asserted were insecure and being pressured by the "globalists" to present the "Party line", thereby getting the basic situation in the US backwards as well as confused.

And what is the percentage of those researchers with tenure? What I have found with a quick research is:

But this is tenure-track, not tenure. Decrease in 40 years 45%. If we extrapolate this tendency, you would have 25% now. So, tenure is for a minority, and a minority which was many years under mainstream control (tenure track means, afaiu, another 6-7 years without job security) and has survived the "publish or perish" as well as the competition for getting grants for the university. So, tenure is for the scientific establishment, and you first have to become part of the establishment, and then you get tenure.

I'm not the guy dismissing AGW as some kind of "Party line". You are.

As usual, you lie. I'm not. That there is a pro-AGW Party line does not mean that any research in favor of AGW has to be dismissed. It means you need a lot of time to check it, that to simply accept any review article (which would be usually sufficient to get the main results) is not enough. How many times I would have to repeat this correction of your repeated lies?

 

[iceaura]

And what is the percentage of those researchers with tenure?

In the US AGW field, most of the major figures have been securely employed and independent scientists - tenure, civil service, private foundation backing, etc. Like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

And they better be, because their findings have threatened some enormous profit streams and industrial powers in the US - they are under even more pressure than the IPCC, to tone down and soft-pedal the implications of their discoveries.

As usual, you lie. I'm not. That there is a pro-AGW Party line does not mean that any research in favor of AGW has to be dismissed.

But you have in fact dismissed it. Right here. I have quoted you, pointed directly at your dismissal.

It means you need a lot of time to check it, that to simply accept any review article (which would be usually sufficient to get the main results) is not enough. How many times I would have to repeat this correction of your repeated lies?

At the end of your little rant there, we return to the fact that you have posted, and I have quoted you as posting, dismissals of research findings and discoveries and physical fact as biased media reports of what you label a "Party line". You have denied AGW, explicitly, right here on this forum.

As for the relevance of the laws to this arena of science - one of the obvious major obstacles to getting laws aligned with the needs of science has been the pressure to get them aligned with the needs of industry.

 

[danshawen]

I've made the video below, and provided the transcript if you are unable to watch the video.

The complexity of the many branches of science often require interpreters to relay information to the public in a manner they can understand, and it will continue to become more complicated and move further away from common understanding. Our understanding is expanding alongside the complexity.

Unfortunately, we’re vulnerable to these interpretations being biased or influenced in ways that aren’t purely scientific - which can influence what we consider to be negative or positive due to that bias.

The lack of trust from government toward the scientific community appears as a makeshift system of checks and balances that organically came about to make it difficult for something government doesn’t fully understand to quickly influence policy.

While this is frustrating for society, it’s important to consider why people have those reservations.

In the eyes of the uninformed, two ‘experts’ giving different opinions on something means you’re likely to take the opinion of others who agree with you on various other viewpoints, like economic policies or immigration.

At that point, those involved in politics tend to be off the ‘science’ wagon, and no longer are able to make laws and regulations based on the understanding of those scientific concepts, and will likely make laws based on experts they choose to believe.


Consider that these people tend to have no way to know what is truly scientific unless they were to devote time to science.

For example, in medicine, boards of doctors and associations exist to evaluate science that pertains to medicine. The decisions they make are subject to be made in benefit of variables not accounted for, such as financial reasons (like to maintain the board functional, or continue being paid), or compromises made with governments at the time - in essence anything done for a reason that is not purely scientific.

For most people, a time will come when science is too complicated for you, you will need to trust experts entirely. Whether due to age, mental faculty, or anything else - even if we were once familiar with science, it will eventually become too complex to understand unless followed very closely.


Do you have anything to add? Leave a comment or contact us on twitter @thoughtdose

P.S. Understanding why society creates these barriers is a step in knowing how to phrase the conversation to ensure that we come to a consensus on science and ensuring the public is informed.

Why Do Laws Lag Behind the Needs of Science? Great question. Want an authoritative answer?

http://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/bill-nye-theres-no-such-thing-as-race

The United States alone has more laws on the books containing the word "race" than any other kind of litigation, and this is an abomination from a country that supposedly advocates for all of its citizens being equal. Congressional voting districts are deliberately gerrymandered to disenfrancise minority voters along racial and ethnic identity. Fact is, a census inquiry as to the race of a resident U.S. citizen should NOT EVEN APPEAR ON A FORM, OR AN APPLICATION FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE. This is one reason why most Americans who do not share the values of Donald Trump felt so strongly about his proposed immigration ban along similar racial or ethnic lines.

Lawyers and the people who write laws are exactly as Bismarck described their activities, only worse. The sausage they make is mostly from the contents of spitoons and bits of rotted meat swept off of the floor. They only meat they ever grind is from stray puppies.

The kinds of laws that would make them behave more ethically (and also according to science) and that would have the greatest benefit to citizens instead of themselves has a slim to zero chance of slipping past their sensitive countenence and getting enacted into fair litigation. This is truer now than it was in the days of Bismarck.

 

[danshawen]

For those unfamiliar with the refernce of the previous post. Bismarck was very quotable on many topics.

This particular quote is most familiar to me. It was used in a paper by Michael J. McCarter, the class valedictorian and an old friend from my local Maryland high school. Michael was one of several students from my high school who achieved a perfect score on his S.A.T., was originally from Tennessee, and later graduated with a PhD in mathematics from Harvard University. He spent most of his career as a U.S. government employed actuary, who provided statistics to congressional clients in order to draft and sponsor litigation. So he was in a unique position to appreciate Bismarck's quote.

Sadly, Michael passed away some years ago. I never saw him again after we graduated high school together. On the internet, it is easier to find obituaries more easily than anything else.

No law that guarantees protected civil or basic rights, particularly in regard to our constitution, should be held in higher regard than any other guaranteed civil or basic right, and should always be interpreted so as to preserve the greatest guaranteed freedom to the most citizens. This is an ideal, not reality, unfortunately.

You can therefore understand that the concept of science as a stakeholder in how our laws are crafted is important, but cannot in general be given overriding authority in litigation about regulatory or administrative decisions that affect other stakeholders.

Expert testimony from scientific stakeholders must be evaluated in relation to other interests. A scientific equivalent of an oligarchy is not likely to satisfy the interests of very many other constituents. It could, on the contrary, be a recipe for a functional dystopia for non scientists who would be powerless to have their interests addressed.

 

[river]

View attachment 1493

For those unfamiliar with the refernce of the previous post. Bismarck was very quotable on many topics.

This particular quote is most familiar to me. It was used in a paper by Michael J. McCarter, the class valedictorian and an old friend from my local Maryland high school. Michael was one of several students from my high school who achieved a perfect score on his S.A.T., was originally from Tennessee, and later graduated with a PhD in mathematics from Harvard University. He spent most of his career as a U.S. government employed actuary, who provided statistics to congressional clients in order to draft and sponsor litigation. So he was in a unique position to appreciate Bismarck's quote.

Sadly, Michael passed away some years ago. I never saw him again after we graduated high school together. On the internet, it is easier to find obituaries more easily than anything else.

No law that guarantees protected civil or basic rights, particularly in regard to our constitution, should be held in higher regard than any other guaranteed civil or basic right, and should always be interpreted so as to preserve the greatest guaranteed freedom to the most citizens. This is an ideal, not reality, unfortunately.

You can therefore understand that the concept of science as a stakeholder in how our laws are crafted is important, but cannot in general be given overriding authority in litigation about regulatory or administrative decisions that affect other stakeholders.

Expert testimony from scientific stakeholders must be evaluated in relation to other interests. A scientific equivalent of an oligarchy is not likely to satisfy the interests of very many other constituents. It could, on the contrary, be a recipe for a functional dystopia for non scientists who would be powerless to have their interests addressed.

The problem with the constitution , any constitution , is that law doesn't respect it , in the future .

We are in need for more advanced thinking .

Thanks Danshawen , it is the most advanced thinking I have come across in years .

 

[iceaura]

The United States alone has more laws on the books containing the word "race" than any other kind of litigation, and this is an abomination from a country that supposedly advocates for all of its citizens being equal.

No, it isn't.
Most of those laws protect the civil rights and liberties of people who would otherwise be even more vulnerable to abuse by the more powerful on the basis of their US sociological race. That kind of protection is necessary in a racially divided society in which individuals of some races are commonly abused as lower status based on their race. The US is such a society, always has been.

This exposes one of the confusions inherent in considering the "needs of science" - the needs of science are not necessarily better met by granting scientists more governmental power. Scientists are not notably better at governing a society - even in its governance of science - than anyone else.

The idea that scientists know what they need, politically, and those who wish to further and promote science in general should simply attend to the wishes of scientists and see that they get what they say they want, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[danshawen]

The idea that scientists know what they need, politically, and those who wish to further and promote science in general should simply attend to the wishes of scientists and see that they get what they say they want, is a recipe for disaster.

So, if you were to select a group (ANY group) of people to be in political power so as to AVERT disaster, who would that group be? What group would be optimal? Would you want it randomized? Would you want it gerrymandered to favor the values of one political party? What disaster in particular would be so bad compared to what we have now?

And secondly, why do scientists in general rate so low on the ability scale you like most for vocations akin to governmental / social administration?

Science at least knows that race means exactly nothing, and should account for nothing in terms of social opportunity. You don't think scientists, if they all agreed upon this, could really pull that off?

 

[iceaura]

So, if you were to select a group (ANY group) of people to be in political power so as to AVERT disaster, who would that group be?

Elected representatives of the adult citizenry.

Science at least knows that race means exactly nothing, and should account for nothing in terms of social opportunity. You don't think scientists, if they all agreed upon this, could really pull that off?

No, I don't think they could "pull that off".
And I find your presumption that "science knows that race means nothing", as a description of what scientists themselves know, naive. Wisdom is as rare among scientists as anyone else of their intellectual abilities, in my experience.

 

[danshawen]

Wisdom is as rare among scientists as anyone else of their intellectual abilities, in my experience.

Mine too, of course.

"Wisdom", like truth, is a value. Wisdom in a narrow specialty, like science, does not always convey as wisdom in general.

 

[danshawen]

Elected representatives of the adult citizenry.

No, I don't think they could "pull that off".
And I find your presumption that "science knows that race means nothing", as a description of what scientists themselves know, naive. Wisdom is as rare among scientists as anyone else of their intellectual abilities, in my experience.

Would it be okay with you if scientists at least had a say in litigation and laws pertaining to things like SCIENCE EDUCATION, health care, global warming, issues of racial discrimination, environmental stewardship, medical and insurance practice regulation, pharmaceutical manufacture, vehicle emissions, automobile safety, flight safety, building and fire and electrical codes, water supply safety, immunizations, care of pets, bandwidth regulation, and other subject areas which happen to be THEIR areas of expertise, not some elected politician with degrees in divinity or some field unrelated to whatever they are trying to administer or regulate?

Why is it again you have such a low opinion of scientists and engineering professions?

 

[iceaura]

Why is it again you have such a low opinion of scientists and engineering professions?

I don't. I regard them as the most valuable human beings on the planet, and the glory of Western civilization. I'm not kidding.

In my opinion the elected representatives of the adult citizenry - the people who should be governing us - should consult them on all matters of fact, and take full advantage of their knowledge and expertise. I will vote for no one who does not do that.

 

[danshawen]

I don't. I regard them as the most valuable human beings on the planet, and the glory of Western civilization. I'm not kidding.

In my opinion the elected representatives of the adult citizenry - the people who should be governing us - should consult them on all matters of fact, and take full advantage of their knowledge and expertise. I will vote for no one who does not do that.

Me either. But the ones who voted for Trump do seem to have what appears to be either an anti-science or a pro-ignorance bias. This would not be so upsetting if they were not also anti-fact and pro-stupid to boot.

Consuming fake news or making up your own is a symptom of a lunacy that does not belong in our nation's highest office. Taking an oath of office you have no intention of performing on is worse than treason. A government divided like this cannot stand, nor a nation half of which is determined to see through the dismantling of a system of government that has sustained us and made us, until recently, the envy of the free world.

My tax money is being squandered to fuel nothing but internal conflict. I will vote to end it in the most expeditious way possible, and that will not include voting for politicians with an agenda simply to undo everything and anything both parties have worked hard to establish.

G-d forbid, a few of them should ever have go through the pain of changing their minds. There is a difference between decisive and stubborn. Ask them to describe this difference. Ask them how they plan to fix what they are breaking. Anyone in either party can at least do this.

 

[Michael 345]

And I find your presumption that "science knows that race means nothing", as a description of what scientists themselves know, naive.

Here I go again

Apart from my views on time not existing

I find myself in agreement with those

who contend race does not exist

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.n....newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

Small extract

In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists.

A great deal of evidence had accumulated by that time to support this conclusion, and the scientists involved were those who were conducting research and were most knowledgeable about the topic of human variation. Since that time similar statements have been published by the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and an enormous amount of modern scientific data has been gathered to justify this conclusion

 

[iceaura]

In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth.

So only "biological" realities exist.

Cool. Nations do not exist. Religions do not exist. Laws do not exist. My job does not exist - I can sleep in tomorrow.

Looking forward to a bright new world.