Scientists are panicking because the Webb telescope seems to have disproved the Big Bang Theory pretty conclusively.

submitted by iamonlyoneman from iai.tv

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

"Scientists" are easier to buy than politicians.

[–]Insider 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Academia used to be one of the last lines of truth after the media, church, government, and NGO's became compromised. The CIA then worked their way to infiltrate them too.

Every politician is bought

Only a very small percent of scientists are bought

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

very small percent

The vast majority of "scientists" are bought.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Climate scientists perhaps.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All scientists. The practice of science depends on grant funding. And the funding profile of a typical science professor is far below the sum of the bribes a mid-tier politician receives.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's not how bribing in science works.

With grants, you come up with a project, apply for a grant and they accept/reject based on the innovation/significance of your proposal in addition to your proven background in the field.

Bribes in science come more so with drug (or other) companies directly giving money to scientists or regulators. Or companies are the ones setting up academics in the first place. Similarly with government, they insert their own controlled scientists into various positions.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Similarly with government, they insert their own controlled scientists into various positions.

Who do you think funds the grants? Don't you think NSF and NIH may have some vested interests that influence the process?

While the scientific review forum does try to rank proposals based on merit, it's still a process that is based on personality and fashion (source: I have participated in these panels). However, the panel simply sends a list of rankings to the officers who choose grants based on "funding priorities". These choices don't necessarily align with the rankings.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most "scientists", especially the ones in "climate" and "health".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You actually can believe that.

But you don't have to.

There still are topics that seemingly never have "big" changes though a lot of "sciencing" is happening there.

If you dive into specialties of these, there only are small circles which is no actual surprise.